Yeah, well, that’s my ego to you. You’e right though.
Problems I am having with going KJF
-
How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.
If this is a question for me, I can’t answer it. I have no experience with this strategy ;-). I was referring to what Cow once said.
I DO know however, that the USN does need only a little extra protection/attack power to become stronger than the IJN. Japan producing transports + an IC J1 is all it takes for the USN to overpower the IJN.
The problem lies in the Imperial Airforce. It’s the combination of IJN + ‘IJAF’ which is deadly and needs to be feared. -
Hi ROC if you post a file then perhaps I could offer some suggestions on what the Allies (and Japan) can do better.
Not being able to gain naval predominance over Japan until J9 sounds about right. Ultimately the goal is to either force Japan to attack a combined Allied navy (at Leyte Gulf or thereabouts) or force the Japanese navy to run towards the Persian Gulf. Japan can control the coasts with sufficient fighters–however, these fighters cannot prevent subs from taking away Japan’s income once the Japanese fleet has been disposed of.
The Allied land component (what you do with China, India, and Siberian inf) is key because that has a huge impact on how much money Japan is able to make. Generally speaking, my best success with KJF has been in games where I’m able to link the Indian army with the Chinese army and then advance towards the money territories on the Chinese coast. But if Japan conquers India and keeps China at bay deep in the mainland, then KJF is much longer and more expensive.
-
Here is the game. I am on Turn 10 with US.
I will say ahead of time that I made some mistakes early on with Anzac that really cost me. Also I didn’t convoy Japan early enough. My China movement as well has gotten better since playing this game out.
The Key I’ve found with Japan is to make sure UK can’t stack Burma. If UK can stack Burma then Japan is in a lot of trouble.
-
How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.
If this is a question for me, I can’t answer it. I have no experience with this strategy ;-). I was referring to what Cow once said.
I DO know however, that the USN does need only a little extra protection/attack power to become stronger than the IJN. Japan producing transports + an IC J1 is all it takes for the USN to overpower the IJN.
The problem lies in the Imperial Airforce. It’s the combination of IJN + ‘IJAF’ which is deadly and needs to be feared.Sort of. So say America buys carrier 3 destroyers and 2 subs first turn, and all of it is going to pacific. The 3 destroyers placed in the Atlantic swing around to the pacific turn 2. That means US has a fleet of 4 subs, 6 destroyers, 3 cruisers, 2 carriers, and a battleship. This is vs Japans fleet of 2 subs, 4 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 3 carriers, and 2 battleships. Turn 2 my Japan buy is 2 destroyers, 1 sub, 1 transport, and 3 mech. Now Japans fleet is equal in numbers to US’s fleet.
The problem, as we’ve talked about on here for a while, is that US might have more fleet, but the fleet off West US doesn’t exactly count since it can’t hit anything. Also the fleet in Hawaii really isn’t doing that much either most of the time. The fleet that really counts is the fleet off of Carolines or Queensland.
-
Good stuff. A few comments before I go out and I may have a few more later.
-In a dedicated “KJF”, I’m not sure its wise to retreat the Siberians as you do here. Perhaps it’s a better move to move them to Amur right off the bat and hope Japan attacks. I realize you probably won’t be able to land in Korea until USA4 at the earliest and that’s a long time for the Siberians to be waiting. Still, getting Japan to attack that stack early or divert resources to contain it could reap rewards.
-I can see why you prefer a J3 declaration considering the way you have planes arrayed to prevent a stack on Szech and Burma. However perhaps Allies should consider taking a risk and stacking both anyway. Experiments where one devoted an entire bid (in ll should be like 22-25) to strenghening Burma and/or Szech would help alot in determining whether these are options or no.
In any case you can’t abandon Burma on UK1 without facing the risk of Japan building an air and naval base on J2 and taking India J3. Still–20 planes is quite alot. Will have to think this one over.
If Japan attacks Burma or Szech (bolstered by 7 Russian units plus hopefully other bid units), then even if they win the TUV exchange, they could lose tactical advantage if they lose alot of fighters.
If Japan doesn’t attack, Allies should consider a preemptive declaration on UK2 in order to combine in Yunnan.
Notice that if Japan takes any of these battles, they will lose some planes, and this will pay dividends later as USA and Anzac gear up for war.
These sorts of pressure plays work alot better in dice. It was the same for KJF in Revised–KJF worked better in dice because a conservative player is more likely to take a risk in ll than in dice, and KJF is all about spreading Japan thin and inviting Japan to take risks.
Finally, I think it’s possible that the winning strategy in a low luck game (for Allies) might be different from the winning strategy in a dice game. This is due to differences in game dynamics as well as bid.
-
Well said on everything. The only thing I might disagree on are the Russian units in the east. In a KJF game you need those 20 units to defend Moscow, otherwise Moscow just rolls over and dies way too easily.
With a 22 bid have you seen anyone bid a carrier sub with UK? This would allow UK to stack 92 depending on what Germany buys.
Suggested Topics
