How do you counter KJF?

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

that is a pretty bad plan

On R1, I usually buy 3 inf 3 tanks

on R2 I usually 4 inf + art + ftr

if he buys 16 tanks on G2, the game should be over, as long as you create stacks, and dont lose battles (you should never lose battles, if you do, then you placed your units wrong, or are in a no retreat scenario)

just buy like 8 inf + 1 tank or so, you should be fine on R3

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

@Crazy:

:-o
71Boomer,
  Was that a cat call?
Did you just cat call Jennifer?
Careful my friend, there are some big dogs on here that might start barking at you for that.
Not that Jennifer can’t handle you all by herself, but some guys love to jump in to fight for the ladies anyway. :wink:
I smite you for the “Cat Call”!  :wink:
It was funny though  :-)

. . . smites Crazy Ivan for chauvinism and for that whole vague “big dog” reference.

Feel the wrath of Bunny P!

@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:

IC in Ssinkiang, IC in India, USSR reinforcements.  US builds craploads of fighters.

@Jennifer:

As the allies, how do you counter the German 1 build:

3 Transports, 1 Aircraft Carrier, built in SZ 5. (+2 Fgt from the mainland.)

Assume a standard 6 or 7 IPC bid to Africa to close Egypt.  All fighters and bomber not on carriers in WE and the Med fleet in SZ 13 (SS, Trn, BB because odds of the defender getting two hits is almost nil when you attack it heavy with your own BB.)

9 Victory Cities or more: Play more aggressive with Russia to the south.  Have US & UK build a Sub instead of a Transport, or upgrade one to a Destroyer.  I anticipate the difficulties Germany introduced to US and the UK will be offset by the lack of pressure against Russia.

8 Victory Cities: …um… KJF?  shrug  Germany just built a nice bridge from Berlin to Leningrad.  I have doubts that Russia can hold it in the short term.  Perhaps I would protect against Sea Wolf, and try and defend Calcutta.  I don’t know.  Have set up a board and think about it.

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.