I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what people thought of my version of the KJF strategy.
R1: Purchase of 8 inf, Standard Russian moves on Germany. All inf in range to Buryatia. Inf from Kazakh SSR and Novosibirsk to Sinkaing, Evenki inf to Yakut, Place 4 inf in Causcus and 4 in Russia
UK1: Purchase IC, Destroyer, Inf. If viable, use the airforce to take out the Germain Baltic fleet, otherwise SBR Germany. Use the fighter from the AC at india and the sub in SZ 40 to attack the sub in the solomons, land the fighter on the US AC at Hawaii. send the destroyer, the AC, and the trans from SZ 35 to kill the jap trn in SZ 59. Move trn from SZ 1 to SZ 2. Place IC in india, inf in UK, and destroyer in SZ 2.
US1: Purchase IC, 3 subs, Inf. If viable, attack Japanese fleet at Pearl w/ all airforce and ships in range, otherwise stage in SZ 55. Move all ships in range to SZ 55, moviing atlantic fleet through the canal. Place IC in sinkaing, all other units in SZ 55 or WUS.
After this, the Japanese fleets are not in very good shape, and must consolidate. This will allow the US to continue a naval buildup and island hop. The US and UK factories can hold Japan on the mainland long enough for Japan to lose their income and ahve to withdraw to Japan. This neutralizes Japan. All available funds that don’t go to India for the UK should be used to help the Russians hold out against Germany.
Any thoughts? I’m worried about Africa and whether or not Russia can hold.
If I were going for Japan I would rather use the Indian transport to either take Borneo, take Egypt back, or help reinforce India. I think either of those is better than bringing it into the naval battle in SZ 59.
Forget the Industrial Complexes.
America builds 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Fighter on Round 1; Transports/Subs/Infantry on Round 2.
Ok, what does the UK do? What does the USSR do? America can’t take out Japan on her own…
Russia needs to move 4 infantry to Sinkiang, 6 Infantry to Bury. The goal here is to SLOW the Japanese. England should either stack in India or Persia/Caucasus for the same reason. NO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES>
Mind you, Russia is more then capable of doing both slow the Japs and the Germs. Remember, 80-100% of Japan’s income is going to matching the forces of America or they have to ceed the Pacific to America dropping them by 13 IPC which again keeps them equivalent or lower then Russia.
England needs to put 100% into keeping Africa so Germany doesn’t get stronger. Russia needs to go 90% against Russia, 10% against Japan. (1 Armor or 1 Infantry or 1 Artillery per round to the Japan front.)
In a recent game I took Borneo and New guinia on UK1. I wasn’t going KJF, this was just my usual strat. But then Pearl was a disaster for the Japanese (the US carrier survived) so I decided to go full out against Japan. I sent fleets into the pacific and Japan had to deal with them. UK kept Borneo and New Guinia the entire game. And think about, if the US is going after Japan full out, when will Japan ever have the chance to take Borneo and New Guinia back? The extra 5 IPC is very useful for the UK. I spent nothing to defend them, and that was 5 IPC every turn to use in Europe and Africa.
Borneo/New Guinea is a good open for England. It forces Japan to reinvade and can more then make up for the loss of Egypt.
However, you might want to consider what happens in Egypt before you do that. If Germany didn’t put a bid into Africa nad Egypt went poorly you might want to reinforce Egypt instead (Inf/AA from India + Inf from T-J) with landings in Algeria.
Or, you ever consider hitting FIC with 1 Fighter, 3 Infantry and killing off his infantry to secure your AA and IC in India? (Assuming you build one.)
Germany always attacks EGy, and rarely loses.
I agree that sometimes Borneo and NEw Guinia are not the best option. I think you can’t really have a set plan for the UK fleet because it really depends on what Germany does.
Germany always attacks EGy, and rarely loses.
Not always true. I’ve seen many Germans fail in Egypt or for-go it entirely.
Russia needs to move 4 infantry to Sinkiang, 6 Infantry to Bury. The goal here is to SLOW the Japanese. England should either stack in India or Persia/Caucasus for the same reason. NO INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES>
Mind you, Russia is more then capable of doing both slow the Japs and the Germs. Remember, 80-100% of Japan’s income is going to matching the forces of America or they have to ceed the Pacific to America dropping them by 13 IPC which again keeps them equivalent or lower then Russia.
England needs to put 100% into keeping Africa so Germany doesn’t get stronger. Russia needs to go 90% against Russia, 10% against Japan. (1 Armor or 1 Infantry or 1 Artillery per round to the Japan front.)
"Forget the Industrial Complexes.
America builds 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Fighter on Round 1; Transports/Subs/Infantry on Round 2."
I actually think that 6 inf at Bury speeds up Japan’s attack. Russian infantry at the coast are potentially vulnerable to a Japan attack, which potentially plays into the Allied hands with a pure US Pac fleet build, but the early commitment of forces to the Asian coast is risky for Russia. 2 AC and fighter for the US do not threaten any valuable Jap holdings until US3, but 1 btl 1 trns 2 loaded AC will still be insufficient to challenge the mighty Japanese fleet that early.
Leaving Russia to defend 10% against Japan", while US goes 100% against Japan and UK goes for Africa, is going to result in a strong Japan in Asia while the US stalls out the naval battle against Japan (assume Japan builds transports, infantry, fighters with usual Japanese transports J1 and subsequent infantry/fighter possibly artillery builds after the direction of the US attack becomes clear). Germany will fight in the west against UK and Russia, but will have an excellent fighting chance thanks to the need for the UK to build up a protective fleet for its transports. Either India will fall early, or the Germans will push in towards West Russia; there is nothing that the Allies can do to stop it with the proposed resource allocation.
If Japan and Germany attack Russia, while UK goes for Africa, and US goes against Japan, this MUST mean that Russia will be attacked in force, and must mean that Russia will be forced to retreat from both fronts relatively early in the game.
If Moscow survives until the US moves in on Japan’s islands in force, the Allies have an easy, straightforward, simple win, with containment of the Japanese to Tokyo and a massive US fleet cruising off the Asian coast, the rest of the Allies can attack Germany.
But I find it far easier to ensure that Moscow WILL survive with a KGF instead of KJF plan. Japan expands like mad in the Pacific, but is stopped at Moscow by combined Allied forces; with a stalled German and Japanese attack, and constant ground reinforcement from UK and US, the Allies win.
I feel that it is too difficult for UK to send forces against Japan without building an expensive IC in India, and the territories in Europe are worth more IPC than the territories in Asia, so I always KGF. If I were feeling adventurous, or if I had Colonial Garrison NA, I might try KJF.
In a recent game I took Borneo and New guinia on UK1. I wasn’t going KJF, this was just my usual strat. But then Pearl was a disaster for the Japanese (the US carrier survived) so I decided to go full out against Japan. I sent fleets into the pacific and Japan had to deal with them. UK kept Borneo and New Guinia the entire game. And think about, if the US is going after Japan full out, when will Japan ever have the chance to take Borneo and New Guinia back? The extra 5 IPC is very useful for the UK. I spent nothing to defend them, and that was 5 IPC every turn to use in Europe and Africa.
I feel that Borneo/New Guinea for UK1 is overextension, and that the Japanese will make the UK pay.
I know this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what people thought of my version of the KJF strategy.
R1: Purchase of 8 inf, Standard Russian moves on Germany. All inf in range to Buryatia. Inf from Kazakh SSR and Novosibirsk to Sinkaing, Evenki inf to Yakut, Place 4 inf in Causcus and 4 in Russia
UK1: Purchase IC, Destroyer, Inf. If viable, use the airforce to take out the Germain Baltic fleet, otherwise SBR Germany. Use the fighter from the AC at india and the sub in SZ 40 to attack the sub in the solomons, land the fighter on the US AC at Hawaii. send the destroyer, the AC, and the trans from SZ 35 to kill the jap trn in SZ 59. Move trn from SZ 1 to SZ 2. Place IC in india, inf in UK, and destroyer in SZ 2.
US1: Purchase IC, 3 subs, Inf. If viable, attack Japanese fleet at Pearl w/ all airforce and ships in range, otherwise stage in SZ 55. Move all ships in range to SZ 55, moviing atlantic fleet through the canal. Place IC in sinkaing, all other units in SZ 55 or WUS.
After this, the Japanese fleets are not in very good shape, and must consolidate. This will allow the US to continue a naval buildup and island hop. The US and UK factories can hold Japan on the mainland long enough for Japan to lose their income and ahve to withdraw to Japan. This neutralizes Japan. All available funds that don’t go to India for the UK should be used to help the Russians hold out against Germany.
Any thoughts? I’m worried about Africa and whether or not Russia can hold.
4th consecutive post this thread, yay?
1. What is “standard” for Russia for you? West Russia/Belorussia, I should think, with 8 inf. Or do you go West Russia/Ukraine, or even West Russia/Ukraine/Belorussia, or maybe an Eastern Europe variation? Anyways, I think that infantry at Burytia are really risky. I would prefer perhaps 1 inf at Burytia, 5 at Soviet Far East; 6 inf at Burytia only if you commit the UK Indian fighter to landing at Burytia, which is a risky proposition given that you don’t know how much Germany will survive with at Anglo-Egypt (and so you won’t know if the UK Indian fighter will be needed at Anglo or not).
2. UK build of IC/Destr/infantry is, I think, not correct for KJF. I think the other fleet moves in the Pacific, as well as the listed strategy for UK will be ineffective. Most importantly, it will allow Germany to secure Africa early with 2 surviving tanks in Anglo-Egypt. Why is destr/inf wrong? Because first, a lone destroyer isn’t going to do anything by itself; if you took Norway, the Germans can still suicide their Baltic fleet to kill the whole UK fleet; if you staged at Norway and use the USSR sub to block Germany, the Allied fleet is still weak and a German Baltic carrier holds; you could suicide the UK fleet against the German Baltic fleet on UK2, but the Germans respond with mass air and the UK has to rebuild capital ships plus transports while trying to defend India (very bad).
The only time a lone destroyer is going to be any good is if the Germans didn’t build anything in the Baltic, and you know that your UK air is going to be successful in an attack on the Baltic, and since you can’t know future events, that means that it’s going to be a crapshoot if you commit to a destroyer. Far better to forgo the immediate Norway attack, and save IPC towards future purchases. I would think IC/fighter is correct with NOTHING ELSE, assuming that the Germans cannot successfully invade London. You fly the UK air towards India to support on UK2, and on UK3 you have an extra fighter (the fighter you built on UK1) to help out in India. Useful.
For the Pacific moves, unification of the UK fleet southwest of Australia is, I think, best. You can still hit the Jap transport off Kwangtung with trns/fighter, or fighter/destroyer, or whatever. I’ve read a lot of book on landing the UK fighter at Pearl, but I just don’t think it’s enough. It drains the Japs air early, but Japan can easily replace its fighter; the UK cannot (it has to fly them from London, or build at Calcutta, which should be used to produce ground units).
3. For attacking the Japs at Pearl, these days I typically consolidate most of the Jap fleet at Solomons, and use Jap sub (if it survived the UK turn) plus Jap destroyer plus mass fighters and bomber to attack Pearl. But that’s really a KGF response; against a UK IC at India and 6 inf at Burytia plus scattered UK fleet, I think I might attack the scattered UK fleet, smash Burytia and China expecting an Allied counterattack into China next turn (Japan can’t do anything about the Allied attack, and a China counterattack leaves the Asian coast positions vulnerable on J2, but I think that’s acceptable). Most problematic for Japan is the US fleet, but against a UK IC, you expect KJF, so you build the standard 3 transports on J1 (assuming no bid) plus infantry, and switch to transport/fighter/infantry production on J2 onwards.
No, if you divert assets to England iwth America you are asking to die.
The absolute MOST you can put towards England in a KJF is 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor and 1 bomber…and those should probably go to Africa instead.
In KJF strategy how much Russian forces do you divert to the east per turn ?
Anytime Ive gone KJF, I go defensive with russia and divert as many forces against Japan as possible without letting Germany threaten Moscow. In my KJF its usually Russia’s goal to simply not get crushed.
10 Infantry from Russia. (2 From Kazakh, 2 From Novosibirsk, 2 from Evenki National Okrug, 2 From Yakut SSR, 2 From Soviet Far East and 2 from Buryatia SSR.)
4 of those move to Sinkiang to defend.
6 of those either move to Buryatia for 1 turn then retreat to Yakut SSR or move to Yakut SSR immediately.
You don’t need to send anything else.
Remember, Japan’s going to be up 2 for China, 1 for Buryatia, 1 for SFE, 3 for India. That’s only +7 IPC. 37 IPC vs 40 IPC for America and America doesn’t have to worry about building ground forces to hold their core 38 IPC.
That means Japan is immediately thrust into the position of: Should we build men to take Russia or Submarines to stop America?
Add in a potential dual hit on New Guinea and Borneo with England (44.75% Chance of winning both, 7.56% chance of loosing both) and the naval attacks by England on the Transport in SZ 59 (94.4% success rate) and the attack on the SZ 45 submarine which is really a 50/50 battle and you could put Japan in a very serious hole before they even get a chance to move. Doubly so after America plops down 2 Aircraft Carriers and a Fighter in builds added to the 2 fighters on E. W. USA and the Fighter from Hawaii + Battleship, Transport in LA and Destroyer from Panama.
The only problem with that simple eval Jen is that it is FAR cheaper to defend at sea (as Japan) than to attack at sea (as US).
So a straight IPC analysis is not completely accurate…
But we ahve been over that argument before…
But it can’t defend all it’s islands … and you guys don’t build ICs in Sinkiang or India in KJF?
