Okay good points, but you keep saying that Moscow and India falls so easily and maybe it does but your imagination is limited and here’s a few points.
Why I say UK should another IC like in south africa or somewhere else is because you keep having India’s production max out and 3 units each turn won’t do great unless you can build more in that region and if UK needs to send help to Moscow it’s hard for India to be sending forces to Moscow and to defend it self or trying to be aggressive in south east asia and another IC in that region can really help. I think it’s hard for US to send a force down to the money islands as it’s closer to UK its longer for the US to go there. Now it is not bad if Soviet Far East is controlled by the Japanese because the US can destroy them when they land there plus if Moscow is in trouble you shift your forces toward Russia. A good Russian player can hold out for a good time with out much allied help and I’m not saying Russia must hold these territories until the US shows up or else the plan is going to fail I’m trying to point out is the must try to stall the Japanese advances though asia.
MarineIguana the attack on sz 37 is a good choice it maybe a risk I think those ships in that region attacking sz 37 is their best choice than something else and also one of your “Gotchas and things to avoid” says about US building to many subs I didn’t say about US should a lot of subs so I didn’t get your point there or how UK can’t secure the imcome in asia what part are you talking about?
Black_Elk could you please define IJN means (I’m still a bit new to some of those abbreviations).
No worries
IJN: Imperial Japanese Navy
USN: United States Navy
Here’s some random thought that works for me when doing KJF.
1. Whenever possible, get rid of the Japanese transports and delay their Asia invasion.
2. Finding strategy to split their navy force, and attack one by one. sz 35 attack is good risk to take for KJF, but not necessary.
3. Build up enough sea force to the degree that can threat their Navy movement.
4. Russia does not need to defend China, but should play a smart mouse and cat game against Germany and delay their occupation of Russia factory as long as possible.
5. Building bombers are great because the long range make your move unpredictable. The problem is you need lot of defense power at the beginning because if you lose either India or Russia too early you would be out of the game. My preference is fighter first and bomber comes second once you see opportunity to build.
5. Philippine is most important strategically because once you take it you can threat mainland, Japan, and the money island at the same time. And it’s only 3 space from Japan so it’s perfect landing spot for bombers.
6. To deal with Germany, I prefer to limit their income by kicking them out of Africa asap. If they have too much money it’s hard to fight against this monster.
7. Build more tanks when you can afford for Russia and British so they can help defend each other.
8. To defend India the important thing is to build up effective fighter routine, regardless it’s from Pacific or Atlantic. To speed up the delivery you need carrier help.
9. US needs to build lot of Navy to threat Japan in KJF, supplemented by British Navy once India is safe.
Frederick II, we all enjoy being imaginative, but I think you’re trying to do two things at once with the UK: wear down the Japanese navy, and conquer southeast Asia. The UK honestly just doesn’t have enough income to do both of those in the same game. I wrote a whole post (“KAF”) about how the UK can conquer Southeast Asia, and like you say, if that’s your main goal, then it’s helpful to build an IC in Egypt, and maybe even an American IC in Sinkiang. You want to spend any Allied bid on putting land units in Egypt and China. In KAF, you build a submarine-heavy, zero-transport navy with the US and use it to sink the Japanese navy, and you don’t worry about taking Tokyo.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35859.0
This thread here is a KJF thread, though, so you’ve got to try to take Tokyo. To do that, you’ve got to try to protect American transports as they cross the Pacific. To do that, you’re going to have to focus every available resource on that goal, or you won’t cross the Pacific until well after Moscow falls. If you’ve got a bid, most of it has to get spent on an extra sub to help sink Japan’s battleship and fully loaded carrier in SZ 37.
It’s not that a British IC in Egypt wouldn’t be of some use to protecting American transports – it’s just that it’s not the most efficient use. Without any new ICs, Britain can build 2 infantry and 1 artillery in India, and 2 fighters in London each turn, and then fly the fighters to India via Archangel or central Africa. 2 inf, 1 art, 2 ftr will cost you 30 IPCs a turn, which is usually all the income Britain can hope to have in a KJF. I’m not a huge fan of air power normally, but since you will eventually need the extra fighters to help protect American carriers, and since your mission in India is primarily defense, there’s nothing wrong with having 30-40% of your units be airplanes.
Another way to look at it is to imagine that you do make some progress in southeast Asia by building, e.g., tanks in Egypt along with your ground forces in India. What are you going to take? Burma? Yunnan? Maybe you can trade Indochina. You’re looking at a total swing of 2-4 IPCs – but if the Americans make it to Borneo even one turn faster, that’s 4 IPCs for the Allies right there, and the Americans are the ones who need the IPCs the most in a KJF. What are the British going to do with the extra IPCs – build one more tank that won’t ever threaten the Japanese capitol?
Innohub, I like your suggestions. The only thing I disagree with is your suggestion to make killing transports a priority. Usually I completely agree that Japanese transports are priority target number one, but if you’re focused on breaking the IJN, then it’s more important to kill the Japanese carrier and battleship, and in any event the more Japan spends on building ground units (and maybe even extra transports) to drop into east Asia, the less Japan has available to maintain its navy. If you can hold Kazakhstan and India, then there’s nothing much in central / northeast Asia for Japan to conquer that will pay off the investment in ground troops before American can break Japan’s navy. All the Allied territories are 1 IPC each.
Black Elk, I mostly agree that you’ve got the optimal strategy laid out there, but I do find it frustrating as a matter of theme that so many Allied strategies involve flooding the center with aircraft. It’s so ahistorical that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. I wonder if there’s an easy house rule that would allow for a reasonable lend-lease program to help make the ‘air wall’ less attractive/mandatory.
The only point I’d quibble with you about is needing to bring Japan below 10-12 IPC / turn. By the time that’s a possibility, the USA probably has an IC on Borneo and/or the Philippines, which means that the US can afford to supplement its fleet with the occasional destroyer or whatever to account for the fact that Japan is building, e.g., one bomber per turn. I’d much rather a weakened Japan build 1 bomber / turn than 4 infantry / turn – 4 infantry require that I build and transport 5-6 ground troops to Tokyo, but 1 bomber just requires that I build a pair of destroyers. The destroyers are cheaper both as a matter of IPCs and in terms of your unit/turn production capacity in the western Pacific. That said, if you can bomb Tokyo to smithereens, obviously you should.
So after many ideas or points on this I change a thing in my strategy.
UK needs to capture East Indies only, since that’s the closest money island to them. Borneo and Philippines is US job to take.
I personally think shipping US forces to asia through Soviet Far East is a good idea because if you do push the Japanese out of asia you don’t have to go take Tokyo you shift them towards Germany but if US also has other jobs besides this one that means they have to split there forces. Bombers are better than thought before, you can SBR Tokyo when capture asia or the Philippines to be in range and they can really help in big sea battles. So I agree with Argothair on 1 bomber purchase for US. innohub, good ideas but the one about kicking Germany out of africa won’t be that hard if you spend (or bid) on a IC in africa like Egypt or South Africa because your building many forces in that region to kick them out.
Well the 12 ipc threshold is more about truly knocking Japan out of the game completely. I find in a KJF that Japanese bombers can be really annoying not against the USA in the Pacific, but against UK in the Altantic, when Germany goes all super thousand year Reich mode after taking Moscow. Even in the 4 man Super G vs Super USA, if Japan plans ahead and stacks the home island early, then Japanese aircraft can often escape thr Pac for the other side of the board to influence Europe. Basically to bolster G once they are effectively booted out of play by USA. Japanese fighters can evac and bolster the center or a German naval build against London, or do other unseemly things like that. But if Japan is contained down past their ability to produce aircraft then you don’t really need to take Tokyo. You can bypass it until you’ve built up a large enough force to take it with complete confidence.
Once you have 6-8 production off the coast of Asia, there are lots of things you can do. My favorite is the sz 36 shuck from Borneo and East Indies to Burma or FIC. This can be very helpful in liberating India or keeping the Germans dominating the line on Suez.
I think its often more fruitful to beat Japan down into the single digits and then redirect against G before it’s too late and they pull out some crazy redirect of their own vs London
:-D
As for HR ways to avoid Air shifting, I suppose you say that only the Anglo Americans can Co locate their Air units. This would prevent the Axis from shifting, and would prevent the Allied shift to Russia.
This would be a major change though and alter many flight patterns, so it would probably alter the balance quite a bit. Russia would suffer the most, and probably be the player that required some compensation for the loss of the air wall at the center. But G too would be somewhat diminished, without Japan air shifts, so it’d go both ways on balance. Might work.
Another rule to go in hand with this would be to restrict carriers to only landing aircraft of the same nation. And remove the Allied Lilly pad. But again that would be a major change. Maybe work, but who knows what it’d do on balance
:-D
I think you can use a US AC/ftr strat for the Pac. This relies on almost exclusive US Ac/ftr buys for Sz 56 early on. Depending on how aggressive you want to be with your buys early you can force IJN north given the reach of Ftrs from Carriers.
Even with a Pearl attack the US can have the remaining fleet move to Sz 56 (including Cruiser in Sz 19) and buy 2 AC, 1 ftr (save 4). If I’m not mistaken that’s 1 trn, 1 dd, 1 cru, 1 bb, 2 ac, 4 ftrs plus a bomber lurking. On US 2 you can add another AC/2 ftrs and a dd. Etc.
Depending on what you do with the UK Pacific ships (particularly the UK AC) you can have quite a reach in the Pac fairly quickly.
The big question is how much of the early buying power of the US do you want to divert to the Atlantic. You can adjust your US 1 buy and get some token units the Atlantic, but you’ll still want to buy at least 1 AC for sz 56 on US 1.
I think you can use a US AC/ftr strat for the Pac. This relies on almost exclusive US Ac/ftr buys for Sz 56 early on. Depending on how aggressive you want to be with your buys early you can force IJN north given the reach of Ftrs from Carriers.
Even with a Pearl attack the US can have the remaining fleet move to Sz 56 (including Cruiser in Sz 19) and buy 2 AC, 1 ftr (save 4). If I’m not mistaken that’s 1 trn, 1 dd, 1 cru, 1 bb, 2 ac, 4 ftrs plus a bomber lurking. On US 2 you can add another AC/2 ftrs and a dd. Etc.
Depending on what you do with the UK Pacific ships (particularly the UK AC) you can have quite a reach in the Pac fairly quickly.
The big question is how much of the early buying power of the US do you want to divert to the Atlantic. You can adjust your US 1 buy and get some token units the Atlantic, but you’ll still want to buy at least 1 AC for sz 56 on US 1.
US needs to commit 100% of income to pacific. Otherwise, a good Japan can deadzone the US fleet from all money islands for 10+ rounds easily with buying 6 subs a turn. Japan has comparable income to US, but needs to devote at least 5-10 IPC into infantry. The only way US stacks borneo/phillipines/east indies is by investing more than Japan consistently.
–—
Argothair, historical accuracy is irrelevant in this game in my opinion. It’s also ahistorical that axis have a fighting chance, that dice accurately capture combat, that there were only 5 nations, etc.
MarineIguana, this game is anyone’s opinion not just yours.
All good points and a fun thread to read. If I’m Japan I focus on India first. I try to take it on turn 2 or 3. I was never a fan of KJF. By the time you kill Japan the Germans are an ipc juggernaught. Russia will fall and Germans will control strategic factories and have income to push UK and USA off Eurasia.
Its really critical, if you’re going to try to pursue a KJF strategy, to contain and then destroy the IJN. Total naval superiority is necessary to defeat the Germans out of Eurasia in the 4 man endgame. Basically the goal in that sort of endgame is to take over Japan’s “shucking into Asia” role, but just doing it with USA instead!
:-D
I think your best repeating purchase with UK is likely 1 fighter 1 bomber 3 infantry.
The 3 infantry fulfills your requirement to max place ground in Calcutta each round, but the bomber (as opposed to 2 fighters and artillery standard) will give you a more potent threat versus the Japanese fleet.
UK is in a position where they are usually collecting the same 31 ipcs for a while. If you make that Bomber+Fighter build 3 times in a row, (provided you don’t lose a bunch of aircraft initially) that gives you a really strong royal air force to keep the Japanese away from Suez by the 4th round. You’ll still have some fighter cover for the Russian capital, but the bombers can also move deeper out of UK, and cover a broader range from their positions behind the Russian lines.
A fun play is to keep that Australian sub active vs Japan on UK1, floating it around somewhere in the Indian ocean, to eventually join with this British air armada that you’ll be buying in subsequent rounds. Basically you use this sub and your bombers to keep Japan fearful of British airstrike capabilities out of South Asia. During the endgamge these strategic bombers will help bomb Tokyo in the critical rounds when USA is really stepping up, but in the meantime, the British bomber presence can also make it much harder for Japan to profitably engage the USN. They’ll be fearful of what UK might do in the aftermath of any naval battle, like say one that occurs near the money islands, and may chose to avoid sailing out beyond their comfort zones.
I suggested earlier today in another thread, the “sz37 Dive to Survive” move with your Aussie sub, which can work well with this type of build strategy. A single sub (sneak striking or absorbing a hit in place of a fighter or bomber) can make the threat of an airstrike too scary, and Japan might just decide to stay home instead of bringing their fleet too far from Tokyo.
