How does Russia stay alive in KJF?

Which set up are you playing? For A&AO in Gencon or TripleA World War II v5 1942 SE TR, basically USA is spending 100% in Pacific for several rounds to prop up India, clip a money island and sink or push IJN off sz61, while UK/USSR are basically spending 100% to hold the line at W.Russia/Caucasus and the India/Persia/Kazakh wedge.

The most important change in that set up is the extra 2 inf on India, and altered German opener (bomber in Ukraine, naval adjustments in Med and Atlantic.) That set up basically takes G1 Egypt off the table and German press in the east is delayed by a round. Some will invert the canal order (first Trans G1 then Egypt G2) or delay canal with Libya push G1, or ignore for Ukraine or Gibraltar press, but Africa is slower like that.

For OOB bid is in the double digits, going north of 20 ipcs sometimes. So that gives other options to mess with IJN via subs say, or to shut down Med before G fleet can really do anything meaningful with it.

For Gencon in A&AO still no bid is supported, but I’d guess Allies are still good for a hitpoint or two in the bid on balance. Prob most would use vs Ukraine R1, though 6 ipcs or higher opens up some interest for KJF with a Brit sub.

To defeat the Japanese AI in TripleA, the best way to pressure their fleet is from the air. Fighter/Bomber spam works pretty well for that (against human, dd/sub spam is more reliable over the long haul and just stacking hitpoints, but the machine in tripleA gets brain freeze vs air attack power). HardAI will tend to retreat their fleet rather than hold position to defend sz61/62 the way most humans would. Been a while since I played vs the AI for latest updates, but the computer is pretty good at the Tokyo turtle, so I’d just bypass and try to force their fleet off the home island. The AI tends to build production on Manchuria too, so that’s another quick crash if you can nuke the transports or force them out of range. HardAI in tripleA has its own play patterns that you can start to tease apart, but its pretty decent at the basics. An income bonus to the AI can be fun for harder challenge once you’ve got it pegged, or for painting the whole map world conquest type challenge after most human opponents would throw in the towel.

The computer opponent in A&AO is pretty middling, since it doesn’t know how to use aircraft properly and will land fighters in vulnerable positions even from the first round. On that platform its pretty much pvp or bust, since the computer can’t hold its own.

ps. just played a few out using the stable, saw computer Japan going for early bomber focus, with more Moscow raids and such, and a couple fleet sweepers when the bombers stacked to the ceiling after their fleet gives hehe. Feels improved from the last few times I played hard AI. Still I think the best way is to push up on IJN from the south first sz44 then 49 to springboard into the island trade. Aussie fleet doubles back to keep the pressure on for round 4, and sack a transport to start the exchange. Japan sometimes goofs by pressuring north towards Alaska and such and leaving a money island out reach to set up shop. Russia surviving or how for long prob comes down almost entirely to W. Russia/Ukraine result in the first round with no bid in Gencon, but if playing vs a computer I imagine most would just dip after W. Russia slaughter anyway. If Russia gets in W. Russia with 6 inf+ though and handles Ukraine center wedge can get pretty strong before G can crash the party. AI Germany pushes their art stacks pretty east pretty well, but also suffers from undervaluing their starting air. Break downs for their fighter landings can give Allies a leg up.

The Hard AI can be made pretty challenging by giving the computer opponents each a bid of an extra starting bomber edit. AI is pretty good at building off early bomber strength. But it also struggles sometimes on air protection, landing them in vulnerable spots or withdrawing from a spot where a teammates air has landed, that’s usually where it gives I find.

Anyhow have fun on the next one! Glad to see Redrum’s AI still pulling out some strong play

Yeah there are definitely ways to pull it off. In the plat tier for Allies during the first ranked pre-season I saw a lot of peeps doing some clutch KJF play. I think KGF is more reliable when you’re not sure about the opponent, but at either end of the experience curve KJF opens up.

My interest in A&A always comes in these sort of manic waves, where I’ll be all intensely engaged with it for a few months, and then dead to the universe for a few months, then back in it again hehe. Weirdly this past couple months I’ve had less free time during the plague than I did before it cracked off, so not sure about the latest and greatest A&AO, but its cool to see how just when I think I got it pegged in the opener, someone will come up with some new surprise to explore.

I think A&AO by kind of straight-jacketing the set up with no bid, has probably resulted in the most sustained playtest of a given ‘official’ A&A board to date. Even though the rules in A&AO are slightly different owing to friendly landing rules and defense profiles, their approach to the no bid Gencon variant there is probably more consistent for a control than the actual live tournaments where a bid is included and the time limit or live play pressures factor into how people play it, a bid of anything changes a lot.

Now that everyone is all used to the no bid pressure cooker and being deprived of any bid, it might be fun if the idea of the bid was re-introduced in a really deliberate, slow and methodical way. I think the following for example would be pretty fun for an Allied advantage to try…

Bid Season: A bid to starting income of only 1-2 ipc. Which obv isn’t enough to pre-place an inf hitpoint, so everyone would then have to think about it like “OK, what could I do to tip things with 25-26 ipcs as Russia? 32-33 ipcs as UK? or 43-44 as USA?” Like maybe there is an interesting split there, and its fun because it puts the emphasis on first round purchases rather than battles. Let everyone play it for a few months as the new thing.

Then bring the bid up to 3 ipcs. After everyone has had fun exploring the purchase potential of 1-2 ipcs, now its about using it all in one spot for the extra inf hitpoint (e.g. Ukraine attack for most players I’d guess). The choice would be between playing Allies with the hitpoint boost, or as Axis vs the 1-2 income boost. See how the balance fairs for a month or two like that.

Then introduce the 5 ipc bid for Allies. This bid is really interesting because it combines aspects of the two earlier forms, mainly because 5 is such an awkward number for pre-placement bidding. E.g. Nobody is going to spend it all on an AAgun, so they’re either buying 1 inf (for Ukraine attack) with a 2 ipc remainder left over, or 1 art (for Ukraine attack) and 1 ipc remainder left over. And since everyone had a chance to explore the 1-2 ipc purchasing bid in the very first iteration of a bid season, now they’ll have thoughts about how to best use the remainder income. Whether to just take the inf hitpoint or boost it to art for attack advantage, and then where to use/split the remainder most effectively.

I’d actually stop there before hitting the 6 ipc threshold so it doesn’t hose the naval game right out the gate, and just see if people like the balance on the game at Allies bid 1-5 ipcs. In other words, instead of a broad bid range up front, stage it in, community wide, so that people can have a chance to tease things out before it goes straight into pre-placement bid extra hitpoints dynamic. By stopping just short of 6 ipcs, we keep the focus of the playbalance at a single hitpoint on the ground, and avoid sub breakers to the first round battles.

Having experienced the long deprivation of playing with no bid whatsoever, a bid ranged 1-5 ipcs would suddenly seem pretty awesome and might result in a satisfying play balance for most. But if its not enough, then when you finally introduce the 6 ipc bid, the board resets again. Suddenly everyone focuses on the choice between an extra sub, or 2 hitpoints on the ground. If each season lasted a couple months, by the time you got to a bid 6+ we’d have a lot of information from the games at different tiers to see where the balance actually falls. Maybe 6 is plenty?

That’s wishfull thinking though probably. Challenge for A&AO is coming up with something that works for their matching system. I don’t know that they will ever include familiar bidding as a way to determine sides, because of how their matchmaking process is set up. But maybe they could do it in bid pools? Allies +1 makes up one pool, Allies +2 another and so on. Seems like it would be easier to do it with starting income than preplacement units though, since I don’t know how they’d add a new bidphase to the match, but maybe they could auto add income prior to launch? Probably the easiest thing for them to do is just change the set up, and offer Gencon 2 or whatever. But its too bad, cause bidding is kind of a fun aspect of the game that keeps it from getting stale over time. You could try it in tripleA, but then you don’t have enough games really to tell because the player base isn’t there, and anyway if it was most would just be playing G40 or AA50 or some other game I’d guess over 1942.3 hehe

ps. this is an aside, but the main issue we have right now for playing the official A&A game digitally, is that its not 1:1 with the rules on the physical board. So the solutions for playbalance are going to be different (and unfortunately don’t port well from the one to the other). Kind of my main idea for what a digital game should be, or how it might be used, is as a way to formalize and popularize solutions that can also work on the physical board, and which are frankly needed for playbalance there.

In a face to face game, usually the opponent has already been chosen and the bid is used as a way to choose sides based on player confidence/skill assessment. The bid is basically a handicap there.

In the online game the opponent is chosen at random. So I might imagine a way where the bid amount requested brings up a pool of players willing to play Axis vs your Allies at that amount. But it still requires some kind of preliminary game phase or launch option.

I wish the digital game and the physical one were treated the same way, a hybrid release, same promotion and coordinated like that. It is possible to play tripleA or face to face using the A&AO rules in a live game, if you player enforced things like friendly fighter landings or forced casualty selection etc but I don’t know that it’d be any more popular than using OOB rules or Gencon rules and a tournament bid. But it’d be nice if both had the same conventions for play I think.

For tournament live play conditions, sudden death you could add a timer of some sort. But yeah, the cool thing about that would be that when a new release dropped you’d have a way to stitch the two communities together more.

I guess right now short answer to keeping Russia afloat is either bid or solid luck in their opener, depending which version you’re playing. OOB they’d need a bid for sure. Gencon I think a bid might help for choosing sides, but balance their seems more delicate and people seem to have fun with allies even with no bid, so I don’t know if it’d even need to go to double digits to get what we want out of it. I’d for sure play Allies in Gencon with +9 it’d be way more fun than 0 hehe. So least you got a fairly narrow range on bid, closer to what it was in Revised.

But for Russia doesn’t seem like a lot of great things you can do if dice go poorly and no bid to stabilize opener. I mean best strategic choice on offer is probably where to land the second fighter, and what to do with the Kazakh dude. Bringing him back to Caucasus is about the most you can do to juice the eastern front. Everything else comes down to the opening rolls. Only buys I’ve seen really doing much good are 3 art 4 inf (standard), or 4 inf 2 tanks (Karelia aggressive). I still like 3 art 2 inf 1 tank (ultra agro) since it’s money if you sweep both attacks for the follow up, but then probably I just get hosed in W. Russia or Ukraine battle and regret it lol. I think most attack Ukraine all-in to kill bomber, and just take it in the teeth if that fails.

Thread title should be changed to reflect the topic is KJF in 1942 Online specifically. Seriously.

" In this particular game, when it came time to abandon W. Russia for Moscow I decided to do it as a strafe and lost too many units"

Sometimes dice determine outcome, but best play minimizes that. Plainly, was the strafe appropriate?

Sometimes you should not attack even when you have overwhelming odds - if the odds are likely to turn more in your favor later.

“Against an equally skilled human I don’t know how you would get anywhere before Russia dies.”

You need clear and realistic strategic and tactical goals in the KJF, and criteria to determine when you’re moving from one phase to another.

“Most Allied plans regardless of overall strategy seem to think that it is helpful for the UK to build 3x INF for India and 2x FTR for chain movement down to India. This is a $29 expense and the UK starts at $31 income. In my game vs. the AI it sent the Med fleet out into the south Atlantic and let me own Africa until it started sending tanks down from the Caucasus. A real human is likely to take Egypt turn 1 and Trans-Jordan turn 2”

Jesus.

First, you need to understand 1942 Online KJF is totally different to 1942v2 KJF. Stuff that makes sense on 1942v2 is literally impossible in 1942 Online because of the implementation.

The normal dynamic is Japan, US, then UK. In 1942v2 this means US can build naked carriers, push carriers, create eligible landing zones for UK fighters. This lets UK air hit a load of sea zones it otherwise can’t, which changes the necessary composition for Japan’s defense, plus accelerates the US fleet progression timeline in the Pacific. In 1942 Online you can’t use allied carriers, so Japan can just push out two subs a turn starting J2, as I outlined on Steam forums. Dig through some posts there for details.

2 fighters a turn - just stop. Simple analogy. Rock-paper-scissors, your strategy guide says “play rock”. Opponent plays paper. You still play rock? No. Same thing. You get 2 fighters a turn regardless? That’s clearly not right.

So there you’re talking about 2 ftr chain to India. But you can’t take that for granted. If West Russia broke on G1, which is a real possibility off dice outcomes, you can’t route fighters into West Russia or Archangel because Germany can blow them up. You can’t guarantee you control Iceland if Germany captures it on G1 (I don’t RECOMMEND it but it happens) and going via Africa is too slow so misses the timing. Plenty more but I won’t get into that here.

. . . also as Black_Elk wrote, G1 Egypt is off the table.

“The Germans can also shave off at least another FTR by threatening Sea Lion if they do the CV purchase G1 and stock FTRs in Norway, which still allows them to clean out W. Russia when ready”

If Germany does that they suck. Again, plenty more but won’t get into it here.

" Japanese air force will be sent to Europe where the Axis can then clean out any Allied fleet with a 1-2 punch (although at the expense of the Japanese air of course). I haven’t seen any human opponents cotton on to this trick yet."

Every single Germany and Japan strategic/tactical post I’ve made (that I recall) says to send the Japanese air force to Europe. It’s like my whole thing. Posts going back for months on Steam forums.

Short version - if you didn’t want to dig through old posts there, you don’t want to read through text walls here. It’s why I left out the long explanations. But long story short, KJF in 1942 Online is trash. They say they’ll put in allied carrier use, and when that happens - well you still won’t have live defender decisions so exploitation of defensive profiles and all will still make KJF in 1942 Online much ****ier than it is in 1942v2 - but at least KJF won’t be the burning trash fire it is right now.

If you really want to be a snowflake and KJF in 1942 Online - uh, again, trying to keep it short and simple, you need to leverage UK’s income to change the timing on Allied progress in the Pacific. And probably that means taking chances.

Norway isn’t good. German fighters need to be in range of multiple targets and Norway puts them out one turn and possibly harms way. The new deal has UK building a Factory on UK 2 or 3 if they go KJF so they can shuck 5 tanks or land units toward FIC. Germany needs to build the Carrier and 1 more transport ( G1-2) in central medd so with the Battleship they can beat UK or take her factory in Egypt. The Allied standard is still for UK factory in Borneo, take out the DD and AP on UK1, and USA takes Philippines and makes her own factory in a few turns.

@Eqqman - I don’t mind if you edit your posts. But you gotta understand sometimes I’ll be writing responses to stuff you edited out or whatever. Like how Imperious Leader addressed your saying Germany buys a carrier and stacks Norway to threaten invasion of London, and now I think you edited your statement about that out.

@Eqqman said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

@aardvarkpepper said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

Jesus.

Still classy, I see :).

Ha ha. But seriously, you got your choice on what you wanna focus on - what I say or how I say it. If I were representing a company or whatever I’d be circumspect. But then my agenda wouldn’t be actually answering your question - it would be to play public relations.

How’s this answer sound? “You’ve clearly thought things through, and I have to agree there just isn’t an answer”. That’s your standard PR BS right there. You don’t have to think things through, I don’t have to explain them, and there’s zero progress. If you want to do that, there’s no shortage of posters that want to play diplo all day. It’s an easy political win. But me, I go numbers and resolutions.

What do you want to focus on?

@aardvarkpepper said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

Thread title should be changed to reflect the topic is KJF in 1942 Online specifically. Seriously.

You need clear and realistic strategic and tactical goals in the KJF, and criteria to determine when you’re moving from one phase to another.

That’s real talk. Look, some posters are so wrapped up in their egos they take anything as an attack, or an attempt to “neg” or whatever. But if you don’t have a defined plan and criteria, you’re just lost.

If you had all the answers, you wouldn’t need to ask, right? So when you ask, and someone gives you an answer - if it’s not an answer you LIKE or an answer you EXPECT, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good answer. When I say you need to provide the specifics, maybe that’s not the answer you wanted or expected, but it IS how it is.

@Eqqman said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

Since I haven’t played you in a game I stand by my statement. Presumably there is a drawback to this strategy or more people would be willing to try it.

Usually when you write something like “I stand by my statement”, you’re affirming your commitment to a statement others are disagreeing with. But explicitly, I say yes you should send Japanese air force to Europe, and I’ll say here I expect most human players don’t do it. So where’s the disagreement? If you want to stand by your statement, you’ll have to stand by your statement with someone else because I agree with that much.

As to “presumably there is a drawback . . . or more people would be willing to try it” - straight up, I think most players in the 1942 Online meta are bad. There’s no live defender decisions, you can’t use allied carriers (supposedly that’s going to change but it certainly hasn’t yet), those are major major changes. To top it off there’s bugs, plus no rewind or board state editor - and on top of that you can’t record games to review phase by phase. Even the supposed War Diary doesn’t tell you defender casualty allocations, it just says what went in and what came out - and knowing casualty allocation decisions shapes your understanding of your opponent’s risk preferences. Way I figure it, all the serious veterans gave up on 1942 Online and are sticking to TripleA - where they’re playing 1940 Global anyways. So pretty much the ones that did go for 1942 Online are the ones that didn’t mind a bunch of compromises, and of course you’re not going to get sharp commentary off that.

Though if you’re going to get ANY sharp commentators on the Axis and Allies org boards for 1942 Online, I’d say probably you already got your answers off Black Elk and Imperious Leader. Black Elk I’d say has the experience and has thought things through - though I don’t know that he’d break everything down numerically. Imperious Leader also has a chunk of experience, though I’d say for him it’s probably really more he speaks from intuition. I mean, if Hobbes would comment that would be great but I haven’t seen him around in years so eh.

Anyways @Eqqman you can post details and we can go from there. Or you can NOT post details or whatever. Your call.

I don’t object to sharing my thoughts - unlike Certain Posters That Want To Keep Game Plans Secret (wink wink) - but seriously we can’t be having a discussion without details.

eqqman: G1 buys Baltic carrier
aardvark: Allies go KGF, not KJF, and win
eqqman: G1 attacks Egypt
aardvark: Germany is dumb, Allies win again
eqqman: Japan ignores India
aardvark: lol, Allies win

Seriously, that’s the level of discussion without those important details. And again, this isn’t me trying to “neg” or whatever. Take Baltic carrier for example. Think about the details that you didn’t provide - but that I’ll fill in.

Imagine Germany buys a Baltic carrier. What’s the board state? Let’s assume LHTR setup (UK battleship is accompanied by UK destroyer and other changes). Since we’re discussing 1942 Online specifically - as you mentioned in your second post in this thread - that’s appropriate, as LHTR setup is what’s used for ranked games. Also you don’t get a bid like you do in other setups which bears mentioning. Let’s also assume all players are competent. Anything to object to so far?

Don’t get me wrong, if you feel something’s wrong but you can’t put your finger on it - that’s fine. But you have to understand if we’re going to discuss things in a productive manner, we have to write about what we CAN talk about, not what we CAN’T define.

As the players are competent, we know the R1 open did not have particularly bad dice. Because if R1 DID have bad dice on that level, then Germany would have done tank dash. Also it’s likely that Russia didn’t park fighters on Archangel - and that has some implications for how Russia wrapped up Ukraine / Caucasus, but we’ll just ignore that (though we shouldn’t really) for simplicity.

So now what happens off G1 Baltic carrier buy? Preserves the German Baltic transport for invasion threat - which is going to be what, one infantry, one tank, and four fighters? UK has a higher defender count if it literally does nothing.

You can screw with the numbers to push Germany’s attack higher - but EVERY such action must be paid for in risk or position one way or another. And that’s something that a lot of bum posters on Steam and Discord refuse to get into. They say with their mystical mumbo jumbo reasoning that XYZ does this . . . but ALSO does that.

So let’s look at this a bit closer. In the LHTR setup, if you want moderately good odds against the UK battleship / destroyer / Russian sub, you must send two submarines, two fighters, and something else - typically the cruiser, but if you’re okay with some risk and counters maybe a third sub. But that means UK’s destroyer off East Canada lives, as does US’s East US fleet. And if UK’s East Canada destroyer lives, that gives odds-on for UK to blow up any German subs that survived the G1 battle, plus the UK transport can move over a tank from East Canada (even though I think usually that’s not necessary).

So the first question you have to ask is - Germany has to commit to buying a carrier before knowing the outcome of any G1 battles. So exactly how much did Germany leave itself open to dice? If Germany tried a load of crazy things and lucksacked into the wins it needed, then sure, we can address that situation. But you need to SPECIFY that you’re talking about that situation, because normally if Germany tries a bunch of attacks that aren’t odds-on, some are going to fail - and that’s going to leave Germany open to counters.

Since we’re specifying details - let’s say Germany decided to hit with 3 subs 2 fighters and lost no fighters. I think that’s reasonable enough. We can’t say that’s the case for all games, but it should happen a reasonable amount of time. You’re free to disagree, but if you do, remember you have to say what happened specifically instead.

And why 3 subs? Because if you don’t have at least a cruiser at Baltic, you risk Russian sub submerging then having an odds-on attack against a carrier and transport. Even carrier plus cruiser is not great defense against a sub - I’ve won that battle twice with the Russian sub.

So this in turn means that UK probably destroys all German subs in the Atlantic by end of UK1, and US can use a destroyer block against the German battleship / transport in the Mediterranean. I don’t say that’s the best line. But let’s just say it’s an option - and from here, I won’t be qualifying things; I’ll just say “assume xyz”.

So - four fighters. Why not five? Well that’s where things start to be a problem. Say Germany captured Gibraltar. Germany knows US can destroyer block. So why does Germany capture Gibraltar? So it can threaten a larger invasion of UK? Sure. But also to threaten a unified G2 fleet off France. That’s the real reason.

But then what? If Germany moves its battleship to Gibraltar, it’s vulnerable to attack from the UK cruiser, the UK destroyer (from Med) and the UK bomber. So did Germany move its battleship to Gibraltar? Probably not without at least trying to whack the UK cruiser. And there’s only a 33.3% chance a lone German fighter (sourced from Germany) survives that attack. And even if it does survive the attack, Germany has to fortify Morocco - well, I won’t get into that here.

You could say there’s a German bomber too, but I say the Russian objective in Ukraine is the German bomber. When it’s dead, Russia can retreat. Which for whatever reason in the 1942 Online meta isn’t the norm, though I think it WAS the norm for the board game meta.

Or you could say Germany doesn’t push for a G2 fleet off France. But then what? A UK1 sub build threatens to destroy any underpowered German fleet at low cost. And UK can afford to do it too - especially if Germany can’t even escape (and it shouldn’t be able to).

What about the G2 invasion threat? How can UK afford subs if it’s defending India AND UK? But it’s not much of a strain. US1 build fleet, US2 build air and move fleet wherever, UK3 drop fleet, US3 move fleet southwest of London. If Japan didn’t invest heavily in J1 bombers then it can’t really stop this, as the UK3 fleet drop can include escorts too - even if UK’s using 9-10 IPC a turn in India, it still has the income for a sizable fleet.

But if you’re doing a UK3 fleet drop, ideally you want 3-4 transports, with a 5th transport coming in on later turns (whether surviving from Indian Ocean or from southeast of Australia). And that’s used for - whatever, there was a paper on overbuilding UK transports in Revised. Old stuff but still applies.

So what does THAT mean? That means that probably you want to build up to 4 ground on UK by UK3 anyways because you need to build those units to be there to fill the 4 transports you’re building on UK3. Ideally you don’t build those ground units until UK2 until after you see the G1-G2 commits and outcomes, but if you see a G1 Baltic carrier, there you go.

Returning to the German battleship in Med, so maybe you say Germany does . . . whatever. I don’t care. But probably you’re going to tie up at least one German fighter in Africa or SOMEWHERE. And as Imperious Leader wrote, if you’re tying up German fighters to threaten London, that means those German fighters are NOT in range of other important targets in Europe - especially Ukraine, from where Russia can threaten a good range of territories for the trade.

Sure, you can say this is a thread about KJF. But if Germany’s dumb and leaves itself open to a big obvious KGF, then what? Especially since UK1 and US1 happen AFTER G1, so Allies can decide to KGF after seeing Germany’s moves. It’s not at all out of the question - in fact it’s exactly what Allies SHOULD do.

And if you want to say the Axis have the obvious counter - but they don’t. The onus of proof is on the Axis to present their case, because UK and US have the advantage of combined income, combined defense, timing, and logistics. They ALL favor the Allies. Like what, Germany piles fleet at Baltic? If a German Baltic fleet tries to push towards Med, it has to go into the face of US builds that were built a turn LATER at Eastern US. Plus if Germany’s piling navy, then Russia should be pushing for territory, and Russian income translates into units near the heart of the area of conflict. So the “default” there is Allies win.

If you want to argue master level plays - sure. But you can’t just take that level of play for granted, and that’s a very detail-laden conversation. If you just go G1 Baltic carrier without a plan, the German buy gets cut off and destroyed, it’s a total waste of IPCs.

I think i missed alot of posts and edits. I can only say that:

1. I use intuition to address the unknowable, like most people
2. I have limited time to post a detailed reply on what to do, but in my case i am successful in my results. Don’t think its wise to assume my posts are some flippant off handed reply to a complicated situation.
3. All my results ( Battles) are calculated, All builds and movements contain the most efficient economy of force.

@Eqqman said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

@aardvarkpepper said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

@Eqqman - I don’t mind if you edit your posts. But you gotta understand sometimes I’ll be writing responses to stuff you edited out or whatever. Like how Imperious Leader addressed your saying Germany buys a carrier and stacks Norway to threaten invasion of London, and now I think you edited your statement about that out.

My edit actually just added new content, originally I was only focusing on your insistence on being the Donald Trump of the A&A world (personality-wise, not as regards any alleged ability to accomplish anything past, present, or future). I get the idea you prefer to focus on discussing facts, but the medium of the message does matter. Something I don’t get is how you feel people will listen to the portion of your message that is worth hearing when you go out of your way to deliver it in as insulting a manner as possible. I actually feel bad for you as I can’t help but point out that nobody else (as far as I know) was publicly willing to join you in a game when you were looking for an opponent in the Steam forums. These two things are likely connected.

In the future I’ll try to just make new posts rather than add to existing ones if I think I left something out, sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Since your main reply is another massive wall of text I haven’t read it all yet and will have to put it off for when I’m in a more snark-tolerant mood.

Kid, you say I’m Donald Trump or whatever (in a derogatory way), then you come at me for writing a “text wall”? What? You think I should write MORE text to be polite? That takes more words. Make up your mind. You want polite? Or short? 'Cos I don’t do both. And I should be polite but it’s okay for YOU to be rude? Nah. What have you brought except some ill-defined questions and some insults? You get the respect or disrespect you earn. Applies to me - and to you too.

As for your insinuation that I’m unpleasant therefore nobody wants to play with me - any regular on Steam forums knows I’m going to push the complete line when I write commentary. Way I figure it, most people are indifferent and don’t want to bother writing, and for the few that ARE interested, they don’t want their “secret sauce” getting out or something. Though the board game’s eight years old.

When you want to respond to the stuff I wrote about specifying you’re doing 1942 Online (so can’t use allied carriers among other issues), or specify your criteria, strategy, and tactics, that’s your lookout. 'Till then.

@Imperious-Leader

Intuition isn’t good for explaining things.

As to assuming your reply was flippant or whatever, that’s something you’re bringing to the table, not me.

“Successful in (your) results” means nothing unless the meta is strong.

Calculation - there’s what most people mean, then there’s what I mean. Probably you calculate the probable results, maybe even generate some sort of twin-peaked curve. Maybe you even look at graphs for the counters. But do you calculate the coordination, the timing, the contingencies, not just for the current turn, not just for the following round, but for the entire game, start to finish? Probably not.

I’m not saying Black Elk does all that either - or that I’m in agreement with everything Black Elk writes. But he DID make a few good observations in some posts on Steam - such as Japan’s dropping to Yunnan being the fastest route for transported units from Japan to push Moscow. Maybe for you that goes without saying, but it’s exactly that sort of reasoning and explanation that’s fundamental to analysis and calculation. Just “knowing” isn’t the same as explaining in context of discussion.

Do even I run the complete numbers on a game? No. But there’s a difference between a purely intuitive approach that can’t be explained, and a purely calculated approach that can be explained, and I lean towards the latter.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

The new deal has UK building a Factory on UK 2 or 3 if they go KJF so they can shuck 5 tanks or land units toward FIC. Germany needs to build the Carrier and 1 more transport ( G1-2) in central medd so with the Battleship they can beat UK or take her factory in Egypt. The Allied standard is still for UK factory in Borneo, take out the DD and AP on UK1, and USA takes Philippines and makes her own factory in a few turns.

My INTUITION is it just doesn’t work that way. If you redefine the case and add some stipulations - sure, I could see it then. But then you need to define those stipulations. You hand that package to a kid as-is, they’ll just put an eye out.

You say limited time, I say limited time. You don’t have the time to explain everything, I don’t want to explain everything. Maybe we can both agree to avoid a discussion that isn’t actually necessary - if we agree that what’s written in that quote can’t just be taken at face value, that there’s (a good deal) more to it than just that.

Fair enough?

@aardvarkpepper
For calculation- im looking a few turns down the road, but certainly not the end of the game because being a game of chance in addition to strategy its not possible to predict outcomes precisely. If you think you can for " the entire game, start to finish? "… your only fooling yourself. Anybody can be diced.

BTW what is your win %? and how many games have you played on line?

What is your steam number?

What i wrote isn’t a “i do this and the outcome is exactly that” That’s ridiculous! It was for most readers to see the basic path and the exact path is entirely based on the exact situation. But in many KJF games that is the basic plan to follow in order to combat KJF.

What do you do as the Axis, especially Germany to fight the Allied grab of the Japanese money Islands and fleet buildup? Instead of fighting words and arguing with empty hands, what basic plan do you propose?

I think my steam ID is 2799…

Also, COW is #2 in ranked play and i tried to get him to comment by PM but to no avail.

Another thing you must consider is you might be playing an entire side by yourself. You can fluff up a story about calculation but a real game is 4-5 DIFFERENT PLAYERS which is the only game i play. When your dealing with people who have different experiences and have different ideas on how to conduct the various factions, you cannot calculate! Its just too easy to control say three Allied powers in perfect synchronization with each part working in exact harmony. But this is not Axis and Allies!

It is the very adaptable ability to alter and reform the contingencies as the game unfolds because it is a social game…not Chess.

If a player buys all Armor when the position calls for Artillery and Infantry— and that player gets diced, my plan is disrupted and i have to compensate and together we need to regroup. Ideas need to in low gear before returning to high.

I think a game where you, me, and black elk are in the same game would address all the nonsense.

Wait a minute… WAIT JUST A MINUTE. I played and beat you twice a while ago! What are you talking about son? Unless you got a doppelganger— your out of luck son.

@Imperious-Leader

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:
Anybody can be diced.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:
I have limited time to post a detailed reply

Same for me. I won’t even try to pre-emptively address any and all possible misunderstandings.

When I say everything can be calculated and that there’s “correct” and “incorrect” play - I thought I didn’t have to mention it’s possible to make the CORRECT play yet LOSE because of dice. That should just be understood. And of course a player should have contingencies and NOT force the issue if the calculation is the odds will shift more in their favor next turn if the status quo continues etc. - it’s not purely dice.

All I’m really saying is the game should be played smart - and that it CAN be calculated.

If you go on manufacturing things and say that I’m saying them, we’ll be here a long time, yeah? Misunderstandings happen, but so far you’re saying that I’m accusing you of being flippant and that I don’t understand it’s a dice game. Which - hey. Those are pretty big, and I’m saying they’re not the case. I even went back to read my posts to see if maybe I’d typed something even by accident that could come off that way, but I didn’t see anything like that.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

What i wrote isn’t a “i do this and the outcome is exactly that” That’s ridiculous! It was for most readers to see the basic path and the exact path is entirely based on the exact situation.

I said we can agree what you wrote can’t be taken at face value. But you want to disagree with that? Very well. We’ll take that up then. But first - you’re characterizing as “ridiculous!” that readers should get precise instructions. Not only readers, though - readers that don’t have the background.

So let me get this straight. For readers that don’t know what you’re talking about, you want to have nebulous definitions and lack of precise instructions and leave them to fill in the blanks. But they can’t fill in the blanks or they wouldn’t have needed to ask the question in the first place. If someone says they don’t have the time to explain everything, all right. If someone says a long explanation might be confusing, all right. If someone wants a table of contexts, editing, revision, and all - all right. (Just so long as they’re not really EXPECTING it of someone that’s not getting paid to do that job . . .). But to say that it’s “ridiculous!” that an explanation actually explain things - that’s a step too far.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

BTW what is your win %? and how many games have you played on line?

What is your steam number?

What would I get out of playing you?

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:
being a game of chance in addition to strategy its not possible to predict outcomes precisely. If you think you can for " the entire game, start to finish? "… your only fooling yourself.

Again, nothing to do with what I’m saying.

Take a step back and think. How do casinos make money? They don’t need to “predict outcomes precisely” - yet they’re profitable businesses. Why? Because. Are they “fooling themselves” because they can’t predict the “entire game, start to finish”? I would HOPE you wouldn’t claim that. Well then. Must I go on, explaining things I’m sure you grasp quite well? You’ve asked me to extend you the courtesy of not assuming you’re an idiot, perhaps you’d care to extend the same courtesy - which I don’t insist on. But certainly I’m not going to waste a lot of my time knocking down straw men someone else is setting up, you know?

What do you do as the Axis, especially Germany to fight the Allied grab of the Japanese money Islands and fleet buildup? Instead of fighting words and arguing with empty hands, what basic plan do you propose?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/2280456883462680928/?ctp=3

I mention Germany’s play, I mention Japan’s play, I talk about what someone was saying was a workable KJF plan - which with tweaks on the BOARD GAME VERSION might work but not in 1942 Online without use of allied carriers - same stuff I’ve been saying for months, you see how it plays out a bit there.

Which reminds me, I should tap baron Munchhausen about his post on anti-KJF. Yeah, I’ll do that in a bit. Anyways -

It’s a lot of text. But basically it’s G1/G2 infantry build into G4 push of Ukraine, J4 fighter reinforcement, normally that can’t be broken, Axis Ukraine stack simultaneously threatens W Rus and Caucasus, Russia doesn’t normally have the numbers to defend both. Then there’s a few different lines - either Germany takes its Karelia and Ukraine stacks and unites at W Rus then shifts to Caucasus (but only if the Allies can’t do much to reinforce Russia via Karelia-Archangel, or Germany pushes West Russia then cracks Russia (unlikely if Allies are competent but it does happen), or Germany uses one stack to defend and uses the other to weaken Russia’s stacks to the point Japan can crack it.

Meanwhile Japan builds so it ends J1 with 4 transports, then drops 2 subs a turn starting J2 after seeing the US1 Pac fleet drop, rest go to 6 ground units (typically 4 inf 2 art). After Japan’s waters are interdicted against building new navy (if US main fleet is in range new Japanese naval builds get blown up for little cost), Japan switches to fighters, and depending on situation goes bombers for an India timing

Though the line diverges drastically after some UK East Indies attacks (@Imperious-Leader ) that wasn’t the line you were discussing. Depending on the timing and commit and Japan’s progress, Japan switches up its buy to defend Pac some on later turns, yet still cracks India and takes a chunk of Russia’s territory.

If it’s the BOARD GAME none of that works because UK can pop UK fighters on US carriers, which extends UK air threat range, which can change Japan’s necessary fleet composition, plus accelerates US’s timeline. But 1942 Online doesn’t allow use of allied carriers. Which goes back to the point I made to the OP that the thread title should specify this is for 1942 Online, which is DIFFERENT from the board game.

Variations for US - it can try to drop from Alaska to Asia (efficient but slow), push Borneo / New Guinea (probably too late). If US pushes more fleet, it can push Japan’s fleet back temporarily but Japan’s building fighters on Japan and having India as a “safe” zone to build plus a good number of units in Asia prevents any really meaningful gains. If US pushes more transports, it doesn’t have the fleet for a longer time. And every turn of delay has Axis progressing against Russia.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

What do you do as the Axis, especially Germany to fight the Allied grab of the Japanese money Islands and fleet buildup?

To answer explicitly - pretty much who the **** cares. TECHNICALLY my answer is Japan builds up to prevent early cheap US push that can’t be punished, switches to air that can continue pressuring Russia that US can’t punish that also contributes to defending Japan, then after Germany finishes up with Russia, Japan moves its gigantic air force back to the Asian coast and builds carriers on India, then Axis have an income, logistics, and unit advantage so that’s pretty much game.

Look, I’m not trying to sell a hype train. I’m not trying to say “check out this keewlll strat by aardvark, the world’s foremost analyst axis and allies (like follow subscribe!)” Real talk. If Bernard looked at the game, he’d cut me down like . . . I don’t know, flan, if he were serious. Which he probably wouldn’t be. Hobbes probably would kill me too. The board game’s eight years old. Everything I’m writing is - if someone else didn’t write it somewhere on these forums, probably some other forums, probably some discussion somewhere. I really don’t think what I’m writing is a big deal. But when I say it’s not really easy in the 1942 Online setup without use of allied carriers for Allies to make a meaningful press in time, that’s just what I mean. Nothing more, nothing less, egos whatever.

@Imperious-Leader said in How does Russia stay alive in KJF?:

I think my steam ID is 2799…

Also, COW is #2 in ranked play and i tried to get him to comment by PM but to no avail.

I don’t care about COW or whatever. Though I’ll comment - I’ve never played him, I have no particular reason to disrespect him, and from what I’ve read, he gives good (though I’d say incomplete) advice - yet not advice that would easily be misleading.

Only player I’m interested in atm is Il_Principino. About eight others I wouldn’t mind playing a few more times with, to see what I think of their play.

(edit - per djensen’s moderation 30 Sept 2020, deleted comments)

Yea i don’t reply to walls of text. But i reply to this:

“What would I get out of playing you?” LMFAO

That’s the first and last sign of total defeatism. Since im 2-0 you might make it 2-1? but your attitude would make it 3-0 and instead of walls of texts perhaps the three or four of us can all play a “kids game” and based on your time constants still allows you to write the Bible’s worth of words, but clearly avoiding a game.

LMFAO!!! I love ridiculous people!

Son— just add me to your friends list and after your ego repairs, you might be up for a game. Perhaps we all play the same side?

I don’t know what it is with people who avoid playing the same game against the same people they post about some rubbish about. Instead its all about how much you can post. I would be afraid of Cow in a game but nobody has really messed me up except the “tit for tat” dice server.

And what you call EGO talking on these forums, we call Successful. Thanks.