How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online

@chaosido Are you hitting the Japanese fleet off of DEI on B1? It’s a 50/50 battle, roughly (especially in AAO where you can’t bid 1 sub to the India SZ), but it’s basically a mandatory first step to take down the IJN in anything resembling a short enough time frame to beat/cripple Japan (and thus allow India’s production to start going into Russia to save the Soviets) before Moscow falls to the Germans.

EDIT: I say it’s a mandatory first step because if Japan’s skipping PH then they’re going to have an entire death-fleet in striking distance of India for basically the whole game, which will prevent UK from really being allowed to do much in terms of building navy. Japan’s starting fleet is impressive too, so it will take USA like 3-4 rounds to be able to surpass/defeat it (assuming Japan is actually building navy/bombers to supplement it and not dumping 100% of their income into transports/land units), which isn’t fast enough to stop Japan before Germany walks into Moscow and wins the game for the Axis.

Alternatively, if you’re in a lower tier (i.e. anything below mid-gold), just spend 100% of USA’s income on fleet until you’re on-par with/slightly-better than Japan’s navy, then just make a beeline for the Japan SZ, to project a threat at Manchuria and Japan simultaneously. Assuming you’re in a lower tier, your opponent will be bad at the game/not used to this situation, and will probably start panicking and making mistakes which you can exploit to secure the Pacific.

So how I did it is I did the standard 4 inf 2 tank R1, with a 9 ukr 12 w-russia. UK1 you still aim for a UK1 fleet drop and 3 inf in india. Killing the G battleship is key, I’d go so far as to say you should never to KJF if its alive. US1 is 2 sub 2 des 1 car. I never managed to get UK india navy to work so I didnt do that, I also didnt do SZ37 because its so inconsistent.

I put the US bomber in w-australia and put the fleet in solomon islands. If US doesnt have odds to stack borneo I send 1 transport out with the bomber to trade borneo. Important bit is that US must deadzone borneo so that J has to sacrifice a transport back.

UK should trade burma every round, and you have to cover the J3 india timing with a combination of pulling troops from transjordan, and putting the R tanks in cauc/kazakh and even by sending some inf to persia R2.

Russia should also contest china and far east, keeping just enough to deadzone w-russia for as many turns as possible. Goal is to keep G from stacking it until G4.

The most common tactic for J is to go for india, so in that case you stack it (should have at least 70% to hold it) and send R troops through china to reduce J income. J will have to pull out of burma a few turns later, at which point UK starts trading it again. J cant match both ground and navy, so either they will start bleeding income or they’ll skip sub production(both sides should be spamming subs as the main navy unit). If you ever get odds you should stack borneo and get an IC there.

From there you’re going into a KJF endgame, which is all about the US/G race. Russia typically falls G7/G8 and should be abandoned, do not give axis a profitable battle! R sends its remaining stack east through china. US meanwhile should get IC’s in phillipines and east indies, and also needs to shove the J navy off of Japan to stop J from shucking to the mainland. Novice axis players will often let you kill the J navy with a profitable battle, but if J is good they’ll run when the odds get poor.

Main priority is to build a US stack to merge with the fleeing R stack to be able to hold the G stack off. UK should be trading karelia/france if possible. Africa income should be contested. Allies have a decent shot at a VC snipe if US gets progress before R falls, and even after if India is in UK hands. Placing a UK transport outside morocco to snipe italy/france/karelia is a good way to set this up.

Also you need to watch out for a sealion attempt after russia falls. G has a lot of income and could potentially drop a carrier and 7 transports to try snipe it. Either get some inf or try to deadzone baltic SZ.

You win by playing for income and grinding G out while J is stuck on the island, or by VC snipe.

This is based on my practical experience laddering with KJF to allies #1 back in season 1. Some of it is outdated but I think the general playpattern holds up. KJF is weaker but I think its still possible to get top 10 with it. So while I wouldnt play it against another top player I’d say its viable for the vast majority of the playerbase.

J1 industrial complex and Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet are not things you can punish. Trying to “punish” either can even get you in a lot of trouble if your opponent is playing accurately.

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

When you look at a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet, ask yourself - does either result in a situation that forces Japan to fight a losing stack battle? No. So does either contribute to a situation in which you’re able to bleed/build stacks, control income, or that sort of thing? The answer again is no. Especially in 1942 Online because of its rules changes.

So you’re probably saying to yourself - Japan pays for an immobile thing that can’t fight, that needs to be defended, that if captured and held by an opponent gives an opponent a big boost in logistics. There’s got to be something there, right? Or if Japan just leaves the Hawaiian Islands fleet alone, that’s a chunk of IPCs, again, that’s got to be good, right?

But it’s not enough.

Okay, so you know about that other thread where I wrote out how 1942 Online makes KJF bad, numbers, timings, details, nice stuff. Then in this thread my last post I made the point you can’t “punish” a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet.

Well that just isn’t a lot of fun is it, you want to try KJF, then someone comes along and dumps a bucket of numbers on you . . .

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

But before that - understand why J1 Manchuria IC and Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet are NOT things Allies can just beat Japan up for, and why even trying can be dangerous.

First, J1 Manchuria IC. When does it go up, properly? R1 has sucky dice and/or bad moves, Germany smashes West Russia and does a mass tank build. The board situation is such that Germany intends to literally overrun Russia before UK/US can do anything about it. Then Germany reverses out of Russia to clean up its coast if necessary. Meanwhile, Japan builds an industrial complex on Manchuria why? Because that gets Japan one more tank in on a key timing. And you had better believe the Axis game develops real fast. When this goes off, Japan knows it is paying 15 IPCs for just one more tank for the timing, and it makes that decision because the calculations indicate it’s likely to be worth it.

Imagine what happens if US tries to push KJF in this situation. US has to fight off Japan’s huge starting navy and air and build a credible invasion threat against Manchuria. But if US pushes too hard and fast, Japan can punish any overextension. Yet if US does not push hard and fast, the Axis overrun Russia. What are US’s options with KJF? US won’t even be able to reliably move fighters to reinforce Russia from the Pacific as there just won’t be any safe eligible landing spaces. With KGF, though, Allied fighters flying off carriers into Russia in the Atlantic is difficult for Axis to stop.

As to Hawaiian Islands - well, I can see a case for the Hawaiian Islands attack in the board game. But because KJF execution is 1942 Online is so bad thanks to rules changes, I think a meta has developed where Japan really doesn’t have to bother with the Hawaiian Islands fleet. Like, what is it going to do (lol)? Bleed on Japan? Sure, it’s a chunk of IPCs, but just see US try to make something of it. There’s really not a lot it can do unless Japan messes up.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

There’s a lot of things that should happen at a particular time that may not happen. Following is a list of what your opponent may be doing and why, and what you can do if they don’t do it.

The recommendations are not precise. There’s any number of things an opponent can do badly, so instead of trying to come up with loads and loads of scenarios I’m just briefly explaining what should happen with anti-KJF and why. From there, you can figure out what you might be able to do if your opponent botches their anti-KJF.

1. Depending on USSR moves and dice, sometimes the mathematics does support an Axis tank dash, and when properly executed under the correct conditions - typically with Germany capturing or severely weakening West Russia - you have to play accurately - probably meaning KGF - or you’ll probably lose.

If Germany scores loads of hits more than normal, you may be looking at an Axis tank dash game. In that case you had best not KJF, as you want the Atlantic supply chain, whether flying in fighters for quick reinforcement or using transports for slower but more cost-efficient land units.

Even if you planned to do a KJF when starting USSR’s turn, if the dice are bad you’d best change plans as much as you can.

2. Germany starts with infantry then switches to tanks. Watch German and Japanese air movement.

So there you are, USSR’s opening dice didn’t turn out horribly, you’re doing KJF. Nothing looks like it’ll be a problem, but then Axis start doing things with air that you didn’t expect, then you realize you’re losing.

A. Japanese air reinforcement of Europe. This is something you should see as a matter of routine in KGF, but it can happen even in KJF, and when it does, it can be a big problem.

Japan has a logistics/production issue in that its production at Tokyo is separated from the mainland and is limited to eight units. Also, Japan’s starting forces in Asia are severely lacking; Japan won’t be able to seriously challenge USSR’s stacks for quite a while (assuming USSR is at all competent).

Japan has two solutions to its issues. It can go air with excess income; late air builds catch up with earlier ground builds and can be used to fight in the Pacific against KJF or move to Europe to reinforce and threaten against KGF. OR Japan can build ICs and increase its production capacity to build stacks faster. Japan can also mix the solutions up a bit, moving from one to another as appropriate.

If you’re pushing KJF, especially if Japan built a Manchuria IC, Japanese air may be less an issue in Europe because Japan’s forces often get tied down defending Manchuria. If Japan’s fighters are in range of Manchuria, they can’t also be taking up position in Europe. But Japan can reverse its flow of land units out of Asia back towards the Asian coast, so any temporary Allied gains can be reversed. This is particularly the case if Japan invested in a Manchuria IC; if Japan had gone with transports then Japan will likely have pushed India (which has its share of issues for both sides). But if there’s a Manchuria IC, Japan will have ground units near Manchuria especially against KJF unless the Japan player is wholly incompetent.

Right, so what’s the issue? The issue is if UK tries to build an Atlantic fleet. If Japan builds a Manchuria IC, you might think Japan’s air is tied down to defense. But that’s not really the case. Japan can push its air to Europe, allow US to take control of Manchuria and push Japan’s fleet off. Any UK push to Europe is wholly stopped, whether because UK transports and escorts retreat temporarily from Japan’s air threat, or because UK persists and is likely destroyed by Germany and Japan’s air. Then Japan pulls its fighters back east and reverses its ground units out of Asia and reclaims its lost IC.

If your opponent is competent there isn’t anything you can do about it. If you bulk US’s naval and air power, then US’s will have less ground to try to sustain any hold in Manchuria; US can use fighters to defend but bulked Japanese ground plus massed Japanese air means US probably can’t hold (considering, again, that US built a load of fleet). If US does not bulk fleet, Japan keeps fighters in range of Pacific for a while and US can’t make any progress - then Japan can shift to Europe, then if UK bulked naval escorts then UK’s ground game is weak, if UK bulked transports then UK’s navy can be pushed off for a while, then Japan’s air can return to position. The problem is the Allies have to commit to builds and moves, and Japan can just do whatever reactively exploiting any openings, and there will be openings because Japan’s air can hit both naval and ground targets - and Japan has a logistic edge compared to the US when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Asia, and Germany has a logistic edge compared to UK when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Europe.

If your play is very sharp, and if your opponent is careless and/or bad, then you can exploit the situation by pressuring Manchuria with US while also using a UK navy to drop cost-efficient ground to Europe. If your opponent goes to pieces and basically loses their head (or if they didn’t know how to play efficiently in the first place) then they won’t defend either well, then you’ll win.

Note: Japan fighters reinforcing German ground pushes means Germany can push safely faster. Yes, if Japanese fighters go to Europe they won’t be around in the Pacific, but you always have to deal with the possibility that Japan reverses its flow of ground units after having helped Germany secure objectives. After Germany holds a territory for a turn, Germany can land its own fighters to reinforce.

B. German air reinforcement of Asia. As with Japanese air reinforcement of Europe, two purposes are served - helping Japan secure a territory after which Japan can land fighters to reinforce, and helping fend off Allied navy.

German fighters don’t have much range; pushing them to Asia leaves them out of threat range against targets in Europe for a couple turns and out of threat range against targets in Atlantic for much longer. German fighters also don’t have good range to hit targets in Pacific and can easily be avoided, especially as German fighters can’t land on German carriers.

German bombers are much better in a lot of ways - they can reposition quickly, can threaten multiple theaters, and have range to pick off targets in Pacific.

Unlike with Japan, Germany’s natural logistics do not support heavy air investment, it’s typically just more efficient for Germany to add to its existing cost-efficient ground stacks, starting with infantry, transitioning to tanks (rather than more costly fighters), and only at the very end transitioning to bombers immediately before a major stack battle. Germany producing air early goes against all that. But the benefits mean it is something you may well see, especially against KJF.

What you’ll have to watch out for is German fighters lurking near southeast Europe and possibly around Africa. Japan moves into Burma in force, Germany flies in fighters to reinforce, UK can’t push Japan off Burma, then Japan has secured Burma. Then Japan can land its own fighters on Burma, and securing Burma also gives bombers built on Tokyo range to India (as they can land on Burma).

You’ll also need to watch out for a German bomber in the area that can pick off any US destroyer blockers. If there’s no German air coverage, US can often hold off Japan’s entire fleet by parking a destroyer (or whatever surface warship) that blocks Japan’s movement. But German air coverage stops that.

If Germany doesn’t send air coverage in range of Asia against the KJF, then you can get away with trading Burma a lot and maybe something nice develops out of all the stuff the Axis can’t do anything about.

Returning to the beginning of this point, I mentioned Germany leads with infantry then transitions to tanks after, then I mentioned air. Why emphasize German ground? Germany’s starting stacks, logistics, and production all favor ground push. If Germany builds air, that can be an issue, and Germany can reasonably build one bomber as early as G1 and G2 with some advantages I won’t get into here. But if Germany builds early fighters and/or navy, Germany’s ground game just won’t be as strong (though note a Mediterranean carrier can result in positions in which Germany’s ground game is even superior, though again I won’t get into that here.) If Germany leads with infantry then pushes tanks, if Germany doesn’t screw up elsewhere, you could be in for big problems.

3. Germany in Africa.

Ideally Germany tries to rob UK’s IPCs in Africa and gain IPCs of its own. This cuts down on UK’s options, and increased German income feeds into its starting stack / production / logistics, which means problems for the Allies.

UK has some counterplay. The infantry at Union of South Africa can be used with air to try to destroy any early unsupported German tank push (which is particularly problematic). The map itself was changed from earlier editions so there’s a dead zone worth no IPCs south of Egypt, which slows Germany being able to pull income.

Then too there’s US counterplay. If US kept its East US transports (and there is reason to believe it may, I won’t get into that here, as always, ask if curious), then US can possibly drop units to French West Africa (not guaranteed to be safe, but it can happen), especially the early US tank again can help push off any early German push into Africa, then the slower-moving US ground can interfere with any later German ground push.

If Germany wants to deal with all that, it has options. It can move air to Africa (which especially with fighters means they need turns to move back and forth and won’t be able to help in Europe at all). Or Germany can dump a chunk of ground to Africa, in which case Germany’s pulling units out of Europe. So you can see how Germany pushing for Africa income actually makes Germany weaker in Europe for a while. It does take a while for Germany to push for income, then it takes a while for Germany’s opportunity costs in Europe to be offset, and that’s not necessarily easy for Germany. (I mentioned earlier Germany might build a bomber as early as G1 - simultaneous threats to Germany, Africa, undefended Allied transports off East Canada, and ability to transition to Asia to blow up destroyer blockers are just some of the benefits of an early German bomber, though there’s reasons not to build an early German bomber too.)

So what should you do, what should you watch out for? Make sure you move the Union of South Africa infantry north, try to have some UK airpower in the area to threaten any early German tank push, if it looks like Germany’s going to make some sort of commit to Africa, be aware of your options with US. If Germany didn’t blow up Egypt and dropped to Trans-Jordan, UK has decent odds to hit the German battleship with the bomber from London, the fighter from Egypt, and the fighter from the India fleet (this precludes attacking Japan’s East Indies fleet and reduces your odds on attacking Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer/transport but that can’t be helped).

The stuff you can exploit - if Germany pushes a load to Africa, you can sometimes cut that German mini-stack off. If it pushes to Persia, you can hit it with your UK stack on India or USSR units from Caucasus. Also, German units stranded in Africa can’t contribute to Germany’s key timings in Europe. You’ll still have to watch out, though, if you let Germany run around too long and you’re also bleeding out UK’s India stack trading with Japan, you can get situations in which Germany has a fat Africa stack that pushes Persia and the Allies just can’t do anything about it, then the Africa stack unites with Germany’s Europe stack and Germany sacks Russia.

BUT if Germany just drops a load to Africa for no good reason, remember to watch your UK stack at India. If you can strand the German Africa stack that’ll help.

4. Japan threatening Iwo Jima’s sea zone at end of J1

Well, really, “threatening the sea zone around Iwo Jima”. If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, that can’t normally be punished, especially against a competent player because they make sure they have units in range of Iwo Jima’s sea zone. But if Japan screws up and does not put a good chunk of units in range of Iwo Jima, and if Japan didn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, then you can possibly move US’s existing fleet to Iwo Jima’s sea zone. Possibly you build a carrier on US’s West Coast; using a carrier to “extend” the threat range of US’s fighters in the Pacific should be pretty bog-standard but I guess it’s a novelty to a lot of players in 1942 Online’s meta but whatever.

US carrier (and friends) to Iwo Jima’s sea zone - if safe - immediately interdicts the sea zones around Japan with destroyer and air units. This means Japan cannot just drop multiple submarines with impunity, nor can Japan skimp much on defense. If Japan wants to do stuff, it probably needs to keep its main fleet in the sea zone west of Japan. This means in turn that Japan will not be able to do J2-J3 drops to Yunnan, which in turn means pressure on India is relieved.

If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian fleet and doesn’t threaten Iwo Jima’s sea zone, it’s like a gift for KJF, but even then it’s not that you can “punish” Japan, it’s just that Japan has less good options and Allies can maybe snowball a bit. Especially if Japan’s East Indies fleet was destroyed.

5. Japan NOT going heavy subs

Japan should NOT go heavy on subs. Yes, if Japan sees a US1 Pacific fleet, Japan can build two submarines a turn then transition to bombers (which it wants to do for the India push anyways). But this is not the same as trying to build four plus subs a turn and, I don’t know, digging itself a grave.

Suppose Japan builds a load of subs. Then what? If Japan wants to take the battle to US in the Pacific, Japan has to move its air out of Asia (never mind Europe) into the Pacific. But key, if Japan wants to press the attack, Japan has to move into range of US’s fleet. Then US can smash Japan because subs aren’t great on defense at all. Yes, it’s not quite like that because Japan has a gigantic starting navy and air force, but mass submarines and trying to force the offensive in the Pacific just work against Japan’s natural interests; it shortens US’s logistics by walking right up to US’s doorstep, Japan can’t help in Europe, even if Japan wants to help in Europe later submarines aren’t multipurpose - it’s very bad.

So what happens if you try to use Japanese submarines defensively? US gets into range, then you whack 'em? The problem there is you just don’t need a load of defensive submarines especially with 1942 Online’s altered mechanics that cripple UK’s ability to contribute properly to a KJF. If Japan is careful, it only needs enough submarines to kick US in the face if US charges in, Japan’s submarines all die, US dies, then Japan takes its fighters and pushes Europe while US uselessly rebuilds.

If Japan builds mass submarines, okay, US charges in, Japan kicks it in the face even harder, then . . . the extra submarines do what? Nothing. And those extra submarines came at a cost. Less ground in Asia.

And what happens when you have less Japanese ground in Asia? Early on, USSR should be moving its units towards Europe, and UK should be preparing to defend India. But if Japan’s going nuts on submarines, USSR and UK don’t have to stay where they are (and really, they’d have to be rather silly to do that). Instead, USSR can think about greedily snatching Asian coast income which is normally out of the question, but if it can be secured is really nasty as it fuels USSR’s production in Europe and is a thorn Japan needs to deal with. Meanwhile UK can press in southeast Asia for income. And any Allied ground units that aren’t needed (and with Allied air, the Allies won’t necessarily need to commit a load of ground units) - anyways, any ground units not really needed to press Asia can push Europe.

6. Japan NOT going heavy ground

Japan shouldn’t go heavy ground either (at least, in terms of building NO navy/air), and why? If US drops a Pacific fleet, Japan wants enough to be able to punish any early US push, and how is it going to do that exactly? Odds are decent that Japan will have one destroyer, one cruiser, and one submarine; Japan must have destroyers against US submarines, which leaves only one cruiser and one submarine as fodder against any naval engagement, after which Japan has to lose expensive air or carriers/battleships. And that is just not good. So Japan builds some submarines. US pushes in, interdicts Japan’s sea zones, then Japan can switch to fighters and/or bombers while Japan captures India (which then acts as a reserve place for Japan to build up its navy if Japan even wants to which it may not).

But what happens if Japan JUST tries to push nothing but ground, in spite of US1 dropping a Pacific fleet? US moves into position and Japan can’t push US off. Even if Japan tries to do a late naval/air build, it still has to move into position to hit any US push to Borneo and/or East Indies, and if US goes the Alaska route instead a late build means US can hit Japan before Japan can hit US. And when Japan’s forced on the defensive a lot, then Japan can’t drop to Yunnan and basically it gets messy.

So if Japan goes pure navy, Allies throttle Japan on the ground; if Japan goes pure ground, Allies push Japan out of position early in the sea which disrupts Japan’s ground logistics from Tokyo to Asia.

Generally, there’s the stuff Axis should do, and if they don’t do it, that usually doesn’t mean you can get a decisive advantage. Only if your opponent sucks and withdraws for no reason and/or fights losing stack battles do you get these big “punishment” plays. Otherwise it’s just you look at your opponent’s play, if there’s a wee gap, you shove in a little wedge and start patiently hammering away, then eventually your advantages pile up and you win.

But if your opponent is sharp, then sometimes spots that looked like a good spot to stick a wedge in turn out to be traps.

Next post, the general KJF variations.

OK last post in this series. I wrote a lot, but I want to be very clear I’m not even trying to do some sort of comprehensive post. I’m just sketching out some of the details, there’s a lot of stuff I’m not getting into. (Like what? Like R1 W Rus attack into retreat into Karelia combined with R1 Baltic sea attack. Detailed use of R1 bomber builds. Probably other stuff.)

I intend only to give a few examples of some of the major concepts, not just here, but any time I post. I provide a few examples, a few details, but leave it at that. Anyone that wants to inquire further can ask - though I won’t just run projections for someone that doesn’t want to be bothered to do the work for themselves.

Anyways, there’s a bunch of flavors of KJF, and you can combine different flavors to get funny little animals. First I’ll write about some of the general stuff, then I’ll get into some of the flavors, then you can build your own funny little animal and see how it acts.

General pointers

1. “Core” US fleet is at least two destroyers, two carriers, four fighters. Why? Even if Japan’s East Indies fleet is blown up, you still have to fight battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, cruiser, four fighters, bomber, and that’s if Japan builds absolutely nothing even after seeing a US1 Pacific fleet drop.

Expanding on that core, probably you want to position a carrier off West US permanently - why? Because if you put fighters on West US, they have very limited range to anywhere useful. But compare if you put fighters on the sea zone adjacent to West US. It’s just one sea zone but you get loads and loads more range. It costs you 14 IPCs to park a carrier, but the benefits on timing are VERY big.

You also probably want more destroyers. You have to push into the Pacific, Japan can run circles around your fleet if you don’t have destroyers to hunt submarines, and destroyers are also the cheapest surface warship (so can be used to block enemy fleet movement). If Germany screws up and doesn’t send a bomber to Asia to blow up blockers you can pick up a lot of nice options with fleet blocking. But even if Germany doesn’t screw up, you still want destroyers, and a good chunk of them.

Finally, you may want some submarines. Understand, it’s very different when Japan builds submarines and US builds submarines. Superficially, some players think “oh, if Japan builds submarines and they’re amazing, then it’s about naval warfare and US should build submarines”. :face_with_rolling_eyes: but actually subs are good for Japan because Japan plays defense, while subs are bad for US because Japan plays offense.

What? Subs are offensive! Yeah I know, just follow along. Japan doesn’t have to move its fleet towards US; Japan’s navy can just sit off Yunnan, wait for US to walk up, then Japan can hit with submarines and whatever else. It’s because Japan can sit and wait that Japan gets the first hit.

But US can’t wait for Japan to walk up to US’s fleet, because Japan just doesn’t have to. Japan can just sit and keep dumping units to Asia while USSR gets overrun. US has to force the issue. So US has to send its fleet into the teeth of Japan’s navy, which means though US is pressing inwards “offensively”, actually US needs a very robust defense.

There’s still something to be said for US subs. They’re cheap, they can sometimes pressure Japan, but your core is destroyers and carriers, because those are the cheapest way to stop most of the fun games Japan can run on you. Just as Japan’s core is subs and air, because those are the cheapest way for it to do what it wants.

OK, so why carriers? Why not battleships or cruisers? Battleships increase the risk profile on naval engagements, but do not perform well for cost and are not tactically flexible. Cruisers the same. Both do have the unique advantage of being able to coastal bombard, which is useful for stack reduction, but you only need that after you’ve essentially won anyways. While the game is still contested, you want destroyers (for reasons already mentioned), perhaps a couple subs, and a carriers/fighters.

Especially for carriers it’s not just a matter of raw defensive strength, you can do a lot of stuff that improves US timings, and further, fighters can fly onto land territories to help defend. Cruisers and battleships cannot.

Example? Say you have fighters on West US sea zone. More fighters on carriers in Pacific. You can fly the Pacific fighters to Asia to reinforce, you can fly the fighters on West US sea zone to the carriers, then your carriers are still defended and you have fighters in Asia. If you have a load of battleships/cruisers instead, any new fighters have to go island hopping and that really takes forever.

Anyways remember the core US fleet - two destroyers, two carriers, two fighters. You can have more, but if you don’t have at least that much, Japan can mess you up with minimal investment. You can get away with less if Japan is bad but you can’t count on it.

2. You’ll likely want UK fighters and a UK bomber. If Germany hit Trans-Jordan then probably your UK bomber dies when you hit the battleship/transport (if not immediately, then on Germany’s counter as UK bomber has to land on Egypt which Germany should be able to smash).

UK fighters can threaten Japan then fly to Russia to defend. A UK bomber can even hit targets in Africa while not needing to spend valuable time repositioning. Especially for a UK bomber, you have to figure US will have all it can handle trying to build a defensive Pacific fleet. US starts with a bomber, but if there’s ever going to be any serious bomber threat, it won’t be US that should build it.

1942 Online’s rules changes mean KJF UK air is really crippled in comparison to the board game, but that’s just how it is. If you try to push UK navy in Atlantic, you’re betting the Axis won’t respond properly in Atlantic at all. It’s a gamble if you can get KJF to work, but UK air/ground won’t just leave you stranded the way UK Atlantic navy will if the Axis play properly, you’ll always have some sort of counterplay.

You can gamble on Axis screwing up their response, you can be greedy and build an Atlantic navy, if the Axis screw up badly then awesome, you get cost-effective UK ground into Europe. But it is a gamble.

3. USSR bomber. This has specific applications in KJF that simply don’t apply in KGF at all. In KGF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack to fend off Germany’s main stack, you know UK and US will pile in, you want to build on the advantages you have. In KJF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack in Europe again, and it’s counterintuitive that you want to cut unit count in Europe to build a bomber, which is lousy on defense, costs as much as four infantry, and bleah.

But the difference is in KGF, USSR building only ground plays to USSR’s strengths and against Germany’s weakness (such as it is). But in KJF, USSR building only ground means USSR just can’t threaten Japan at all. Even USSR fighters are very awkward; they can hit Japan ground units that pressed in towards USSR, but they can’t push outwards against Asia without USSR giving up position in Europe. Only a USSR bomber has the range to threaten targets in Europe and Asia, which turns USSR’s infantry that are retreating in northeast Asia into units that can actually turn around and maybe fight as they now have air coverage. Then too, as with if UK sent a bomber to Asia, Japan’s options are more restricted as it can’t just leave lightly defended or undefended ships - it has to think about its fleets being picked off, and it’s likely a USSR bomber can get into good position much faster than UK or US.

The point I’m making is NOT that you should build a USSR bomber (you really don’t have to). The point is plays that aren’t even worth considering in KGF can work in KJF. Brute force is always a consideration, but flexibility and playing properly are much more factors. Particularly, USSR may want to deliberately build tanks and use them quite differently than if it were doing KGF.

End of general pointers.

Now some “flavors”. You might see some of these, or none of these, or something. Not trying to be comprehensive, just trying to give you some idea of what can happen.

USSR does W Rus only. This frees up USSR fighters to threaten Asia, or even to fortify Buryatia. Be warned this is HORRIBLE for USSR in a lot of ways as it means they just don’t have the power to threaten any early German push, and USSR can’t just recover as USSR committing its units east is not something that can just be changed; it takes a long time for USSR to retreat. Worst case scenario, Japan puts in a couple units and chases USSR’s stack all the way back to Russia; if USSR stays then Japan crushes USSR’s small stack with its ground and massive air; if USSR runs then Japan eats territory, if USSR fights then Japan shrugs then dumps another small ground force, meanwhile Germany rampages in the east. But if you DO want to do a heavy commit to KJF, this is how you do it, and you frankly can’t do with less if you want to fortify Buryatia as if you don’t have 5 infantry 3 fighters and the Kwangtung transport dead then Japan can just blow Buryatia up. (3 fighters = 2 USSR fighters and 1 UK fighter; this means a lot of other issues - you really won’t have odds to hit Japan’s East Indies fleet and hitting Germany’s Med battleship transport if they hit Trans-Jordan is risky with 1 fighter 1 bomber but that’s just how it is. You compensate by playing differently, or you take risks, things go as they go. You can use UK fighters to reinforce West Russia, you can use US to dump to French West Africa, there are options. Anyways, this is the line you use if you want to try something that maybe your opponent hasn’t seen, if they panic and mess up a bit then you’re okay. If your opponent calmly just presses with Germany and defends with Japan it can be very bad, but that’s the chance you take.

Another W Rus only open has USSR fighter reinforcing Egypt. If you do W Rus only then German bomber survives, then G1 against Egypt with the German bomber is one of those high-risk battles; if Germany wins then great for Germany but if not then possibly very bad for Germany, and there’s not really an in-between. But if you want to make Egypt “safe”, parking a USSR fighter on really makes Egypt an unappealing target, just way too risky.

W Rus / Ukr, you try to whack the German bomber. The bomber is the prize. Bomber bomber bomber. Depending on how things go, you may want to retreat from Ukraine, not because you’re losing, but surprisingly when you’re winning. Whatever you claim Ukraine with will be wiped out on Germany’s turn if the Axis player is worth anything and has normal-ish dice. So if you have a load of USSR ground units, especially if you’re going in with 3 tanks, and there’s just a single German fighter, then you have to think about retreating. A German bomber can really be a problem, but a fighter not so much - and if you’re worried about UK Atlantic navy remember Japan can smash UK’s Atlantic navy regardless. If you’re worried about Germany fortifying Ukraine early, let them, you have a load of tanks and a West Russia stack that can hit at either Karelia or Ukraine; likely Germany can’t defend both. It’s not GREAT if Germany locks USSR out of Ukraine income early, but USSR tanks are really tremendously useful in KJF, you really do NOT want to give up their flexibility unless there’s a nice fat prize (coughGermanbomber)

UK East Indies IC. UK rolls the dice, tries to whack the Japanese East Indies fleet AND claim East Indies. The greed is enormous, the odds are not great for UK winning both, but if it happens Japan’s in a tough spot. If UK captures East Indies Japan may not be in a position to recapture immediately with odds; if Japan doesn’t recapture immediately UK can build an IC, Allies can land a fighter on, then UK has another spot besides India to produce units on that’s a forward position for US to land air on, opens up a load of possibilities.

UK East Indies, safety retreat option variation with India navy. UK takes a whack at Japan’s East Indies fleet; if lucky wipes Japan’s fleet and pops (additional) navy at India, if a bit unlucky retreats to India, if a lot unlucky then just too bad for Allies. What makes it even feasible is UK can pad its losses with its Australia units and UK’s main target is just the carrier. If the Japan carrier sinks, Japan can line up much less of a counter to India’s sea zone, then there’s a chance UK actually has a surface India fleet. If the dice REALLY suck for UK the second fallback is UK pops a fleet in at Atlantic and takes the chance that Japan won’t just send its air towards Europe to interdict UK’s navy. But if Germany has a load of units threatening Atlantic sea zones too, then maybe the Allies shouldn’t even try this.

UK East Indies suicide variation (just trying to wreck the Japan fleet) I covered in that other thread.

Iwo Jima already mentioned. Sometimes Japan just doesn’t play properly; not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet isn’t such an issue for Japan with 1942 Online’s alterations, but if Japan then also does not set up to counter any US push to Iwo Jima, then, uh, too bad for Japan. This especially can get interesting if Japan’s East Indies fleet died and/or UK has a surface fleet at India, it’s still awkward for Allies because of 1942 Online’s altered play but eh.

So I wrote a chunk then I realized hey, I didn’t even cover the basics, I just jumped straight to detail. So next post, (maybe that’ll be the last post) I’ll get into some of the basic theory and major lines.

OK so, broad strokes now.

The big problem with KJF, which 1942 Online’s altered gameplay made a lot worse, is it’s slow. I pointed out in the other thread there’s a lot of issues, UK fighters not being able to use US carriers is pretty obvious but there’s other differences like inability to use allied transports, no live defender decisions, and even improper casualty assignation (not to mention bugs) that make KJF really very ugly in 1942 Online.

But if you’re determined to KJF, so be it. But then you have to realize if you can’t use the normal UK ways to speed US’s progress, what can UK do? Some of those things I mentioned, like UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet with double safeties. But basically - you have to leverage UK’s income to hitting Japan, whatever you do you want to use fighters as you can use fighters to defend Russia in a pinch, or if you manage to chase off Japan’s navy and start taking money islands and things and don’t need fighters in the area.

So that’s one big piece of the puzzle - getting UK being able to pressure Japan effectively. It is not enough that UK just throw income into the area, the income has to be applied in an effective way that improves US’s timings and doesn’t really sacrifice USSR’s defense, and as you might imagine that’s not going to be so easy. USSR can maybe fill in for a pinch, but a lot of it’s up to UK. It’s not that you’re limited to trying to build an India fleet or attack Japan’s East Indies fleet, for example Imperious Leader is a fan of the UK Egypt IC (I am not) but regardless if you want to KJF you need some way to make UK effective instead of just being herded around by Japan.

The other big piece of the puzzle is US action. Either you try to push in from Alaska or Solomons.

Whichever you do, you have to walk into the teeth of any Japan potential attack. They can possibly have a lot of very nasty stuff if they built subs in advance. So your defense will have to be very strong. Again, you’ll need destroyers to hunt subs and for fodder, carriers and fighters for defense (and also because fighters are flexible), and you have to be very very aware of what the Axis can do, not just in Pacific but also in Europe. If you dump a load into defensive fleet and try to play things safe for a while by staying out of Japan’s reach, Japan can dump a load of reactive subs (you weren’t in range so couldn’t punish the build), then while you’re trying to build your Fleet O’ Doom, Japan just continues beating down Asia, Germany beats down Europe, then the Axis win. Sometimes you may have to take a less than 50% chance, but if you don’t take the chance when you can, the odds will just get worse.

Lost games are usually not a matter of “there was nothing (I) could do”. It’s usually there was something you could do, but it carried some obvious risks that you wanted to avoid, so you didn’t do those things, the situation deteriorated, then you really lost.

Alaska - the “theoretical” advantage is you need only one transport fleet. With KGF you need two transport fleets; full transports go from East Canada to France, NW Europe, Finland, or Norway, empty transports return. With KJF, you can offload from Alaska to northeast Asia every turn. But the problem is northeast Asia is far from Russia, far from the action, and you have to fight Japan off.

So you try to chase Japan’s fleet away from being able to threaten US’s fleet, then you dump infantry and tanks that walked up from West US to Alaska into Asia. I’m well aware tanks are horribly expensive. But even a very bad Japan player should be able to stall you out for a long time, and you will need tanks to emergency-reinforce Russia. You might get away with infantry and a few artillery, but if the situation looks close, you have to think about tanks; cheaper than fighters and a bit slower but they do still cover a good bit of ground.

The nice thing about pushing from Alaska is sure, Japan can deal with the push, but Japan can’t really deal with the Alaska push while also attending to India too well. It’s taken for granted that you’re interdicting the sea zones around Japan, also it’s taken for granted that you can really push the issue. If Japan wants to build navy it has to abandon its Yunnan drops which gives India some breathing room. It’s not like the Allies found this big vulnerability though; Japan can put a big defense on Yunnan’s sea zone, shift off Yunnan to capture India, then return to try to push US off northeast Asia - assuming Japan even bothers, which it might not, as Japan will be grabbing Africa income, trying to beat down Russia, and Japan’s well aware that it can let US press; if the Axis crack Moscow then the Axis can likely push US off any gains it managed to get.

For Solomon Islands, then you threaten Philippine Islands and Borneo. Problem there is you’re stuck out in the middle of nowhere, Japan sees you coming a long ways off, builds some subs, moves subs into position, then you have to walk into the face of Japan’s awesome firepower. You don’t really interdict Japan’s sea zones, Japan has loads of time to prepare. Once you get going, you can build an industrial complex so you can dump navy/air right on the spot, that improves your timing, but two US island ICs is usually kind of pointless while the game’s still contested. If you’re clearly winning then okay, you use multiple US ICs to dump mass ground to Asia, sure. But if the game’s outcome still isn’t clear, you use one IC to dump 3-4 air/navy, and that’s all US’s money anyways. If you want to leverage quick gains, you need UK to apply its income.

Anyways with Solomon Islands, US has multiple threats, and there’s different ways it can play out. Ideally US just walks up to a high-IPC island, captures it, Japan can’t do anything, then US builds an IC, Japan still can’t do anything, then US drops production on the spot and just rampages. But that’s the dream world scenario.

Some differences to Alaska. US doesn’t interdict Japan’s sea zones for a long time, if ever. If the board situation’s okay you can do Iwo Jima push then transpose to Solomon Islands or something like that, but the issue just isn’t forced the same way it is with Alaska. Also where Alaska pulls Japan from India, pushing through Solomons doesn’t really impede Japan at all. Japan still whacks northeast Asia then consolidates and starts dropping to Yunnan then pushes India. If you get close, Japan beats you off then continues what you’re doing, if you wait for lots of backup, you might “chase” Japan off but if Japan captured India in the process Japan has a springboard to Africa income, can still pressure USSR, and probably held US off for quite a long time in Pacific. Japan might not even care if US starts grabbing high IPC islands and the coast; so long as Japan doesn’t fight a losing stack battle and has some income and India, it can come back whenever it wants - it just might not want to bother because if Germany grabs Russia then the Axis have a really good looking game.

Again, you need something “extra” more than what US can provide, and it really comes down to UK.

So this post covered US’s moves (broadly). Some of UK’s options I got into in previous posts in this thread; basically UK has to look for opportunities to stick a wedge in and start prying - and sometimes you just have to take a chance that the Axis player is going to miss the best response.

I mentioned USSR briefly mentioning bomber and tank usage. I suppose as long as I covered other stuff, might as well go on with USSR a bit more too. Sooo one more post.

Last post for reals? For this subject for a while anyways? Hm . . . :face_with_rolling_eyes: I’ll see how I feel at the end of this post.

USSR. Stack building/bleeding is fundamental. You can do multinational defense, but only one nation can attack at a time. What does that mean in practical terms? If Germany walks up to USSR and USSR wants to push Germany off, USSR needs a lot of power to do it, especially if Japanese fighters reinforced, which they can and really often should do even against KJF.

So what happens if USSR is sending a chunk of its power to east Asia? Those units are way out of position to push off any German pressure, and even if they turn around and head home immediately, they still used valuable turns just moving around. Some players like to claim you can “feint” or other clever-sounding phrases, but the fact is, out of position means out of position; your opponent can clearly see when you’re out of position and should play appropriately.

So when USSR sends stuff at Japan, it should be with the realization that it’s a big commitment, it’s a big problem for USSR. It might not SEEM like four or five infantry is a big deal, but think about what happens if you position seven infantry in the north and one or two infantry in China. That’s nine infantry, that’s 27 IPCs. If you lost all of northeast Asia, it’ll take how long for that to add up to 27 IPCs? A long time.

And if you put up a “token resistance” that’s often just silly. Japan wants to trample USSR anyways, all you do is stick a valuable 3-IPC unit where Japan probably has an odds-on attack to destroy it with no losses and take control of the territory anyways. Japan doesn’t even need to go out of its way, it just grabs the unexpected bonus and rolls on.

But then you look at all the problems KJF faces, especially in the 1942 Online implementation, and think “I need something extra”.

But remember again - the more USSR sends east, the less it has west, the earlier USSR in Europe collapses. It’s not enough that USSR units can race home and reach Russia right before Germany hits. If USSR units were pushed west instead of east, they could deter Germany from even advancing in the first place, without that deterrent Germany can come on fast and hard.

The takeaway here is - if USSR is bleeding out its Europe stack to push Asia, there had better be a real nice reward in there, and regardless USSR’s push can only be temporary - USSR just doesn’t have the time to use a chunk of its forces to mess about unless the Axis are wildly incompetent. Which I suppose you could say usually they are in the 1942 Online meta but still.

By extension, if you’re using just slow infantry then you’re not going to be able to redirect at speed at all. Your infantry will be trudging home after having trudged deep into east Asia and will be totally too late to do anything useful in all likelihood.

So if you want to push KJF, there’s two things to remember for USSR that you don’t need so much in KGF - tanks and bombers.

Yes, USSR tanks, you can use against Karelia, it’s a whole thing. But you need infantry/artillery for unit count and to threaten the big strafe - you hit a German territory, deplete its infantry, move your infantry up. Germany lost infantry, you lost infantry, but Germany can’t really just pull more infantry out of its pocket, it takes a long time to march up. Your infantry, on the other hand, basically just rolled out of bed into action. So then when Germany hits, its infantry shield is a lot weaker, it can’t shield its tanks, it gets messy. If you do USSR tanks, you have much better flexibility but you lose out on raw hitting power for the strafe, and that’s why if you’re greedy and think you can get away with it, you push USSR infantry/artillery as a rule and tanks only situationally.

But USSR tanks in KJF are much different. The application probably isn’t just that you’re trying some sort of counterthreat against Karelia and/or Ukraine. Centrally located tanks along with a small infantry contingent and a bit of air coverage can be a big headache for Axis to deal with.

Imagine you have two tanks on a West Russia stack. You defend West Russia - but you also also threaten Kazakh if Japan tries to push and hold. Imagine now you have six infantry on Russia that can hit Kazakh. Say you can use those six infantry and two tanks to hit and weather any Japanese counter. But then, you need six infantry ready at Russia, which means they’re not at West Russia, which means USSR is splitting its forces.

But now imagine you have four tanks on West Russia and two infantry on Russia. Your defense on West Russia is stronger, as are your potential attacks against nearby European territories. Your ability to hit and hold against Kazakh is reduced. And you might think that’s a tradeoff that means it isn’t so great. But not quite.

If you correctly understand and apply stack building and bleeding you’ll remember - you can only use one nation to attack at a time, but multiple nations can defend. So what seems to be a worse position at Kazakh isn’t necessarily so, as UK can reinforce USSR’s position.

I think even newer players should understand that Germany’s tanks are valuable to Germany, especially against KGF. But in KJF, USSR tanks assume similar importance. They are very very good for threatening multiple theaters while also defending and it’s that threat range along with allied reinforcements that make USSR tanks really very good.

So does that mean you should hit West Russia/Ukraine sending only 2 USSR tanks to Ukraine? Or that you should retreat from Ukraine under some conditions?

I could run some numbers and projections but eh, I’m taking a break. But remember, USSR being able to reposition quickly is worth a lot in KJF.