Tired of KJF

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

I will just say that there can be no Bombers or Aircraft Carriers with out advanced flight.

And I prefer to use “boat anchor” place of “cat”

@Ranor:

From the avalon hill FAQ for revised edition:

Map

Does sea zone 14 connect to the Balkans? Does sea zone 35 connect to French Indochina?
No in both cases.

Alright… I concede - I can’t argue with Avalon Hill.  (But for the record, I think AH did a poor job of drawing that sea zone line!) 
Thanks guys - Sorry for the trouble!

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

@U-505:

@newpaintbrush:

@U-505:

Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.

All I’m saying is that you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to justify your dislike for LL to me.

My bad.  :wink:

Yeah, I modified my strat after the Doolittle raid  :-D. That’s why I left the DD out of combat. But, don’t forget, there were some repercussions that weren’t immediately apparent to either of us. Namely, the US lost half it’s fighters and the bomber. Because of that, Germany retained air superiority for most of the game and it allowed them to hold off the Allies until Japan rebuilt.

If Japan doesn’t clear sz59, there will be 2 BB, 1 CV, 3 TP, 1 SS in sz60 and you can shift a fighter there, as well, if the sz45 SS is sunk.

If Japan clears sz59 without loss, sz60 will have 1 CV, 2 fig, 1 DD, 1 SS, 3 TP. Against 1 bmb, 2 fig, 1 CV, 1 SS the average result is 4 surviving japanese units. A greener player might take the TP’s as losses but, as more advanced players, we can see the obvious advantage of losing 1 fig, 1 DD, 1 SS, 1 TP and leaving 1 fig, 1 CV, 2 TP to preserve the bulk of Japan’s landing force especially since the US will have just sacrificed more than half of it’s current offensive firepower in the Pacific. No matter what the US builds on it’s turn, after that combat, Japan will still retain naval superiority and have $38 to respond with.

If the sz45 SS is sunk, you can also shift the strat and send the DD to sz59 and hold back the sz60 BB instead if you’re concerned about a US strike. Plus, building the TP’s in sz61 is still an option no matter how J1 plays out. I just see building in sz61 as Japan’s way of setting itself back a turn so I try to avoid it if at all possible. Getting Japan out of the gate at full speed is always first priority to me.

@Dragoon_Blade:

I’m just how to get a KJF first strategy to work, especially since my teammate here at college wants to try a successful one.  But the two big problems that I see are actually cracking Japan, since it is harder to stop it capital, and how Russia can deal with the massive behemoth Germany baring down on it.

Here’s hoping for some critique of ideas and some suggestions (also note, no bid to the axis)  (my teammate and I will be both playing Russia, I’ll have Britain, and he’ll have the US)  I’m also assuming Germany r1, specifically since that is what the Germany player usually does.

Russia building 4 inf/3 art, I like having a little offensive punch  thinking just attacking West Russia, using 2 inf, 1ftr Karelia, 3 inf, 1arm Archangel, 3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm moscow, and 1 at least 1 art caucasus.  Moving 6 inf into Buryatia, 2 yakut, 2 sinkang, 2 persia.  Germany will probably take Anglo, Karelia, and send 3-4 fighters and sub against the UK battleship.

The UK will be placing a IC in India, trying to hit japanese sub, and probably hitting the sz 59 transport with the fighter.  British bomber will be going to Siankang.  The US will be building an IC in Sinkang however, we not sure on how much should the US put in Navy against Japan.  I’m hoping to convince my teammate to go after the islands with his fleet when it is built up enough.

My questions I have are
1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?
2) What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?
3) Does America send anything against Germany?

Thanks for the help.
[/quote

If you want KJF done right, you had better remember the secret herbs and spices.

I’m gonna ask you a coupla dumbass questions.  Then I’m gonna give a lot of smart-ass answers.  Tee heez.  No, srsly, these comments should help.  Maybe.  If you dare to think about what I’m writing.

Let us SAY that you are playing rock paper scissors.

Now let us say that you have DECIDED for some wacky reason that players will NOT SHOW THEIR HANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY.  One player shows, then the other.

To make things REALLY wacky, the second player doesn’t even have to decide what he has to choose until AFTER he sees what the first player chose.

Wow, this sounds like a hell of an easy game, doesn’t it?

Now, HERES THE TRICKY PART.

Your opponent wants YOU to decide WHO GOES FIRST.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

THINK HARD.

I have just answered all your questions.  Mostly kind of sort of.

–

–1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?

Answer:  If the Germans really want Africa, let 'em have it.  If you eat up Europe while the Germans eat up Africa - you win!

What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?

Answer:  As opposed to, say, helping the mighty Russian fleet?  No, just kidding.  Seriously, you should base your moves with the Indian fleet on the German move.  If it looks like you’ll want to KJF, you might want to unify the UK fleets.  If you want to KGF, you might want to suicide the UK fleet.

Does America send anything against Germany?

Answer:  Really depends on what Germany bought.  If Germany looks ripe for a KGF, go for it.
[/quote]

It seems that you aren´t doing so well back in Europe.
In a KJF game Germany normally can take Egypt on G1 and then whole Africa and Tr.J. and Persia in the next 2 rounds without the use of big armies.
Meanwhile you can also threaten Caucasus and later on Moscow and don´t forget about London, because Uk sometimes forgets itself,
In many games you can also easily outbuild the UK navy if Uk isn´t putting much into Eu. waters and threaten London, Brazil or force the US to protect Eastern US with more soldiers, pulling pressure of Japan.