How do you counter KJF?

I thought the best strategy to counter KJF was to KRF with Germany, since the Allies are ignoring you.

Yea, KAF is the sole reason people started building infantry in W. USA and walking to E. Canada.  Slower assault into Europe, but Japan has no real ability to do anything to N. America.

quite simply, transports have to be defended, and the allies can put have in range alot of threatening airpower before japan’s second turn…  and every ship that’s left defending them reduces your ability to cheaply destroy the various allied fleets that might be making a mess in the pacific on turn one.

Other than that, the additional transports allow for 6 units a turn, similarly to the IC’s.  The additional transports give you the ability to grab guys more quickly from the islands, as well as the ability to push on india and africa faster and harder.  But each of these require some tradeoffs (ideally, mass troops in manchuria, but if india looms you may have to deal with that, slowing the flow of 6 units/per turn.

transports assuming a factory build later also ends up reducing the flow of fast moving armor, if that’s necessary.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a big fan of transports, but they have their drawbacks too.

Honestly, I believe it is best to play ultra conservatively with Russia and England and see how the dice line up.  If one Axis power ends up in an exceptionally poor position after their first round, America can then make the choice between KJF or KGF.

However, here is a run down for you:

Kill Germany First:

Easiest strategy.  Everyone is clustered around Germany so coordination is easier.  This is also much more fault tolerant then going after Japan.  However, Germany also has the most assets and the best capability of getting assets, not to mention all of their territories are land locked (comparatively speaking of course) resulting in much easier defense of those territories.  Exceptions are Norway, Algeria and Libya, but those 5 IPC can be made up for in other places if needed (and if not, 35 IPC is still a lot of money.)

Kill Japan First:

Japan’s by far the weakest power on the board.  Their territories are scattered all over the ocean and they start the game facing two moderately powerful fleets.  (UK: 2 Transports, Submarine, Fighter, Carrier, Destroyer in SZ 30 and America’s Battleship, Transport, Destroyer, Submarine, 3 Fighters and Carrier in the Pacific (SZ 52, 55, 20, Hawaii and W. USA.))  However, they also have the benefit of being scattered all over the place making it harder to take their territories (but easier to hold once they are taken.)

If facing a large build up of forces in Buryatia, Sinkiang + Industrial Complex and India + Complex, Japan can find them selves in serious trouble fast; but Germany will have much free’er reign in Europe and Africa.

@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:

Generally speaking, if allies let G have afr then in most cases axis win.

The UK sub and trans in Australia have no place in my overall strat, so might as well use it to weaken Jap a little bit.
The Borneo attack is a tricky one, 4 ipc is very tempting, and leaving the AC in Philli to block for Jap retake on J1.
Afr is much more important so one has to look at the map, if G didn’t attack Anglo then Afr is secure, but in most
cases allies should land in Afr with both US+UK. rnd 1.
Sometimes, to take 2 inf from Aus+NZ and move the trans to Afr can be a smart move.
I won’t do this if the sub attack went wrong…

As Jap I don’t care if UK got NG, I wanna kill those trans, but the 1 ipc is no big deal.
Landing the India ftr on the US AC is not a good move imo. I use it in Afr, or with DD in sz59, sometimes I land
that ftr in Bury. The India ftr can land in Cauc together with UK bmr, and 2 ftr from london, (UK1 to WRU) might do a 4 air units
attack to the G med fleet in UK2/UK3, before axis merge their fleets, this is something I usually hate as allies.
If all 3 ftrs land in WRU then they’re set for a baltic wipeout UK2, presuming G didn’t buy any naval units in sz5.  :wink:

To have the US trade Italy and UK trading WE means birdy for allies  :-)

How does US counter Japan’s Pearl?

Simple answer:  KGF.

If you really want to go KJF, you either go Ssinkiang and Indian ICs, or you build Pacfleet on US1 threatening attack on Pearl US2 (Japan shouldn’t be strong enough to wipe out the US2 fleet), or you can try Alaska transport chain.  Buncha things you can do really.  I note you already mentioned the LRA option.

@frimmel:

God d**n perhaps?

okay i gottch’ya. if your goin swear paintbrush do it right you F*******e(wroung way)  :-)