Kill Japan First (KJF)

[Guest]

You keep peeling Russian forces off of Germany in your KJF Jen, while also having the US spend all their money in the Pacific.  You are NOT going to containe Germany in that scenario.  Simply won;t happen.  $40+ IPC against HALF that amount means Russia is fracked if they split their forces AT ALL in a KJF.

[Jennifer]

i’ve never peeled a single russian unit off the units I origainlly said had to be on the Eastern Front, Switch.

Russia has 10 infantry on the Russian front (not including the two in Evenki which I peel off Japan for teh German front.)

I do peel them off what OTHER people suggest, but not off my own suggestions.

[Guest]

Yet you post about 1-3 ARM backign up those eastern INF.  And THOSE forces are indeed being peeled off Germany.  Not to mention that 6 INF that are often used for Russian defense/German attack are heading further east instead of west toward the German front…

[Jennifer]

I posted that for AFTER you’ve established a holding line against the Germans trading German land.  Not for the first round!  The idea was to add them in starting 1 a round (unless you’re doing exceptionally well) starting the same round America moves into the Islands.

It doesn’t seem like a lot, but think about it.  In Round 1 Japan is faced with:

10 Russian Infantry
5 British Infantry, 1 British Fighter, 1 British Submarine, 1 British Carrier, 1 British Destroyer, 2 British Transports
4 American Infantry, 1 American Fighter, the Pearl Fleet and the LA Fleet

Yes, some of that’ll be killed off, to what expense is to be seen by the dice, but it’s safe to assume the fighter and 2 American infantry at least.  Leaving the two sides pretty balanced at the end of round 1 on the mainland.

[newpaintbrush]

I disagree with DarthMaximus.  Jen too.

1.  This “small” attack force of eight fighters came from - where?  How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free?  You can’t threaten Japan’s navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters.  That means that from the Solomons, you can’t do much with those fighters.  If you build a minimal navy, you’re vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.

You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.

2.  Eight fighters, a battleship, and a loaded transport are no threat at all to Japan.  They are not even a threat to anything else.  You can use the US forces to attack Borneo or East Indies, then get cut off from reinforcements and slaughtered.  Why would you do that?

That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers (which take time and resources to build), the fighters are not going to do much more than protect that island, that island’s sea zone, and threaten the surrounding sea zones.  If you want to take an adjacent island, the fighters are useless for that fight unless you have carriers.  And if you commit transports to take an adjacent island, those transports will be killed unless you have a supporting navy.  It is not easy to prosecute a minimal navy-max fighter island hop strategy against Japan; Japan has to pretty much LET you do it.

3.  U.S. takes Japan if Japan is stupid.  Assuming Japan has a surplus of infantry (which it should), you should easily have 10 inf 2 fighters on Japan even if you don’t see America coming AT ALL.  Even a moderately good Japan player will be prepared to defend Japan with 10 inf 5 fighters.  If you want to trade your U.S. fighters for Japanese infantry, please go ahead.

That is, I assume that Japan for some weird reason doesn’t see the U.S. buildup until the last moment.  But even at the last moment, there should be at least 2 inf on Japan to start with (because Japan just can’t empty Japan that fast; it needs to build up transports, and even then, it should immediately start shuttling infantry off the isolated islands).  So assuming just 2 inf in Japan to start with, Japan should at LEAST be able to afford 8 inf, and be able to have 2 fighters in range of Japan.  I actually can’t really imagine that Japan would be in that poor of a position, though, not that early.

4.  Even ONE IC should not be “standard” for Japan.  Even if Japan has a bid amount allowing 2 transports 1 IC on J1, a Japan IC is by no means a standard move.  (I believe that Japan can afford to place one IC at India, or possibly an IC at French Indochina if UK places an IC at India . . . but that last ONLY if Japan has a bid.)

TWO IC’s is definitely not what I would consider “standard”, unless by “standard”, you meant it’s my standard NOT to do it.

If you blow IPCs on ICs, that’s fewer early IPCs that are running in towards Moscow.  That’s true even if you’re running a highly offensive Japan.  With the IPCs that you spend on one IC, you can change 7 infantry into tanks.  If you run TWO ICs, you’re pretty much forced to just run infantry and/or artillery, which aren’t fast or flexible.  India’s a good place for an IC because it’s so impractical for Japan to support Germany’s push on the Caucasus.  But an IC at any of the other three locations is something that should be thought twice about.

5.  If you see U.S. building a fat Pacific fleet, and you’re Japan, you should build until you hit only 4-6 transports, and pump the rest into fighters and infantry.  By the time the US fleet closes, you should have a big air force and fleet.  If you just ignore the US to push mass tanks into Asia, of course you get squished.

Running a Japan game against KGF and KJF are very different from J2 on.  KGF, you can see the Allies are focused on Germany, so you build massed tanks and switch attacks around to break the Allied defense at key points.  KJF, you can see the Allies are focused on you, so you use transports, fighters, and infantry instead (a couple artillery and/or tanks too).  So by the time the Allies roll up with their fleet and air force, you still have naval and air superiority.

–

"This can do wonders in deadzoning Egy, Trj, Iea, otherwise Germany walks right into a trap on G2 getting hit by 4 inf and planes on UK2.

The Germans do not “walk into a trap” in Anglo-Egypt.  If the Germans have no African bid and attack, or even if they DO have an African bid and attack, the main objective is to kill the forces in Anglo-Egypt.  (Closing the Suez canal off is a bonus, but not STRICTLY necessary).  If the forces in Anglo-Egypt are left alive, UK can make a serious play for power at India OR Africa, with an extra fighter for the Indian fleet, and an extra infantry and tank.  That is why the UK forces must die.  Germany doesn’t walk into a trap, so much as pay the butcher’s bill.

–

"No matter how well Japan is doing in Asia once they start conceding Pacific Islands to a superior US force, they are in big big big trouble down the rd.  Don’t ask me how I know about this. "

I am going to ask how you know this, because it sounds like you just ignored the US to run around Asia.  Which is okay if Moscow is about to collapse.  But if you saw the US coming, and it didn’t look like Moscow was on the verge of collapsing, why did you allow the US to keep beating on you in the Pacific?  You should have switched to fighters and infantry instead of building those two industrial complexes!

–

“Result on the Western Front?  Almost no difference.  A lot of Americans go the N. Africa route and that would take 5 rounds anyway before infantry can come to bear on Germany through Caucasus.  So the loss of American forces in the first 5 rounds really won’t be felt.”

10 inf makes a big difference on any front.  Those infantry fuel the Russian counterpush on R2-R4.  If you keep 10 infantry back, the Germans should punish you.

US1, forces can land in Algeria, which makes an immediate difference to Africa, because Germany either counterattacks or runs away.  If Germany runs, the US pushes through into German-held Libya, then Anglo-Egypt.  Even faster progress is made from US2-3 because of tank pushes supported by air.  So Africa is easily reclaimed by the 5th round, and that’s even if Germany tried to take all of Africa in the first place, considering the early pressure the US subjected Africa to.  The question is not whether or not US does anything to reclaim territories by US5 or not.  Africa is always reclaimed.  The question is whether or not US will be in time to contain Japanese aggression towards Caucasus by uniting with UK and USSR forces at Persia.

If the Allies do not choose the African route, there is always the E.Canada/London/Norway/Karelia/Archangel/Eastern Europe route.  This also requires U.S. funds to build a fleet that can defend against German attack.  This is also something that the US can get well established by US5.

[Jennifer]

Paint:

Where are you getting 8 fighters from?  DM’s post?  Cause I never said anything about 8 fighters I can remember.

USA 1:  2 Carriers, 1 Fighter purchased + 1 Battleship, 1 Transport, 1 DD, 3 Fighters starting units
USA 2:  5 Submarines + 1 DD, 2 Transport starting Units

That’s 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 5 Submarines, 3 Transports right there.

That’s no “small force” that japan has to “let” do anything.  A force that size can seize Solomons whenever it tickles their fancy to do so.  (Like 1 infantry is going to stop 3 infantry, 3 armor, 4 fighters and a battleship?  Puh-lease.)  And it’s one movement from LA, so it isn’t like Japan’s going to stop an attack there.  That’s why the game designers never gave it any value.  IMHO.

Of course, that’s assuming no American landing in Africa, which is a waste of materials for America anyway and probably won’t do much more then get 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 armor killed anyway.

Meanwhile, Japan has spent two rounds building up, has conquered unoccupied SFE and Bury, taken China and stacked some troops on the mainland.  Maybe even gotten an IC out there.

More likely then not they’ve lost at least a destroyer and a submarine, if not a battleship and a carrier as well in the counter attack on Pearl (which may have cost America her battleship and a transport, maybe even her bomber since the fighters are more valuable then the bomber in a pacific campaign.)

[DarthMaximus]

@newpaintbrush:

I disagree with DarthMaximus.  Jen too.

1.  This “small” attack force of eight fighters came from - where?  How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free?  You can’t threaten Japan’s navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters.  That means that from the Solomons, you can’t do much with those fighters.  If you build a minimal navy, you’re vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.

You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.

This is wrong. 
You can go to Sol as early as rd 3 (pending J moves), but more likely rd 4.
You don’t need LRA.
Ftrs on AC’s in the Wus sz can reach sz 60 and land quite easily.  Sol is only 2 moves from sz 60.
You are not vulnerable to a suicide attack.  It is waaaaaay too costly for Japan.
US starts with a BB. trn, dd in the Pac (minus Pearl).  Buy 2 AC’s 1 ftr on US 1 and you have:
1 BB, 1 DD, 2 AC, 4 ftrs, 1 trn in Wus Sz.
US 2 looks like this:
1 BB, 1 DD, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 1 trn
US 3:
1 BB, 1 DD, 4 AC, 8 ftrs, 1 trn

Now you move to Sol on US 4 and Japan is going to suicide with what???
They are going to lose ~7-9 units to kill a trn maybe an AC or 2 with a ftr???
Bring it on.

Mass air, you better be buying more ftrs/boms cause 6 ftrs, 1 bom will get slaughter.  And if you are buying air that means less ground units for Asia and you still have to deal with the unified UK1 fleet floating around the Indain ocean which consists of 1 AC, 1 ftr, 1 DD, 2 trns, 1 sub.  By UK 3 you can have a second ftr on the AC.

Or did you take that out on J1?
That carries its own downside for Japan.

Japan buying Navy, well again less ground troops for Asia.

It is immensely easier to defend, I invite the Japan attack where I can have 3’s and 4’s for my ACs anf ftrs instead of 1’s and 3’s.

Japan is quickly forced by to sz 60 (or more likely 61) conceding the South Pacific to the US and UK fleets.

@newpaintbrush:

2. Eight fighters, a battleship, and a loaded transport are no threat at all to Japan. They are not even a threat to anything else. You can use the US forces to attack Borneo or East Indies, then get cut off from reinforcements and slaughtered. Why would you do that?

That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers (which take time and resources to build), the fighters are not going to do much more than protect that island, that island’s sea zone, and threaten the surrounding sea zones. If you want to take an adjacent island, the fighters are useless for that fight unless you have carriers. And if you commit transports to take an adjacent island, those transports will be killed unless you have a supporting navy. It is not easy to prosecute a minimal navy-max fighter island hop strategy against Japan; Japan has to pretty much LET you do it.

This is wrong, and quite easy for the Allies, if US can make the move to Sol.
Think UK fleet + US fleet (not necessarily in the same sz) and you’ll find Japan starts running into some very hard decisions.

Japan doesn’t LET you do it, the Allies force the issue and make Japan accept it OR they (Japan) split there fleet and get slaughtered on the Allied dual counter.  It is very bad for Japan to lose her navy with an aggressive US in the Pac.

The logical course at that point is for Japan to concede the South Pacific and the 12+ IPC over the next turn or two, in order to save the Imperial Navy.

@newpaintbrush:

3. U.S. takes Japan if Japan is stupid. Assuming Japan has a surplus of infantry (which it should), you should easily have 10 inf 2 fighters on Japan even if you don’t see America coming AT ALL. Even a moderately good Japan player will be prepared to defend Japan with 10 inf 5 fighters. If you want to trade your U.S. fighters for Japanese infantry, please go ahead.

That is, I assume that Japan for some weird reason doesn’t see the U.S. buildup until the last moment. But even at the last moment, there should be at least 2 inf on Japan to start with (because Japan just can’t empty Japan that fast; it needs to build up transports, and even then, it should immediately start shuttling infantry off the isolated islands). So assuming just 2 inf in Japan to start with, Japan should at LEAST be able to afford 8 inf, and be able to have 2 fighters in range of Japan. I actually can’t really imagine that Japan would be in that poor of a position, though, not that early.

Yes!!!  This is precisely the point.  If Japan is leaving 2 inf and ftrs behind that is less units to Asia.  It becomes dead weight and very frustrating.  If Japan is leaving anything behind they are not maximizing their purchases or their moves.  This is bad and to be exploited by the US and UK (if they still have their fleet around).

@newpaintbrush:

4. Even ONE IC should not be “standard” for Japan. Even if Japan has a bid amount allowing 2 transports 1 IC on J1, a Japan IC is by no means a standard move. (I believe that Japan can afford to place one IC at India, or possibly an IC at French Indochina if UK places an IC at India . . . but that last ONLY if Japan has a bid.)

TWO IC’s is definitely not what I would consider “standard”, unless by “standard”, you meant it’s my standard NOT to do it.

If you blow IPCs on ICs, that’s fewer early IPCs that are running in towards Moscow. That’s true even if you’re running a highly offensive Japan. With the IPCs that you spend on one IC, you can change 7 infantry into tanks. If you run TWO ICs, you’re pretty much forced to just run infantry and/or artillery, which aren’t fast or flexible. India’s a good place for an IC because it’s so impractical for Japan to support Germany’s push on the Caucasus. But an IC at any of the other three locations is something that should be thought twice about.

Yes, yes, yes!
I very much agree with this.  :evil:
Except the IC for India.

Btw, I didn’t mean 2 IC on rd 1 or anything.
As a personal note, I go no J IC until at least rd 2, possibly rd 3.
I also find the Man/Sin IC connection quite deadly.  Man IC say rd 2, Sin IC around round 4 or 5.

The “Standard” comment was only to illistrate how a US Pac strat can exploit and overly aggressive Japan in Asia and force them to not maximizing their purchases.

It is good that you don’t get carried away with IC’s.
You may not do it, but I’ve read plenty of games in the games section with people buying IC’s and placing them all over the place.

@newpaintbrush:

5. If you see U.S. building a fat Pacific fleet, and you’re Japan, you should build until you hit only 4-6 transports, and pump the rest into fighters and infantry. By the time the US fleet closes, you should have a big air force and fleet. If you just ignore the US to push mass tanks into Asia, of course you get squished.

Running a Japan game against KGF and KJF are very different from J2 on. KGF, you can see the Allies are focused on Germany, so you build massed tanks and switch attacks around to break the Allied defense at key points. KJF, you can see the Allies are focused on you, so you use transports, fighters, and infantry instead (a couple artillery and/or tanks too). So by the time the Allies roll up with their fleet and air force, you still have naval and air superiority.

Yes!!!
You are very much on the right track.
BUT many players commit to an IC on J1 (which goes before the US, muhuahahahhahahaha).  :evil:

If you do not, that is very good.

I am by no means suggesting the US can just go full force Pac strat in all games.  There are certain things to look for as a Allied player.  Air and trns can be one way, but there are still holes in that.  Big holes.
You’re offensive punch is limited when trying to hit the US/UK fleets.
And you can’t prevent the US move to the Sol, which is problematic.

@newpaintbrush:

–

"This can do wonders in deadzoning Egy, Trj, Iea, otherwise Germany walks right into a trap on G2 getting hit by 4 inf and planes on UK2.

The Germans do not “walk into a trap” in Anglo-Egypt. If the Germans have no African bid and attack, or even if they DO have an African bid and attack, the main objective is to kill the forces in Anglo-Egypt. (Closing the Suez canal off is a bonus, but not STRICTLY necessary). If the forces in Anglo-Egypt are left alive, UK can make a serious play for power at India OR Africa, with an extra fighter for the Indian fleet, and an extra infantry and tank. That is why the UK forces must die. Germany doesn’t walk into a trap, so much as pay the butcher’s bill.

–

I’m talking on UK 2. 
It is a MUST for Germany to hit Egy on G1.  It can become a problem after that.

UK Fleet unification can cause serious issues.
Does Japan sacrifice some ships/air to take out the fleet with a loaded trn, which helps the US Pac goals or do they let the fleet sit and give UK the opportunity to hit Afr somewhat heavy on UK 2 or they can reinforce Per heavy.

“Pull up, it’s a trap!”

@newpaintbrush:

"No matter how well Japan is doing in Asia once they start conceding Pacific Islands to a superior US force, they are in big big big trouble down the rd. Don’t ask me how I know about this. "

I am going to ask how you know this, because it sounds like you just ignored the US to run around Asia. Which is okay if Moscow is about to collapse. But if you saw the US coming, and it didn’t look like Moscow was on the verge of collapsing, why did you allow the US to keep beating on you in the Pacific? You should have switched to fighters and infantry instead of building those two industrial complexes!

–

I’ve lost to this very US Pac strat 4 times, I have won with it twice, and defeated it once.
Loss 1:  I was very arrogant and somewhat surprised by the US moves, and thought it was a gimmie game.  I mean the US taking on Japan, that is laughable.  I was wrong.  I learned ignoring the US is very bad.  You can’t kill Moscow when the US is eating up your islands in rd 5,6, etc…  And when they thow IC’s on Bor, EI, and Phil.  Yikes!

Loss 2:  I mixed in some subs/ftrs.  I didn’t match ship for ship, but I had a sizable navy/airforce and felt like I could take this sucker out.  The key Naval battle was basically M.A.D. and learned trading fleet for fleet is a bad idea.  The US picked off the remnants and made it very hard for Japan to get troops to Asia.  At this point the Allies were squeezing Germany and it was only a matter of time.

Loss 3:  I went the Air Heavy route.  While I had a strong defensive navy and I still couldn’t prevent the US move to Sol, and eventually lost the Islands etc…
I also learned that a suicide attack by Japan is bad.  Trading Japan air for a US trn and an AC or 2 is not good.  It doesn’t slow the down at all.

Loss 4:  I should have had this one.  Moscow should have fallen, but again the pesky US eventually landed in FIC and with their IC’s made it impossible to finish them and the Axis eventually fell apart.  I do think I had bad rolls in this one but what are you going to do.

The 2 games I won using this I took the Expensive Pac Islands by rd 5-6 and it was over.  Once you have the Islands and Japan boxed in, Germany can’t do much and time is clearly on the Allies side.

The time I defeated it, I went 1 ship (or air) a turn and occupied Pearl Heavy on J2 and simply denied the US the ability to go to Sol and flip the strat on them, where I could now threaten the Wus sz.
He couldn’t force me out of Pearl so I was able to supply minimal defense and concentrate on Asia and Mos.  Mos fell to the G-J 1-2.

By no means do I think a US Pac strat is unbeatable or anything and there are some clear counters, some of which are pointed out here, my only word of caution is that I think Japan must purchase the right things and make the right moves, including NCM otherwise they are for a world of hurt.

The advantage the Allies have is the US goes after Japan and while J has some pretty cookie cutter moves, Pearl, Chi, maybe Ind, Bury, the US can still see the Japan purchases, battle results (ie did Pearl/Chi go bad or good, Did they attack the UK fleet in the Indian Ocean, how is Ger doing in Afr, how much damage did R do on R1) NCMs, and placements.

Incidently, many J players vacate their islands via trns at some point, this can play right into a US pac strat.
And even if they leave them they aren’t necessarily maximizing their purchases or inf movement, which slows down the Asia push.

[Jennifer]

Japan’s only hope against America is to either get lucky on round 1, as I did in my J11 move killing a massive unified pac fleet from England and America or have Germany crush Russia before America get’s too big, thus solidifying Japan’s asian holdings.

Now, with that said, i’ll say this.  Odds are Japan’s buying an IC on Round 1.  Not because it’s a good move, but because it seems to be habitual in the Axis and Allies Revised community.

Even if they do not, Japan will quickly run out of forces to use in Asia because they’re devoting all their money attempting to keep pace with America.  It is NOT enough to go defensive with the fleet.  yes, you can out pace America in defensive value with just a few carriers and some submarines for fodder.  But how does that secure your islands?  You can secure 1 island, the one your fleet is around at that time.  Meanwhile, America goes where she pleases because your impotent against her defensive might.  And America doesn’t have the pesky problem of having a 3rd of her income tied up in highly indefensible islands like Japan does.

So what you do with an America strat is force Japan to yield her islands, making America a financial dynamo or yield Asia to continued Russia control making life hard on Germany.

And that is the point.  After all, in a classic KGF game, America is nothing but designated casualties for a number of rounds.  But if you could free up British and Russian finances so they could build more units on the front in lieu of American forces they have more consolidated punch.  They don’t have to hit and then have an ally follow up because they have the units themselves.

ie:

Classic game you might see:

5 Russian Infantry, 2 Russian Fighters
7 British Infantry, 3 British Armor
3 American Infantry, 3 American Armor, 1 Ameircan Fighter, 1 American Bomber

KJF game you might see:

8 Russian Infantry, 3 Russian Armor, 2 Russian Fighters
7 British Infantry, 3 British Armor

Yes, you’re short a fighter and a bomber, since they’re now in the Pacific.  But how much better off are you offensively with Russia then you were with Russia and America combined???  Remember allies can defend together, but they cannot attack together.

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

Paint:

Where are you getting 8 fighters from?  DM’s post?  Cause I never said anything about 8 fighters I can remember.

USA 1:  2 Carriers, 1 Fighter purchased + 1 Battleship, 1 Transport, 1 DD, 3 Fighters starting units
USA 2:  5 Submarines + 1 DD, 2 Transport starting Units

That’s 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 5 Submarines, 3 Transports right there.

That’s no “small force” that japan has to “let” do anything.  A force that size can seize Solomons whenever it tickles their fancy to do so.  (Like 1 infantry is going to stop 3 infantry, 3 armor, 4 fighters and a battleship?  Puh-lease.)  And it’s one movement from LA, so it isn’t like Japan’s going to stop an attack there.  That’s why the game designers never gave it any value.  IMHO.

Of course, that’s assuming no American landing in Africa, which is a waste of materials for America anyway and probably won’t do much more then get 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 armor killed anyway.

Meanwhile, Japan has spent two rounds building up, has conquered unoccupied SFE and Bury, taken China and stacked some troops on the mainland.  Maybe even gotten an IC out there.

More likely then not they’ve lost at least a destroyer and a submarine, if not a battleship and a carrier as well in the counter attack on Pearl (which may have cost America her battleship and a transport, maybe even her bomber since the fighters are more valuable then the bomber in a pacific campaign.)

Yeah, that thing about the eight fighters was DM’s post.

KJF without Africa, what cheek.  I think that’s very dangerous.  But then again, I don’t see the U.S. proceeding early in the Pacific without that additional destroyer and two transports.  Without those, Japan can still make some nasty plays, but with that additional fodder, it’s pretty tough for Japan to stop the KJF.  So OK, that’s pretty interesting, yes.  On the other hand, German-owned Africa?  I think the Axis might be able to pull off a trade of Moscow for the Pacific.  Whether or not Tokyo falls is open to question, I think.

Seriously, I rarely if ever park a battleship and carrier and Pearl, just because of US battleship, transport, W. US fighter, Hawaiian fighter, and E. US bomber counterattacking.  It’s just too expensive for the Japs.  But maybe if you do that UK transport to New Guinea and fighter-sub to Solomons, you can force Japan to push a capital ship to Pearl Harbor?  I’ll have to try that.

Clarification - although SOME Japan players leave capital ships at Pearl, I haven’t for a long time, because of the US counterattack.  I typically go sub-destr-fighters-bomber vs. Pearl.  Lose a fighter or two at worst, but no capital ships are committed.  Jap carriers and a battleship consolidate off Solomons in my usual Japan move, which makes any US attack there very expensive.

[Jennifer]

I’ll admit a KJF takes more skill then a KGF.  You have to know a little something about balancing your units or you’ll loose lotsa coin for little gain.

And you can, actually, make good progress in the Pacific without those extra 3 naval ships from teh Atlantic.  They’d be an aweful big help - kinda like adding 2 cylinders to your engine helps you accellerate faster - but even without them you can still take the Pacific because Japan’s on the defense which is going to hamper them.  (Oh yea?  This aint like defending Sinkiang, India or Yakut, there’s no one territory to cover!  You gotta cover at least 4 islands - Borneo, East Indies, Philippines, and Japan)

What does America have to defend?  LA.  Maybe Alaska.  Probably nothing at all though.

And yes, if you let Germany get Africa you have GOT to move fast.  And really, there’s next to nothing you can honestly do to stop Germany from taking Africa unless Egypt goes well for you.  So you’re going to have to move fast.  The only bonus you get is with a weak Japan on the mainland, you can slowely walk your Russians to the German front, an added 30 IPC in Infantry is going to help off set the 3 rounds Germany gets with Africa.

[Guest]

Put up or shut up Jen… UK is up, and they have 1 TRN in the Pacific, and Japan still has the lion’s share of their capital ships…

[newpaintbrush]

NPB:  1.  This “small” attack force of eight fighters came from - where?  How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free?  You can’t threaten Japan’s navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters.  That means that from the Solomons, you can’t do much with those fighters.  If you build a minimal navy, you’re vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.

You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.

–

DM:  This is wrong. 
You can go to Sol as early as rd 3 (pending J moves), but more likely rd 4.
You don’t need LRA.
Ftrs on AC’s in the Wus sz can reach sz 60 and land quite easily.  Sol is only 2 moves from sz 60.
You are not vulnerable to a suicide attack.  It is waaaaaay too costly for Japan.
US starts with a BB. trn, dd in the Pac (minus Pearl).  Buy 2 AC’s 1 ftr on US 1 and you have:
1 BB, 1 DD, 2 AC, 4 ftrs, 1 trn in Wus Sz.
US 2 looks like this:
1 BB, 1 DD, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 1 trn
US 3:
1 BB, 1 DD, 4 AC, 8 ftrs, 1 trn

Now you move to Sol on US 4 and Japan is going to suicide with what???

XXXXX XXXXX

Well, when you said you were going to pop onto the Solomons, I assumed you were going early fighter heavy, planning to rush Japan (“That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers”).  But given the above information, it looks like you’re going mass carriers.  Which is probably pretty solid in general, but slow.  Which changes my whole bloody reply, because I assumed you were trying for some sorta “turbo KJF”.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  Mass air, you better be buying more ftrs/boms cause 6 ftrs, 1 bom will get slaughter.  And if you are buying air that means less ground units for Asia and you still have to deal with the unified UK1 fleet floating around the Indain ocean which consists of 1 AC, 1 ftr, 1 DD, 2 trns, 1 sub.  By UK 3 you can have a second ftr on the AC.

Or did you take that out on J1?
That carries its own downside for Japan.

XXXXX XXXXX

Right, I do advocate buying Japanese fighters against KJF.  But although the ground war in Asia suffers, it is actually not that terrible, because Japan has a hard time running troops in on J1 and J2 anyways (not enough transports).  If you just build infantry and support the attack with fighters, you can keep the fighters close to the Asian coast, and still do all kinds of fun stuff.  Not as fun as massed tanks, not nearly as much, really.  But still fun.

Yeah, killing the UK AC is a real b**** for Japan on J1, because it has to allocate fighters all over the bloody place.  I think I mentioned this in another thread somewhere, so you know it’s not like I’m just thinking of this now . . . or maybe I am?  bwahhaha, no not rly.

Typically, my response to the UK AC depends on what UK did.  Germany should have killed everything in Anglo-Egypt, so I don’t have to worry about a second UK fighter on that Indian carrier on UK1, which is potentially horrible for Japan.  This should leave me with Pearl and Asia for my fighter targets.  I can usually ignore the UK fleet depending on its positioning, and perhaps kill it on J2.  Although that isn’t possible if UK consolidates southwest of Australia, UK consolidation carries its own set of drawbacks that I am sure you will be familiar with.

Short version:  Usually I kill the UK AC on J2, not J1, because I just can’t spare the fighters on J1.  But sometimes I leave Pearl alone and kill the entire Indian/Pacific UK fleet instead.  Which carries its own drawbacks for Japan, which I am sure you will be familiar with as well.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  Japan is quickly forced by to sz 60 (or more likely 61) conceding the South Pacific to the US and UK fleets.

XXXXX XXXXX

My point is that it’s quick once it starts happening, and very difficult, if not impossible for Japan to stop.  But US4 to Solomons is not what I consider “quick” overall.  Quick once it starts happening, yes, but quick overall, no.  Quick for me is US1 in Algeria, US2 in Libya or Norway, then steady progression.  US4 without any territory gains is what I call slow.  Of course, once you grab Solomons, you start decisively holding 3 and 4 IPC islands, whereas in Europe, it’s hard to hold anything against a German counterattack.  So basically I play a quick ramp up against Germany to bleed off its strength, then I gradually squish it to death.  As opposed to a gradual buildup against Japan, followed by a quick offensive.  And why do I prefer that?  Because I find that if you go slow against Japan, you give the Allies time to crack Moscow.

The US bleeds Japan’s strength off if Japan tries to recapture the islands (and if Japan doesn’t, US can build factories that pump out 4 units per turn each).  But it’s still US 6-7th turn to support Moscow, at least.  And if you fly US fighters to Moscow to assist, the US Pacific must retreat because of the loss of fighter cover, unless you have long range aircraft.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  The logical course at that point is for Japan to concede the South Pacific and the 12+ IPC over the next turn or two, in order to save the Imperial Navy.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  (in response to a comment about Japan leaving infatnry/fighters in Japan)  Yes!!!  This is precisely the point.  If Japan is leaving 2 inf and ftrs behind that is less units to Asia.  It becomes dead weight and very frustrating.  If Japan is leaving anything behind they are not maximizing their purchases or their moves.  This is bad and to be exploited by the US and UK (if they still have their fleet around).

XXXXX XXXXX

No.  Not rly.  Because Japan can afford to cycle fighters that land in Japan and still assist in Asia.  And because the U.S. must outspend Japan to threaten Tokyo.  The US must spend something on the order of 16 IPC to outweigh Japan’s 6.  That is - US spends 8 IPC on a transport, 5 IPC on a tank, and 3 IPC on an infantry, while Japan spends 6 IPC on infantry.  Even then, the U.S. only has the advantage of skew.  (Not inconsiderable, but not quite what you want).  If the US does NOT spend that much on transports, Japan does not need to spend that much on defensive infantry.

Really, the above paragraph does not entirely reflect the situation, because keeping Japanese fighters at Tokyo reduces their effectiveness on the Asian front (unless you have an aggro Russian player that is trying to make gains in Asia, in which case the Japanese fighters function quite well).  And the US fighters have multiple possible targets, including the Japanese navy, and can concentrate their forces while Japan must divide theirs.  BUT, even with those compensating factors, it is no joke to try to take Tokyo by sheer force.  It is far easier to try to grab Asia and the Pacific Islands and reduce Japan’s IPCs, then attack the weakened Japan into oblivion.  But that is very time-consuming.

And, by the way, the UK and the US should not BOTH have their fleets.  If they both do, the Japanese player probably sucks.  Because the UK can consolidate off Australia, but then there is no particular reason why Japan shouldn’t do Pearl.  But if the UK decides to go aggro in the Pacific, Japan can choose to kill UK or US navies.  Either way, if Japan doesn’t kill EITHER navy, well, I just don’t know what the heck Japan is thinking.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM: Btw, I didn’t mean 2 IC on rd 1 or anything.
As a personal note, I go no J IC until at least rd 2, possibly rd 3.
I also find the Man/Sin IC connection quite deadly.  Man IC say rd 2, Sin IC around round 4 or 5.

XXXXX XXXXX

In a KGF game, I produce gigantic loads of tanks, and switch them between India, China, and Yakut as needed.  I shuttle infantry from Tokyo to French Indochina to support the attack on India, and into Burytia or the Asian coast as needed.

I find that I do not use mass ICs, because I just have so many transports running around, I can just barely squeak out one - and even that one, I’m thinking twice about these days.  BUT if it works, why not try it, I say.  Maybe I’ll try to pop a Ssinkiang IC out one of these days.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  I am by no means suggesting the US can just go full force Pac strat in all games.  There are certain things to look for as a Allied player.  Air and trns can be one way, but there are still holes in that.  Big holes.
You’re offensive punch is limited when trying to hit the US/UK fleets.
And you can’t prevent the US move to the Sol, which is problematic.

XXXXX XXXXX

Ah.  OK then.

XXXXX XXXXX

Read the rest.  No real additional comments.  Pretty much agree, yes, yes.

[Feds10]

Wow…cudos to newpintbrush, darthmaximus, jen, and ncscswitch. i’ve only faced a KJF twice…both were horrible attempts…and they failed in terms of killing japan first…b/c th german player was so horrible that it never even happened…(lost on uk4)

great info…amazing counter strat’s and opinions

id give you all medals…but i rele don’t wanna go through the trouble…

i wanna face al of you in the near future

feds 10

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

Put up or shut up Jen… UK is up, and they have 1 TRN in the Pacific, and Japan still has the lion’s share of their capital ships…

Bah, you’re not even a full round in at that point and you’re puffing your feathers.  Barring more insane dice, you’re going down hard!

It’s not even USA 2 and I already have you out classed and out gunned in the Atlantic and the Pacific and I havn’t even gotten to burying you yet!

[Jennifer]

@Feds10:

Wow…cudos to newpintbrush, darthmaximus, jen, and ncscswitch. i’ve only faced a KJF twice…both were horrible attempts…and they failed in terms of killing japan first…b/c th german player was so horrible that it never even happened…(lost on uk4)

great info…amazing counter strat’s and opinions

id give you all medals…but i rele don’t wanna go through the trouble…

i wanna face al of you in the near future

feds 10

Yea the major problem with debates like these are you end up with those off hand battles where Germany attacks a larger force but for somereason ends up wearing bulletproof armor becasue they get by unscathed.  So instead of a light strafe, it ends up in a route.  Or Japan lucks out and scores 6 of 8 submarine hits followed by 11 of 20 regular ship hits against a slightly more powerful combined navy pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat like I did against JSP.

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

Bah, you’re not even a full round in at that point and you’re puffing your feathers.  Barring more insane dice, you’re going down hard!

It’s not even USA 2 and I already have you out classed and out gunned in the Atlantic and the Pacific and I havn’t even gotten to burying you yet!

You have the Atlantic… but only with PARITY to the Luftwaffe (and that is far better than is normal in a game).

As for the Pacific… Japan still dropping units in Asia, and your teeth have been effectively pulled in the Pacific.  You can be annoying for a few turns while you continue to gear up in the Pacific, but by then it will be FAR too late…

[Sankt Hallvard]

Bla-bla-bla. Can someone summarize this thread? KJF is now considered a viable strategy or does one need to be a professor to execute it to have a chance?

[DarthMaximus]

Lol!  :-D

IMO, yes it is possible and viable given the right circumstances.

[Jennifer]

It’s very viable.

Also, the threat of KJF is even MORE viable.  As you can see with my game with Switch, I managed to not only destroy 25% of his naval assets without a scratch (Pearl on J1 doesn’t count, you don’t get to do anything to stop it) but I forced him to blow 2 rounds of development to stop an assumed KJF tactic, all without loosing any assets I wouldn’t have lost anyway.

It’s B > E > A > Utiful when a plan comes together!

Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe does not have any say over the Atlantic at all.  It’s not shared.  It’s denied for anything but pleasure flights over unoccupied waters. :P

[newpaintbrush]

@Sankt:

Bla-bla-bla. Can someone summarize this thread?

You just did.

Crack pipe!