Japan's response to KJF

@general-6-stars looking good!

@fenderbender4 Hi there. I certainly do not mean don’t attack anywhere. Where there are easy victories make the most of them. But don’t place a significant G force at the mercy of a superior R one.

Hi Argothair! Cool to see your reply! Would be fun to see this in a real dual! Actually that would be the best way to proof certain ideas! ;) but for the sake of the forum discussion we can battle in words! I will share my comments on the points you make.

First of all I do agree that England should spend a considerable amount of money on building up a fleet. This will one way or an other revert pressure from the USSR to the west. Germany either need to build planes to deadzone the Atlantic, or it has to build a defense of infantry. Like in the real history a treat of an invasion already ties down a large force, but at some point you will need to execute it. Norway is still a good starting point. The downside of building the fleet early is that no fighters are going east to support the Indian contingent. This will take pressure off Japan.

Next to that England has to build infantry and artillery in India to at least maintain the stalemate with Japan in Birma. The role of England in the East would not be so big, but it can maintain itself. The pressure on Japan need to come from the US. But it can grab one of the money Islands when it sees a chance. Overall this means that Japan will take longer to conquer. But with Russia getting more support the Allies have more time. More time is equal to more chance to win.

I think the factory in Egypt would be an ok investment. Especially if Germany leaves it alone. Though i doubt if it is a better investment then a fleet in the Atlantic. The Allies need to spend their IPC’s wisely. It can not do both. It could serve to send a few units to help defend Moscow or Caucasus. Though i believe it would be too less by the time it is needed. I like the idea of making a second front in Europe. That can be more effective because Germany need to spread his armies. If you only fortify Moscow Germany can stack into one big army.

Also i agree with your argument about Russia taking Karelia with force if Germany puts down 4 inf in every border territory. But this depend a lot on the outcome of R1! Did Russia get diced in the opening round? Then there are not enough troops in West Russia! Did Russia get a bid? Or did Russia do a Ukraine straffe? What did Russia buy first turn? There is a big chance (i don’t know a percentage) that Russia can not even take Karelia without being wiped out! If Germany would have bought 10 inf as i had suggested and spend the rest on offensive pips, then Germany could have bought 2 tanks. That means Germany had 12 to 13 tanks in range, plus at least 6 inf (2 from Norway plus 4 from Belo Russia plus anything from Baltic), plus 5 or 6 planes. The chance is huge that Karelia is deadzoned! So you should have had luck with the dice and smart with bits and buys to make this work! And it will be tricky still! Even if it works, Germany would take West Russia in stead, and also Russia would not be able to maintain 26 IPC.

What i do not believe is that Russia is able to send units east. Because Germany comes in too strong. For Russia to survive the first 6 rounds against Germany it needs every unit it can get. Even if England decides to build a fleet and harass the coastal territories, then it takes time before this gets some momentum. Overall this means that more inf stay behind to guard the coast. Here i think you overstate the possibilities of England and underestimate the possibilities of Germany. If it wants to maintain its stalemate in Birma, then it can not build much more then about 6 units in Europe. Or it need to buy inf only, which is an army without teeth. At the other hand Germany stays at at least 40 IPC to turn 6 even if they don’t do well. That is because whatever England takes from Germany, they either take back, or they compensate with Russian IPC’s. Most probably making 40+ every turn. By turn 6 the more and more Inf need to stay in the West to fight England. Then around that time it need to be clear whether operation Barbarossa was successful. By that time roughly 50 to 60 inf had been send East. Giving Germany a good possibility to take Moscow. Plus, if the German plan was successful it can continue the pressure with the Caucasus factory.

So i do believe the battle is won between turn 6 and 8. Then it need to proof if Germany was successful in taking Moscow without loosing other terrain to much. And you are right with you comment that it matters with how much Army Germany has left after the sack of Moscow. Are that 20 tanks or 4 tanks? If Germany lost his entire stack of inf but kept the offensive force, then it is not too difficult to swing South and take India and Egypt. After that the Allies go down hill, or does Germany has a few tanks left over and does it need to start build up a force while it need to fight England at the same time? Then probably it is a down hill battle for Germany, which will not get any help from Japan.

At the side of Japan i’m not so sure whether you are right about how quickly it will fall. Obviously the fighters need to stay at sea or close to sea. Japan starts with one bomber and should purchase at least one more. The bombers have a great reach and can both threaten sea zones and help doing some territory trading.

So, the main focus for Japan is defense. It does mostly naval purchases. And you are right that after a couple of turns Japan can not keep up with the US anymore. That shouldn’t be the 4th turn but later if you do it well. That is because the US need to sail their ships across the ocean first. And further: Japan starts with a little head-start, so it has an advantage over the US with a couple of turns. Its best bet is to deadzone the important zones around the Japan with cheap subs. That is cheaper then a balanced fleet, so it can hold of the US fleet for 1 or 2 turns longer than it otherwise would. However, once the US fleet is defensive stronger than the Japanese is offensive, all hope for Japans naval ambition is lost. It can probably buy itself an other turn by retreating a zone closer to Japan. After that it can do two things: wait and see how it will be destroyed, or be opportunistic and attack the US fleet. A lot depends on how the board looks like. Japan might be able to kill all ships except for planes, or just decimate the US fleet. Whatever Japan does, it is not allowed to loose its planes! At the turn you decide to strike, you should be wise to purchase a IC on the mainland, because after that there is no shipping troops possible anymore. This should be about the sixth or seventh turn, depending on a number of factors. Those factors are besides luck and skill, chooses in purchases and early attacks, like the SZ37 attack.

After Japans fleet is gone, Japan need to turtle even more. If the game is in favor of the Axis, then Moscow should have been fallen and Germany starts to pressure England. Japans only income comes from the mainland now. And the US might be busier helping defend India against Germany then it is to sack Tokyo. If that is what is happening, then those are bad days for the Allies. If the situation is that Germany did not take Moscow, while the UK/US are taking territories in the mainland from Japan, while building transports to threaten an invasion of the Japanese homeland, then it are dark days for the Axis!

In a OOB scenario i’ll put my money on the Axis for sure. With any bits the odds might change in favor of the Allies. Also a lot depend on luck in the first round. If Russia looses too much units in the opening round, and the UK doesn’t kill a ship in a SZ37 attack, you might reconsider whether KJF is feasible! But if you see the opposite happening, then KJF strategy can be a very good alternative!

Congrats guys! I heard it was a masterful use of Italy. Hope we get to play each other next time. Please be sure to check out our events on Nashville Axis & Allies Meetup. Maybe y’all can come down for a visit.

It was great meeting y’all.

Siparo

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.

There usually is a fairly safe spot to land the bomber.

Assuming the US gets one hit and you lose your 4 move ftr you can end up with a sub/cru left there, and the cru blocks some moves, but even if US wants to go after your bomber that exposes their battleship.  It’s not usually a trade they’ll want to make that early, especially if they were planning on bringing the BB to the Atlantic to help with a KGF.  The surviving cru also becomes the “easier” 12 ipc target to hit with potentially less risk of a counter depending on where the J ACs are.

I’ll typically plan on landing my surviving J ftr with the bom so I have the freedom to move my two carriers where ever I want, then I gauge the results of Pearl and figure out if I really need the ftr with the bomber or do I need it elsewhere.

Thanks for the explanations everyone, I understand it now.  A good way to help novice players out a bit.  I’ve probably played a hundred or more games of the classic version and that would have been helpful at the beginning.  Unfortunately the two that taught us were more interested in winning than properly teaching the game.  Once I purchased the game myself things changed dramatically.

My teaching method for newbies is to basically get them up to my speed as quickly as possible.  This means that the first game or two I will point out things, even if it is detrimental to my own side, so that they learn for the future.  That way they have a fair chance and enjoy the game and want to play again.  After a game or two they’re normally doing well on their own and I can enjoy a good challenging game.

Did the same thing when I was teaching my son Starfleet Battles.  Now he more than gives me a tough fight and in fact wins quite a bit.  His Kzinti has beaten my Lyran five time in the last seven games!  So this bid idea will be of use if I need it for newbies in the future.  Good idea.  Thanks again.

I find the concentrated bomber strategy very interesting as an approach for the US, for the reasons outlined here - the cost of getting US infantry into the action is incredibly high, so much so that Air power compares much better vs. land forces  for the US than for other nations.

How many bombers is too many? I was picturing maybe 2 US bombers on US1, but for the purposes of strategic bombing, the early IPCs denied will be magnified throughout the game, so perhaps a US1 buy of 3 bombers makes sense?

Unless Japan was posturing in range of a US attack, I imagine I would build the bombers in western US and then send them directly to the UK for use in SBRs vs. Germany (or sinking/deterring a German fleet). Would you agree?