Kill Japan First (KJF)

what Hobbes is saying is 100% true.  But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia.  Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak.  Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.

BTW, I missed it before in your last uber post, Bunnies, thanks for the props on the excitement on KJF, and recognizing I have some experience to draw on when I talk.

If Germany forsakes taking Africa because of the complex in S. Africa,then the complex has paid for itself.  If Germany bleeds out trying to keep a foothold on Africa then the complex pays for itself in reduced German presence.

However, the interesting thing really isn’t Germany, it’s what that complex can do to Japan. wink

7 IPC is plenty for a revised bid, IMHO.  Just need some punch to close Egypt on Germany 1.

Though, lately I’ve been getting sneaky and bidding 30 IPC to be Axis so I can work on KJF in “normal” games where my opponent is unaware I am going to hit him with it.  A lot of fun!  Had a few games given to me when my opponent sees a massive fleet emerge off the coast of S. America into the Pacific and his fleet is far away. :P

Hello there

New member on the forum, however I’ve been surfing around here for a few weeks and I’m gonna throw myself into the fray :)
I’m not saying “I know the perfect way” but would like to give you a few advices how to play a defensive Jap and what to think of when on a KJF hunt is coming.

What I first want to say is that our current group plays with no bids, no tech, no NA. Still have a few new players so bids are not needed (yet?).
I have a lot of games behind me, both old and revised.
A lot of this will contain “this gives this and that, all of it ofc changes depending on what the enemy buys/does” and I can’t write all things that can happend and I won’t, this will be a long post anyway :D

What I do as Japan is first of all, avoid pearl if england flies it’s fighter there and you’ve lost the sub (I prefer pearl light), the 2 BB’s are really needed when defending.
The key in my Japanese defensive is to build transports (3 first turn with a followup of INF+ART + ftr if I can afford since you only need to fill 3 Trn, the last one is down in the south taking inf from the southern islands).
Ofc you have to kill China…if you don’t you ARE doomed, seen to many games with US pumping fighters/tanks in sinkiang.

So I prefer killing off the Brittish fleet and China, reinforce FIC from Jap and wait with Buy 1 turn (you get 3 TRN next turn that can massacre Buy)
Japan need to get going, but with a “slow-starter” you will get more troops (IC on mainland is a “fast starter”) and you have time to react if they go all out KJF and adjust for defence instead of offense.

Now when US comes over the pacific there are a few very important things to remember.
1. If he goes for extra bomber+ftr he will be a monster in offense, however his defence is weaker.
2. If he goes for AC you must be prepared for a very strong US fleet and you must equid your carriers with ftr’s.

Now the pacific is big, utilize SZ60 for naval defence if he goes wake island (to be able to use extra fighters) he won’t go for east indies.
Use the fact ftr have 4 in movement (ftr on AC SZ60 has a range 3 inland, and therefore you can move that one in ashore while a fighter ashore also attacks and flies out to the AC. You still reach Yakut and China from Sz60 and ofc FIC, therefore 6 fighters can act both defence for SZ60 and land and still be attacking every round).
The bomber should be in Kwantung as much as possible, same here, it will be able to strike the importand islands and wake island seazone.
(remember this is a defending japan, and that is what you are doing on a KJF, because if japan grows outside Novo/China/india well…then you’re not having a KJF).

What I want is the US fleet trading island in the southern pacific…why? because if the US moves his whole fleet to southern pacific he will be too far away to reinforce it from US and with 3 transports, 2 BB and 2 AC you can take 7 hits before even loosing attackpower (yes I mean you should sacrifice AC’s when it comes to a naval clash everything is about sinking US BB’s while keeping yours).
If he only uses TRN for taking you island, use ftr to sink the trn, 1TRN to retake the island with the help of a bomber from mainland.
A lot of people are obsessed with “taking IPC’s” but trading a 3 IPC island 3 moves away from your factory while the enemy has 1 move…that is not a good thing to do, because japan can easily get more land troops. US cannot.
Japan only needs 1 transport to retake islands, US need loads of transports to threaten japan.
And after 1 switch you have 1 INF (hopefully 2) on the island and suddenly US must dedicate more than “just 1 TRN” to take the island.

The biggest problem comes to…when should you attack the US fleet?
that depends way to much on how the US fleet looks like, I prefer boxing Japan and if I feel too threatened I go 1 round of only making 1DD + 2 Sub

So to sum up:
Kill off the brits so you only have to worry about 1 fleet.
Gather up you BB’s with extra TRN for superb defence.
Reinforce fleet with 1 ship / round if they are going KJF. (you can still afford 3-4 INF and 1-2 ART units to ship ashore)
If you are being reduced to 1 TRN, make that ship a TRN, if not build a sub, US really hates when he only has his trn+BB to choose what will die. If you feel rich make a DD

Japan will probably not grow, but that means that Germany can take Africa and more important put pressure on Rus. Important here is that I usually make a TRN buy for Baltic and then a DD on G2 to secure Baltic and simply hammer any brittish fleet trying to take Norway/WE, utilize your luftwaffe and you are secure.
(with 2 TRN in Baltic and 1 in Meditteranian sea you can send 6 INF/ART to the front each turn making a 4 INF 2 ART 4 ARM i very solid build for smashing Russia fast).
(When US goes pacific you simply sacrifice 1-2 planes to take out the american fleet if he tries going for africa).

I don’t know how your US are doing the KJF, I’m really interested in the US1-2 Buy.
A smart american buys a strike force US1-2 and skip transports to simply eliminate the Jap fleet and THEN start invading with TRN.
However most players buy Transports + INF to have with them in the 1st attack…which means the US fleet ain’t as strong as it could be. How does it look for you?

@Jennifer:

Leaving the second BB alone is bad for two reasons:

You gave England a capital warship that can bombard you at will.  That means two bombardments for the price of 1 infantry.  (6 IPC for 3?  That’s a good trade!) England is not out 16 IPC for a carrier to defender herself.

Don’t forget that the Allies don’t have to worry about keeping 1-2 Figs on the carrier giving them even more versatility

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink: