So, do you ignore Japan completely?

i would agree that is an option only if Japan doesn´t destroy Sz55 totaly.  (or you intend to do a hard counter attack).

other than that ist´s a good solution.  :-)

It’s better or not buy any boat on z55 or buy all boats on z55. A token force will not do anything

And sacrificing z35 AC in z59 and z40 sub in z46 is not good, I think. Both ships are more valuable joining with USA’s fleet round 4 or 5. Mainly the AC, that one is very very good for defending purposes

As Japan I routinely have a bomber, 6 fighters, 2 battleships, 2 carriers and hopefully a destroyer (maybe even a submarine) in range of SZ 55 at the end of Japan 1 precisely because Japan can be torn up one side and down the other by the allies in very short order if they are allowed to build in SZ 55 on USA 1.

IMHO:

England 100% rush to help Russia
Russia 100% all offensive actions against Germany in Europe
America 90% against Japan/10% against Germany as needed.

Here’s how I usually see KJF play out when it works:

England dumps troops into Russia through SZ 4.  These troops either move to reinforce the Russians against Germany, or counter attack the Japanese to ease pressure off of Moscow.

Russia takes all land in Europe, thus giving them the income needed to fight Germany!  (Norway should almost always go to Russia when going KJF because it’s secure income and reimburses Russia for Buryatia, SFE and Yakut.)

Meanwhile, America has 2 transports and a destroyer, they can easily sent 6-8 IPC worth of equipment each round to help the Russians through SZ 2 and SZ 4. (1 Transport in SZ 2, 1 in SZ 4.  Destroyer in SZ 2 probably to discourage Germany from bombing the transport there.)  Everything else can go against Japan.  Remember, Japan has to fight on the mainland which will sap IPCs.  America’s got the lion’s share of IPC territories completely out of range of the enemy (W. USA, C. USA, E. USA = 28 IPC just by themselves.  Panama and Mexico are on top of that, Alaska is amazingly easy to defend and W. Indies almost never all, even if Brazil does.)

Also keep in mind you only need 1 transport to go island hoping.  That means that starting transport is all you need in the Pacific, everything else can go into war time navy like Submarines and carriers. (Though, I had a good game once where all I purchased were Carriers and Battleships (2 carriers, 1 fighter, the rest in battleships.)  Ended up with like 38 American battleships by the end of the game, was fun as hell!  (PS we’re talking a very LONG game.)

Well the important thing to remember is that there is a huge difference between how the game is played under KGF conditions, versus how the game is played under Pacific or KJF conditions. If you try to apply the strategies and tactics from one set of circumstances to the other, you’ll usually end up failing. That’s why it’s important to pick an opening plan with USA and then stick with it, regardless of which direction you end up going.

Some the strategies discussed above sound more like an Allied Pacific feint to me, sometimes called “Contain Japan First” or “Stall Japan First.” In a game like that you have a bit more flexibility as Japan than you would under a full scale KJF, but even under a hardcore commitment from USA, you can still turn the Pacific game to your advantage as the Axis. You just have to be smart, and conservative about what you do as the Japs. There are a number of slight variations on the same basic Pacific patterns (Jennifer outlined some of them earlier) but all share similar theme of confusing the Jap player and forcing them into making bad purchasing choices. If you play it smooth though, you want to call down as much Allied money into the Pacific is possible, so G can just go nuts and run the board. As the Japs all you have to do is stack the home island for as long as possible, conserve your fleet, and prevent the USA from setting up enough production in range of Tokyo to seriously threaten it. The UK needs to start doing the same early on with London, (basically as soon as the battle of the Atlantic is won), if you want to hold the Germans at bay during the endgame. Really the only reason why KGF is preferable to KJF in my view, is that it provides for a more favorable end game set up. From a cutthroat game mechanics standpoint, its just much better for the Allies to have the UK/USA in Berlin with the Japs in Moscow, than it is to have the USA in Tokyo with the Germans in Moscow and still controlling Europe. That’s not to say that you can’t win out of the KJF endgame, but its harder to pull off once you get into that 2 vs 1 situation. Pacific games are more entertaining, but are harder to bank on and require more set up.

If I was setting up for KJF I would open like this…

Russia:
3 tanks, 3 inf
Summer Offensive (take Ukraine), or Tank trap (strafe Ukraine, risk Caucasus)
Both are high risk openings, but if they work as planned, then:
Russian stack to Bury
Forward position on India and Sinkiang
Fighters land in Kazakh (Novos/Moscow optional)

UK:
Couple Options for the UK build depending on which kind of Pacific strategy you want to adopt.

1 fighter, 1 destroyer to sz 59
If Borneo/New Guinea attack, then land the fighter in Bury, with the option to send the Carrier to block at Philippines should Borneo go well.
-Or stack India and land the fighter there, retreating the rest of India fleet to Africa and Evacuating the ANZACs to sz 42.
-Or merge the fleets in sz 30, with 1 inf to threaten (baits Japanese into poor position, but somewhat high risk.)
-Or send the fighter to attack sub in sea zone 45, landing on USA carrier (sub par I think, but can pan out with a luck at Pearl.)
Bomber to Novos or Caucasus depending on what happened with Russia and Germany.

Whether you decide to buy a Factory or not, depends on what sort of game you want to play. If you just want to Contain or Stall Japan you don’t need a factory in the first round, and you can always buy one later if the opportunity presents itself. It’s very hard to out-and-out Kill the Japanese (eg take Tokyo) without investing in Asian production though. A factory will commit you to full KJF, whereas all of the rest of it up until this point can be backed out of at the last minute by USA if things go terribly on J1. That’s why I still prefer a Carrier or Fighter build with UK over a factory.

Japan:
This sort of game is the reason why it’s a good idea to save 1 or 2 IPCs of the Bid for Japan. If you get more than that in a pre-placement bid, you might consider 1 inf in Borneo, or 1 art in FIC. Other options are also available, depending on how much of the bid went to Japan. Germany usually needs at least 4-5 ipcs of the bid for pre-placement units, so its rare to see Japan with the whole purse, but some will give the whole thing to J.
-Bid 1 ipc (build 2 transports and a Factory)
-Bid 2 ipcs (4 transports, or possibly 3 transports and a sub.)
-Bid 3 or more pre-placement ground unit

If Japs build a Factory at East Indies, it can throw a major kink in the plan, usually forcing USA to either abandon the Pacific or re-double the commitment. The other option for the Japs is to go heavy Naval. A mainland factory on the first round, usually just invites disaster. If you can sink the US fleet, then that is always advisable, but priority number one is to conserve your forces whenever possible.

USA:
Depending on what happens in Japans first turn, you have basically 3 options as USA. Continue in support of a full KJF, abandon the KJF at the last minute (having forced a somewhat undesirable first round purchase by Japan), or you can mess around with a two front engagement and see how things pan out. Of the three options available, that last one is the riskiest, but it’s also one of the more entertaining. Most players agree that you need to pick a direction and go all out in the beginning though, so it’s pretty rare to see the USA splitting the difference. I don’t use bomber strategies, or rely on SBR to steer the course of the game, but its possible to set up on Japan in fairly short order if you’re that way inclined. I think you’re better off focusing on ships though, because you usually need at least 2 carrier decks (and probably 3) before you can safely support a campaign in the South Pacific or the Soviet Far east. If Japan doesn’t buy a Factory in East Indies, then you can go island hoping with 1 transport, but if they do, then you’re going to need more than that to have an impact down there. I favor a solid Fleet with a healthy number of transports over a Facility (in Sinkiang or Alaska), just because it gives you a little more flexibility. Its always possible to buy factories in round 2 if the war on the mainland goes well, but if you buy them in the first round, then it locks you in to somewhat one dimensional strategy. You can say much the same thing about a Jap factory on the mainland in the first round. Usually they just end up tying you down and causing more headaches than they’re worth. Unless you’re prepared to fill them with tanks every round, you should always think twice before buying a new IC on the mainland.

Sounds good, however, I would still go with, what I call, the Jennifer Blitz on Russia and England and see how Japan looks on America’s turn before committing one way or the other.

(Blitz is hitting Norway, W. Russia, Ukraine, New Guinea and Borneo.  Risky, if it goes bad you can lose the entire thing, if it goes well you can win the entire thing, but odds are, it goes okay and throws your opponent off his game.)

if you wanna contain Japan the following moves is better then Jens alternative  (as we have debated several times  :wink: )

Russia should hit Westrussia, and belo,.

Send 2 arm to yakut, 6 inf to Buryatia.  rest are optional. (to threathen manchuria)

uk should attack FIC with 3 inf, 1 fig

Send destroyer to kill trn in sz59, flee with ac, trn.

This will sverelly slow japan down.

In a game where rounds are limited, KJF is probably not the way to go because the Allies need to stomp Germany as fast as the dice will allow.

In a game of strategy where you are in it to win it, killing or more appropriately, isolating Japan is the easiest solution because you don’t need to rely on strong or average dice, you can go in with less than average dice and still have a large margin of error and still win.

I’ve actually found that Japan is surprisingly weak against coordinated pressure from all 3 allies in asia.  It’s surprising because on paper Japan has enough mettle to do anything, but in reality when 3 players go before them every turn you can give them way too much to worry about.  It’s my standard allied opening and I have a hard time finding opponents who can respond to it:

A neutralize japan first strategy, involves simultaneous pressure form russia in the north with massive US (and initially british) fly-in of air support to buryatia, a UK IC in india, and an option for an IC in sinkiang if china has very few japanese forces in it at the end of turn 1 OR turn 2.  The principle is that all three allies forcing japan to swat flies is enough to slow her down and often beat her in asia.

Even a moderately successful delay in japan’s ability to break through is often enough for the allies to carry the day on other fronts.  But in my experience, there is actually a great possibility of actually shutting japan down even if they build two IC’s initially.  If things are going well, UK may be able to take a french-indo IC, which would signal that japan has pretty much failed.

–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, here’s a few principles I view as important if choosing to contest Japan’s control of asia:

1. Russia needs >6 infantry ultimately in the north, and also must threaten to supplement with this with some offensive power (even if you don’t use it, the threat is critical).  examples include a plane landed in kazakh or a tank diverted from the western front (harder to manage).

2. Buryatia is a critical massing point for the first turn or two, because it’s the easiest square for the US to reinforce with its massive airpower.  As long as it is held, us bombers built in  western US can strike asian sea & land targets without delay.  however, for russia to hold buryatia on turn 1 it’s best for UK to land a fighter there.

3. UK boats should occupy the sea zone outside kwangtung on round 1 (carrier, destroyer), while transport blocks sea zone outside french indo china to prevent japan from leveraging it’s second battleship.  That battleship should have no useful targets on turn 1, while japan has to risk real losses to take out both the UK and US fleets on turn 1.

4. Tanks in caucusus are necessary to supplement any IC in india.  You can’t gurantee japan won’t take india (by luck or skill), but you can leave the option of re-taking it so that british building in the IC there is not interrupted.

5. British troops in india also need offensive capabilities, preferably ready to strike on turn 2.  this means that having your bomber (and your initial fighter) in striking distance of french indo at the end of turn 1.  This is all part of the general approach of forcing japan to make hard trade-offs against multiple threats.

6. US ground troops, whether there’s an IC in sinkiang or not, are worth their weight in gold when you have significant air power available in asia.  Each ground troops you keep alive enables a potential US attack and leveraging of it’s air force to kill japanese ground forces.  Lacking ground troops, us air raids are risky and expensive.

7. Make japan take losses.  Even if you end up ultimately losing the asian front, offensive moves are necessary by the allied powers to reduce the buildup of japanese ground forces.  If done long enough, japan’s full strength will emerge too late to save germany.  For instance, even if it’s “suicide” to move into manchuria with 8 russian infantry, it’s often still worth it.  A force that size causes enough damage on the defense that forcing a pile-on from japan is worth the cost.  The alternative of sitting and waiting while japan grows secure is what allows japan to overwhelm its opponents.

While all this is going on, the UK spends >50% of it’s money and the US spends most of it’s money against germany.  It’s a big initial focus but not a sustained waste of money in the pacific with boats or anything like that.

I don’t like a lone India IC. You lose focus on Germany with UK (the purpose of KGF) and that IC will fall round 3 unless you give massive reinforcements. And if you do, it will fall anyway round 4 or 5. If you add that a sin IC, India will resist a bit more, but anyway is 2 ICs Japan have not to build. For this work, you need both ICs and a big Pacific USA navy, then, both ICs can survive all the game and still Moscow can resist.

Still, I don’t think you should ignore Japan. Each game I play, I get more convinced it’s a very bad idea. Axis will reach economic parity easier if allies ignore Japan than if allies don’t ignore Japan, and there are some tricks here and there than can give axis even economic advantage.

And I hate monster multi-color stacks in Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad. They give me headache. But, of course, that is a personal matter  :-D

@Woodstock:

Blitz is hitting Norway, W. Russia, Ukraine,

My god Jenniffer….how in a heaven’s name do you pull that off?
Even though I like the sound of it, I already have a hard time keeping Russia alive with just going for WRUS and UKR…
What’s your buy in a scenario like that? Offense, or defense?

As KGB and Mollari and a few other players who follow my games can tell you, I routinely pull off this attack (failed against DarthMaximus once, and he’s definitely not someone you want to fail against!)

3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter to Norway
6 Infantry, Artillery, Armor to W. Russia
3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter to Ukraine

Assumes no bid units in any of those territories.  33% chance to win in all 3.

Ok, I’ve been around for some 15-20 years of AA or so, but …. 38 Battleships ?  :? :-o
Say no more…!

lol…

Jen i love if you do such a stupid thing in a game vs me ;)

unless you think you’re likely to lose the game, i don’t know why (other than fun :) )one would take such risks on turn 1 as russia.  Losing any one of those battles (as is likely) will cost you more in resources and positioning than you stand to gain.  And the overall expected losses are very expensive for russia relative to attacking just 2 locations with real strength of numbers.  I’m always open to sacrifice troops for positioning as russia, but if you’re not guranteeing positioning (by taking ukraine and securing caucausus and other regions) then you’ve started the game off with an unnecessary gamble likely to leave you worse off.

The trick is knowing when to cut your losses.  Odds are, you’ll do significant damage even if you don’t manage to take all three territories. (And as I said, there’s a 2 out of 3 chance you won’t take all three.)

You have to be risk tolerant.  You can recover if Russia goes bad on Russia 1, but it means being more aggressive with England and America.  If you do well with Russia, you can be less aggressive with England and America and focus on massing strength.

You don’t really have a huge risk, btw.  One would think if you looked at the numbers that you might lose 3 infantry, armor and fighter in Norway if the battle does not go well, but that’s not true.  If it goes badly, you may only lose one or two infantry and retreat the rest to safety.

@Cmdr:

The trick is knowing when to cut your losses.  Odds are, you’ll do significant damage even if you don’t manage to take all three territories. (And as I said, there’s a 2 out of 3 chance you won’t take all three.)

You have to be risk tolerant.  You can recover if Russia goes bad on Russia 1, but it means being more aggressive with England and America.  If you do well with Russia, you can be less aggressive with England and America and focus on massing strength.

You don’t really have a huge risk, btw.  One would think if you looked at the numbers that you might lose 3 infantry, armor and fighter in Norway if the battle does not go well, but that’s not true.  If it goes badly, you may only lose one or two infantry and retreat the rest to safety.

Do you have a specific sequence of your attacks to help mitigate your risks?