KJF Revisited

Ok, I installed TripleA a few weeks ago and have been playing against myself and have tried my best to come up with a KJF strategy.  Obviously, how one proceeds depends on what Germany does first turn, so I’ve looked at a number of forum games to see what a lot of the people are doing on G1.  I’ve tried my best to have Germany be as aggressive as possible against Russia while still having enough infantry to hold off UK and here are some of the conclusions I’ve come up with:

1.  I’ve had a lot of success when having the Allies each choose a different nation to focus against.  I know that doesn’t sound like a KJF strategy but you first have to contain Germany and Italy before you can have everyone focus on Japan.  Russia should focus on defending against Germany.  Notice I said defending, not attacking.  You should build mostly nothing but infantry unless Germany does something like build a fleet which would allow you to build more tanks.  Use your infantry to hold out as long as possible.

2.  UK should focus mostly on Italy UNTIL Italy is out of Africa and the Med.  I don’t care how you do it: build bombers or submarines; exploit it when Germany leaves both of your transports alone by securing Algeria with four units; leave the German cruiser alone for one turn and send those fighters to Gibraltar; or a combination of all those things, I don’t care, just destroy the Italians preferably on turn 2 but no later than turn 3.  After Italy is contained and the last Italian/German land units are destroyed in Africa, then UK can start sending tanks against Japan by building an IC in Egypt.  Two tanks only cost 10 IPCs, so UK can still afford to bolster Russia’s defense with fighters (or land units once you’ve built up enough protection to protect your transports).  Or build mainly infantry in Egypt and use the air force to trade Persia with Japan.

3.  The USA must send all builds towards the Pacific.  Don’t waste any builds on transports until you know that you can actually take and keep a territory.  Otherwise, you just wasted a 7 IPC transport in order to either stop Japan from getting a NO or to allow you to get a NO.  Doesn’t make much sense to me.

4.  Despite the USA building nothing but fleet and sending it all to the Pacific, Japan can STILL get very powerful.  I’m talking about close to the 60 IPC range.  The problem is, in order for Japan to get that powerful they need to use their navy to escort their transports and assist in battles; this allows the USA to secure Caroline Islands fairly early and get them up to 53 IPCs, which is very close to Japan’s IPC total.  If Japan is actually fighting to take back Caroline Islands every turn, then they are sending a lot less units to the mainland; I think this is actually to the Allies’ advantage if Japan does this.

5.  The goal of the USA is to force the Japanese navy away from the UK islands and follow up with a transport or two to take back the islands.  If Japan builds nothing but fleet to stop the USA, then they are not building much in the way of land units and will lose any gains they made on the mainland.  If they build a combination of fleet and land units, then the USA will eventually force their fleet away from the UK islands but they can still get very powerful.  In one game I played against myself, I built an IC in Manchuria on turn one, an IC in India on turn 3 AND managed to build 6 tanks a turn to use against Russia while holding off the USA navy until around turn 5 before they were finally able to keep and hold Borneo.  Then I screwed up with the USA and moved my fleet within range of 7 Japanese subs that had been build the turn before and I got my fleet destroyed, which brings me to the next point:

6.  Do not move your fleet within range of Japanese builds until you are very sure that you can survive an attack by them; this depends on how much money they are spending on navy/air force versus land units in Asia.  Eventually you will be able to take and hold the Phillipines and a turn or two later you will be able to wipe out the Japanese fleet completely.  Again, how long this takes depends on how much navy Japan builds but be comforted by knowing that the harder the Japanese try to keep their fleet alive the quicker Asia falls (be sure to use any USA land units that survived taking back islands to land them in Persia/India and have your massive fighter carrier force help out so UK can secure India sooner).

7.  Once the Japanese fleet is destroyed, their remaining forces on the mainland are screwed.  Once Japan is reduced to its home island, it’s just a matter of the Allies doing bombing runs while the USA builds up its transports and land units to invade Japan.

8.  None of the above matters if Germany takes Russia.  The UK MUST prevent Africa from being taken over by quickly taking out the Italians WHILE still sending enough units to Russia.  Keeping Russia alive is more important than going after Japan.  Realistically, you may not even be able to build an IC in Egypt until turn 4.  Be patient and remember that once USA secures the Caroline islands your income will go up by 5 IPCs and once your Pacific islands are secured you will be back up to 40 IPCs.

Well, those are the points that I wanted to make.  The above assumes that technology is not being used.  It’s by no means a guaranteed strategy, especially if the Axis win some lucky battles, but it can work.

@Blaarg:

@mikecool70:

4.  Despite the USA building nothing but fleet and sending it all to the Pacific, Japan can STILL get very powerful.  I’m talking about close to the 60 IPC range.  The problem is, in order for Japan to get that powerful they need to use their navy to escort their transports and assist in battles; this allows the USA to secure Caroline Islands fairly early and get them up to 53 IPCs, which is very close to Japan’s IPC total.  If Japan is actually fighting to take back Caroline Islands every turn, then they are sending a lot less units to the mainland; I think this is actually to the Allies’ advantage if Japan does this.

I’m confused, how does taking the Caroline help the US economically?  I understand, if nothing else, it gives the UK their 5 IPC/turn NO, but you speak as if it helps the US achieve a NO?

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.  Yes, taking Caroline Islands helps out UK, not USA, if you are playing with NOs.  Makes it a little bit harder to pull off a KJF strategy.

@Subotai:

Mikecool70, I think it was a fairly good analysis, but after playing AA50 for some time, it is the consensus that the NOs are a very significant factor in AA50. I think every thread should state if you are playing with NOs or not. Be it balance or strats, NOs on or off must be included in the premise of the post.

As for playing triplea against myself, been there, done that  :-)

With 6 nations, the human factor and dice, after one rnd everything can happen, so any analysis after the first rnd is imo not very useful.

As allies in 41 with NOs, I have had problems with securing Africa, even with all 3 allies!

When playing w/o NOs, the only thing needed to win as allies is a little experience. If playing with NOs, I think we should start talking bids, how high and where to place the bids…

Yes, I should have been more explicit and stated that my strategy assumed that NOs were being played with.  I agree that they are a very significant factor in the game.  I also agree that after turn 1, a KJF strategy might not be feasible if the Axis had too good of a turn.  But on the other hand, if the Germans/Italians had too bad of a turn then it might be a good idea to abandon the KJF plan and go after one of them first.  Even under the best of conditions, my KJF strategy could easily go on for 10 turns before it was clear who is going to win the game.  Some people might not be willing to play that long.