Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

Lucifer

I have never lost to a KJF.

You said Germany are easily contained, why is it that players use 3 countries against G in the first 4-6 rnds?

I could rephrase my statement on the KJF strat: KJF does not work against ME
using TripleA, LL and no tech :-P

Jennifer

To get KJF to work you have to restrain Germany, as I’ve said. I’ve gone up against some of the best and been able to routinely get Germany restrained with a major Ally stack in E. Europe. Once you get a major Ally stack in E. Europe, even if Germany gets strong enough to force you to retreat, you are miles ahead. This really only NEEDS a minimum of 4 rounds. And it does NOT take away from America’s ability to produce major naval units (think a Battleship or Carrier a turn minimum, not including submarines, destroyers, transports and fighter.)

The funny part is when players complain that it’s not really KJF when America’s done almost NOTHING but produce naval units. Admittedly, the game with 505 I had to do slightly more, primarily due to less then optimal results with Russia and England, I had to bring in some reinforcements to get them back on track. But that’s just one game.

And the totally hilarious part is that I’ve won a better percentage of my games when I go KJF then when I go KGF! And the only real difference is that in KGF I send the Americans after the Germans as well as the Russians and British! Guess the Americans in the Pacific does a lot more then just look pretty.

frimmel

@DarthMaximus:

…
Regardless of whether you go KGF or KJF, there are certain factors the Allies need to do in both cases:
#1 - do something about Afr
#2 - do something about the Ger navy
#3 - set up some type of Atlantic shuck.

…
My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power. KJF does not mean ignore Germany. And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.

With my style I try and play a pretty generic rds 1-3 so that when it hits mid-game I can pick my target either Germany or Japan OR go after both.

I have to agree with Darth. There are fundamental things that must be done in any strat. What it ends up being called seems more a matter of hindsight and not really that relevant. Did you win? Then your strat worked whatever you want to call it.

All this smacks to me of chest thumping- my way is best talk, which I guess is what we come here for :-)

You have to go with the flow don’t you? :|

Lucifer

@Cmdr:

The funny part is when players complain that it’s not really KJF when America’s done almost NOTHING but produce naval units.

If you build in sz55 and sail the ships to pac not to Europe then it’s KJF.

Guess the Americans in the Pacific does a lot more then just look pretty.

I’m peeing my pants, Jen, I’m so scared of your KJF :roll:

Jennifer

Frimmel, and everyone else,

I’m not trying to say that KJF is the best way. I’m trying to prove it is just as viable a method to win as KGF. It’s probably easier to win KGF for players with lesser experience playing more experienced axis players, I wouldnt know for sure though. I’ve taken down some top flight players with KJF recently, players that beat the snot out of me when I go KGF. Though, I’ll chalk those up to the novelty of KJF and the lack of experience they have in fighting it.

Anyway, there’s four distinct KJF paths I’ve discovered.

Option 1: Indian Industrial Complex in Round 1 or 2. This is much harder to pull off because Germany is not contained first and Japan’s going to go bananas trying to get that complex. But it’s not impossible. Trick to pulling option 1 off is to hope Japan goes for the I:IC at the expense of Kwangtung and Manchuria (to Russia!) and without investing in fleet.

Option 2: Round 4 initiation. Trick to pulling this off is to be aggressive against Germany, convince the Axis that you are trying to kill Germany before Japan can get Moscow to spur the Japanese on. Meanwhile, pull your American and British naval forces from the Pacific/Indian Oceans to the South Atlantic. An idea I had toyed with in a game was putting an American IC in Brazil and shuttling from Brazil for a while. Relatively safe, helps hold Africa for a while, and doesn’t tip your hand prematurely. (nothing like boys who are premature, no fun for girls!) From here you can immediately jump right down into New Zealand/Australia in short order, well away from the Japanese fleet forcing them to come to you and attack you to get their islands back. (Always good to get Japan to attack you!)

Option 3: British IC in S. Africa. Same tactics as Round 2, but England spends their own money on Africa instead of America allowing the Americans to build fleet.

Option 4: No Industrials, you just wait until England/America unite in Round 3, then move towards New Zealand.

Some goals that I think have to be achieved in any of the above:

1) The Med Fleet has to go bye bye. When it’s gone, Africa is secure and England is secure. You should be able to do this by Round 3 in most games.

2) E. Europe should be taken and secured. If you cannot pull that off, a stack in Karelia/Archangelsk will work as a back up. The whole point of this is to have England hold back the Germans eventually so Russia can send the lion’s portion of their armies back towards Japan, pinching the Japanese in a land war to the west and a naval engagement to the east. If they lose just one of those, they are out of the game. That’s a lot of pressure to put on Japan.

3) The Americans are going to have to do the grunt work at sea without much help from anyone. I’ve brought the Russian Submarine over and I’ve routinely brought the British Carrier and Destroyer (not the fighter or transports. Those I send north so England has a full compliment of transports. I land extra American fighters on the British carrier, they’re more useful in attack then British fighters are.)

Lucifer

@Cmdr:

2) E. Europe should be taken and secured. If you cannot pull that off, a stack in Karelia/Archangelsk will work as a back up.

EE is held by allies rnd 4? Or Kalia is held by allies rnd 4?

trihero

@Cmdr:

But you are taking one game in a vacuum, I’m taking a couple dozen games against multiple opponents.

Yes, you had a lucky game. And yes, you showed me a weak point which I have since corrected. (Though, to be honest, every strategy has a weak point, there’s no perfect strategy in this game. Even KGF has multiple weak points.)

Multiple opponents is useless, that means each opponent is a vaccuum in which no previous mistakes are made up for. Unless it’s multiple games with the same opponent and you keep beating them at a higher ratio than KGF would in LL, then it has merit. Otherwise, no merit.

Jennifer

Nah, using the same opponent each time only proves you are better then they are. Using multiple opponents (most of which are better players then myself) and winning shows that the strategy works.

And Lucifer, I already said I’d be willing to accept the challenge using battlemap, mapview or just posted unit distribution lists since my tripleA doesn’t work but tech has to be available, it’s part of the core game rules. Havn’t used it in a KJF yet, but it needs to be available. :P And it’s not going to be low luck. If you can only win games by determining the optimal amount to strike with so as to not waste a single unit, then your tactics are flawed.

And I normally have E. Europe in Round 4 or 5. By have, I mean 20+ allied infantry, a dozen tanks and half a dozen planes for two nations there. (two nation’s planes, 3 nations for the rest.) If Germany stacks heavy, it might take longer, but lately, the good players I’ve hit with KJF have not been defending E. Europe heavy in hopes that the increased pressure on Russia will make it fall. (It’s yet to fall in a KJF game against an overly aggressive Germany.)

Point is, Germany HAS to play the SAME game whether or not it’s KJF. Japan has to change tactics, and that change is generally less attacks at Russia so they can defend against America and not over extend themselves.

trihero

Nah, using the same opponent each time only proves you are better then they are. Using multiple opponents (most of which are better players then myself) and winning shows that the strategy works.

And in the same breath you do things like say that buying 2 tran doesn’t work (Csub), except it did work against multiple opponents. I guess as long as you thought of it then your strategy will work, and whenever it doesn’t make sense to you, it doesn’t, because the criteria is clearly not whether or not it works against multiple opponents.

And I normally have E. Europe in Round 4 or 5. By have, I mean 20+ allied infantry, a dozen tanks and half a dozen planes for two nations there. (two nation’s planes, 3 nations for the rest.) If Germany stacks heavy, it might take longer, but lately, the good players I’ve hit with KJF have not been defending E. Europe heavy in hopes that the increased pressure on Russia will make it fall. (It’s yet to fall in a KJF game against an overly aggressive Germany.)

That wasn’t remotely the case in our KJF test. Even if you hadn’t sacced Cauc, there was no way you were getting to E. Europe because of how easy it was to separate your forces.

And I have to say, if you really are an opportunist, and if you’re so confident that UK + Russia can go to E. Europe that fast, why not deal the killing blow with US? Send the Germans down super fast, then push Japan off the mainland. You’re already set up in the Atlantic within the first few rounds; why not keep going and nab the massive IPCs in W. Europe/S. Europe instead of having to try to build up to dislodge a massive Japanese fleet starting round 4 when the Japanese have plenty of time to expand? It makes no sense.

It’s like the situation in the Art of War - if you have 2 battles, one of which your forces are tied or barely winning, and in the other battle you are losing, you should choose to send your reinforcements to the first battle to quickly tip that, then the massive victory of the first will come and mop up the enemy in the second. If you send your reinforcements to your losing battle because you’re short-sighted, then there’s the possibility of losing both battles.

I don’t get why you want to work so hard. It might work, but it will not work better or as good for the effort you put in.

Point is, Germany HAS to play the SAME game whether or not it’s KJF. Japan has to change tactics, and that change is generally less attacks at Russia so they can defend against America and not over extend themselves.

I don’t even know how you can say this when I clearly showed you otherwise. I completely ignored your buildup starting from round 4 except for 1 carrier purchase, just kept ferrying 8 troops a round from Japan to Bury and onward, and I built a massive stronghold in Asia. There was no way Russia could push back on that.

When you get down to it, there’s nothing you can do to stop Japan from flooding Asia with land units for a good number of rounds.

Jennifer

Your game, in the statistics industry, would be termed an out lier, Bean. Exceptions to the rule are not the way to decide if it works or not. One does not take a child who is in Mensa and use that one child to prove America has the best educational system in the world.

And I used 2 transports in ONE game. (two NEW ones.) All the rest used NO NEW TRANSPORTS from America. As for saying that buying transports is a bad idea, I dunno where you are getting that. I don’t remember ever saying transports were a waste. I said that building EXTRA transports can be a waste for certain nations. For instance, a German build of 1 Carrier, 3 Transports on Round 1 is probably wasting transports.

And yes, Germany has to follow their normal plan in a KJF. You followed a normal German plan too. You didn’t try to set up Operation Sea Lion or pull out some wild and crazy idea.

As for why I can’t get E. Europe hard with KGF it’s because Japan has eaten into all of Russia’s profits. With no income comes no tanks. You have to set up a push on Japan, and yes, in MOST games Japan will NOT be taking anything of consequence with their ground forces.

Obviously, the Allies should make an INTELLIGENT choice after seeing what Japan does. Do they set up for KJF on round 1 like Mr. Bean did? Then KJF may not be the best solution. This is EXACTLY why I said don’t commit yourself to KJF on Round 1, wait until Round 2 (later changed to Round 4 since you can always start at that point or earlier with relative ease.)

Does Germany do something stupid like leave 50% of the Luftwaffe exposed to attack? Did Japan move their entire navy to SZ 34 on Japan 3?

It’s pretty simple to just go with KGF if Japan hit Pearl with everything they have and brought the rest in range of SZ 55 AND Germany moved their Battleship over to SZ 13 on G1 AND put a carrier in the water in SZ 5 AND pulled back their front lines.

That’s broadcasting to the allies that they expect KJF and have moved to slow themselves down and turtle up. Well, if they’re turtling up, take advantage of it and hold Africa, reinforce Asia and sink the German fleets. May as well, they’ve already shot themselves in one foot.

If they go more traditional (Pearl Light, Battleship to SZ 15 to hit Egypt, etc) then KJF is almost a no brainer. Doubly so since most axis players have never seen a way to defeat KJF so have to actually think of a strategy instead of copying what others have done to them as is the case when defending against KGF.

As for CSub, I’ve never read their papers, Bean. I never intend to read them. Just about everyone I have talked too uses CSub as the butt of their jokes. (Their papers, not their email list.)

trihero

Your game, in the statistics industry, would be termed an out lier, Bean. Exceptions to the rule are not the way to decide if it works or not.

The only thing that makes it an outlier is the mistakes both of us made. It has nothing to do with statistics, the only thing that was sort of unlucky was you losing 3 figs to 1 bb 1 tran.

And yes, Germany has to follow their normal plan in a KJF. You followed a normal German plan too. You didn’t try to set up Operation Sea Lion or pull out some wild and crazy idea.

That’s because I’m exactly like you - I play flexibly. Heavy Pearl + med to Gibraltar is the most flexible it gets, both are excellent preparations for both KGF and KJF. Regardless of KGF or KJF you’re right, I play Germany the same, 1 car + 3-4 rounds of pure infantry.

As for why I can’t get E. Europe hard with KGF it’s because Japan has eaten into all of Russia’s profits. With no income comes no tanks. You have to set up a push on Japan, and yes, in MOST games Japan will NOT be taking anything of consequence with their ground forces.

But that doesn’t make any sense. If you delay KJF to round 4, Japan will have eaten Russia’s profits the same as in a KGF.

Obviously, the Allies should make an INTELLIGENT choice after seeing what Japan does. Do they set up for KJF on round 1 like Mr. Bean did?

It’s funny how you like to say you are a flexible player, then do not realize another one when one slaps you in the face. Heavy Pearl and Gibraltar are my ultimate flexibility in both KGF and KJF. German fleet link is a threat, plus there’s almost no point in going east with the med fleet anymore with how easy it is for the Allies to kill a separated med fleet and retake Africa. And I have maximum airforce with Japan in other battles since I’m not using 3 fig 1 bom in Pearl.

I see that you actually do think I was preparing specifically for KJF, when that is not true at all. I am doing exactly what you think you are doing with the Allies - consolidating forces to use them flexibly. Why do you think otherwise - so you feel better about your strategy? With heavy pearl + gibraltar, I am telling the Allies I am ready for anything they want to try. I am telling them I am not expecting either KGF or KJF. Just because you think so only means that you do not actually understand the moves.

Jennifer

If you have significant forces in Karelia/E. Europe/Ukraine area then Russia can dedicate 100% of their new resources to Japan. That will stop their forward momentum and push them back since now they have to make choices between navy and army.

Jennifer

BTW, the onus is now on the KJF deniers to prove that KJF is as bad as they have claimed. I have a lot of games under my belt with KJF to show it’s just as easy as KGF to win. Your turn to prove it does not work.

trihero

BTW, the onus is now on the KJF deniers to prove that KJF is as bad as they have claimed. I have a lot of games under my belt with KJF to show it’s just as easy as KGF to win. Your turn to prove it does not work.

You mean, you have a lot of obvious mistakes that make the strategy look better than it is. I think you’re ultra relieved that I mistakenly underdefended Japan, because in our game you were finished - and obviously so, with no really lucky dice either way.

If you have significant forces in Karelia/E. Europe/Ukraine area then Russia can dedicate 100% of their new resources to Japan. That will stop their forward momentum and push them back since now they have to make choices between navy and army.

That’s why KGF works. The Americans supply additional land forces in those areas then Russia can push backwards.

Jennifer

All games are won because of a mistake. If neither side makes a mistake, then the game goes on indefinitely.

Point is, the axis are MORE likely to make mistakes in KJF then in KGF because KGF is ingrained into everyone’s brains. There’s a pretty hard and fast formula to use. Do this on Germany 1. Do this on Japan 2. By Round 5 you should have these objectives, etc.

In KJF there’s no formula for the axis! You have to think on your own and that leads to mistakes. Like leaving Japan too lightly defended in a desperate attempt to take out Russia before America crushes you. Like attacking a Russian submarine and losing 50% of your air force because you think you need to reduce the defensive values of the Allied Fleet while you can. Like trying too hard to get Africa so you can hit that almighty 50 IPC mark with Germany, allowing England and Russia to push you back to Berlin and you STILL not having all of Africa. Like racing the Med Fleet out of the Med to grab Brazil and W. Indies instead of running for Caucasus. Like keeping the Japanese fleet in home waters instead of in the Arabian Seas helping secure Africa and getting troops to Caucasus faster.

What mistakes do the allies make? None. England and Russia basically do KGF without America while America single handedly handles Japan. In very RARE, extremely RARE, games I’ve needed extra aid from America and that was only to recover from exceptionally bad results on the dice. But the aid is very minimal if taken in the full context of the game.

But thanks for showing us all that the solution to the statement that KJF is impossible and will always result in Axis victory (as was originally premised on these boards), when proven wrong, is crying that it’s only because of a mistake here or there. Shoot, I could say any game the axis lose is because of a mis-judgment or bad dice then! After all, with a bid, the axis should win 100% of the games if they use perfect tactics!

trihero

But thanks for showing us all that the solution to the statement that KJF is impossible and will always result in Axis victory (as was originally premised on these boards),

That’s not the premise. The premise is that KGF is more effective than KJF. It is not impossible to win with KJF just as it is not impossible to win without a bid as the Axis. It is more unlikely, but possible. Maybe we have no argument because you’re arguing something too different than what I’m arguing.

Point is, the axis are MORE likely to make mistakes in KJF then in KGF because KGF is ingrained into everyone’s brains. There’s a pretty hard and fast formula to use. Do this on Germany 1. Do this on Japan 2. By Round 5 you should have these objectives, etc.

Ok great point, and I’m not crying about exploiting mistakes - I applaud you for that, it means you are a good player. But do you see how that says nothing about the actual strategy itself once it’s been seen once? What you’re proving is that if you use unfamiliar tactics that the enemy will make mistakes - it has nothing to do with the specific KJF strategy, it has to do with a meta strategy of making the opponent uncomfortable. That’s exactly how Csub’s sea lion and land bridge have worked against many opponents - not because that specific strategy is good once it’s been figured out, but because of the surprise factor.

So all it seems to me is that KJF has surprise factor - that once the surprise is taken out, we see that KGF is not only easier but more effective.

Lucifer

@Cmdr:

BTW, the onus is now on the KJF deniers to prove that KJF is as bad as they have claimed. I have a lot of games under my belt with KJF to show it’s just as easy as KGF to win. Your turn to prove it does not work.

The best players in the lobby never uses KJF. I have sometimes seen attack on Jap forces in pac, (from US)
but I cannot remember that the top players built anything anytime in sz 55.
Why is the KJF strat not used by top players?
I have a hard time remember that I lost a game (as axis) where US build a lot in sz 55, weather it was rnd 4 or rnd 14.
Why?

A funny game a ended this evening, 17 rnds, LL. It was not until the 17th rnd that I got US units stacking
Persia :lol:
US marines met heavy resistance in AE and TJ. 100% of all US production went to Afr. for 17 rnds…

It’s very obvious that Jap has to be stopped sometime, somewhere, before Jap take Moscow,
but it’s hardly possible to do this from WUS, if G is still strong, if allies got WE+SE etc then the game is over usually
over even if Berlin is stacked with ftrs and infantry.
The only advantage I see with building any naval unit in sz55 is that this might stop Jap from moving navy to
med.
If Jap navy sits in IO, then it’s in reach of both sz60 and AE.

About proof and the philosophy of science, I really doubt that your KJF-strat article will be printed in the
next edition of Science.

Lucifer

@Cmdr:

I could say that if I lost a KGF game in LL then LL doesn’t work for KGF.

As a math teacher (?) you better know about statistics.
Can you explain why decent players generally never uses KJF strat?

Jennifer

@Lucifer:

@Cmdr:

I could say that if I lost a KGF game in LL then LL doesn’t work for KGF.

As a math teacher (?) you better know about statistics.
Can you explain why decent players generally never uses KJF strat?

Because they have to think in KJF. It’s not formulaic like KGF is now. You can’t fall back on a proven strategy.

Lucifer

@Cmdr:

Because they have to think in KJF.

KGF as the most used and preferred strat, you really don’t think a certain overall strat that players choose, have anything to do with success rate?
Once you got triplea up and runnin’ then you play against me with LL NT. Then, if you win, I’m pretty sure you gonna loose, after playing me you have to face players I cannot beat yet. If you ever come this far, then we talk about
the KJF strat. If you cannot get triplea to work you won’t play me. If you can’t beat me in LL, no tech, then
you won’t beat the best players either.
The KJF does not work until you have proven it. I Am the scientific community here. You also have to reproduce
your results. And if you can beat this A&A-player assistant, then you will meet a board of expert A&A LL’ers :evil:
Only after you survive this, then the KJF strat may be accepted as a strat equal with the traditional KGF strat.

Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Russia's fight against Japan

Thoughts on Japanese Strategy

A&A rookie requesting advice on builds and strategy

What if these happen? - Extrem G1 Strategy

New player needs strategy help

Help with USA strategy

History for strategy?

First time playing…

91

17.5k

40.1k

1.7m