Just do not let Japan unhindered, because you will likely lose. Japan will make 55+ income and then it’s impossible to stop it.

LOL USA…

I have tried KJF with some succes. How I play it is that I never decide to go KJF until J1 has passed. That means I will usually not devote any Russian or British forces to fight Japan in the first round. Instead I will focus on the European theater and Africa first, building a UK navy and trying to sink the Med Fleet ASAP. The reasoning is that even with a KJF, you can’t let Germany just run rampant. KJF often means a long game, so keeping the African IPCs out of German hands is very important. With UK that will always be my number one priority, so it’s safe to say that I will never build an Indian IC on UK1. Of course, the Japanese transport will still be sunk in 99% of the games.

For me, the most important KJF triggers happen on J1 and can be summarized as Japan failing to take a critical objective (China, Pearl) or losing a lot of air and naval forces across multiple battles. If Japan does ‘big Pearl’ and takes heavy losses, exposing a battleship and carrier to a promising US counterattack, I will often go KJF. Same goes for ‘small Pearl’ and losing that battle. For losing China it’s a bit less clear-cut, since Allies often don’t have the units in that area to press on an advantage. In other occasions Japan could lose a BB in SZ59, or fighters in any battle, giving enough incentive for US to build a Pacific fleet.

After round 1, even if US went Pacific, I will mostly use UK to fight Germany and assist in the defense of Russia.

The sad thing about this form of KJF is that it is contingent on bad dice for Axis, and not used as a general strategy. The question is whether in those scenarios where Japan has bad dice, KJF might be viable but KGF could still be strictly better.

@McLovin1985:

Think they’ll make a Global version on GTO? Not sure about the time gap between Revised and AA42 when they came out.

It’s probably more likely that AA50 would come out (there’s been demand for it on their forums since the boardgame was released).  The 1940 diplomatic rules would probably be impossible for them to code correctly and that game breaks hard when something goes wrong.

@St.:

I hear alot of people say that revised is more complicated than spring 1942. Now I played the classic version when I was 12. Sure it was a long time but aside from the tech and the board being diffrent I dont see to many changes from the two, and neither one really seems more complicated than the other.

So what happand in revised that was taken away that makes it more complicated than Spring 1942

Other than the Technology and the National Advantages (although the NAs were optional) the game system is essentially the same. I almost never play with Tech because it can be a game breaker.

See if what you’re looking for is here;
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23325.0

i wonder how many magic markers it took to make that map, :)

@mwindianapolis:

@allboxcars:

personally I’m hoping the new game breathes some new life into these fora.

Yes I am an FNG but still - looking around and just reading some threads more or less at random - this place seems to be stagnant with something wavering between indifference and dogma.

COOL!!! My first Karma point! Negative naturally…

Well, it seems to me if you are going to kling to the same basic game (axis and allies) then not much can be done to send fresh air in. Just how much new stuff could be done…like start trek, they have been there and done that…many times over!

Actually it wasn’t the game I thought needed “fresh air” but this place.