So how I did it is I did the standard 4 inf 2 tank R1, with a 9 ukr 12 w-russia. UK1 you still aim for a UK1 fleet drop and 3 inf in india. Killing the G battleship is key, I’d go so far as to say you should never to KJF if its alive. US1 is 2 sub 2 des 1 car. I never managed to get UK india navy to work so I didnt do that, I also didnt do SZ37 because its so inconsistent.

I put the US bomber in w-australia and put the fleet in solomon islands. If US doesnt have odds to stack borneo I send 1 transport out with the bomber to trade borneo. Important bit is that US must deadzone borneo so that J has to sacrifice a transport back.

UK should trade burma every round, and you have to cover the J3 india timing with a combination of pulling troops from transjordan, and putting the R tanks in cauc/kazakh and even by sending some inf to persia R2.

Russia should also contest china and far east, keeping just enough to deadzone w-russia for as many turns as possible. Goal is to keep G from stacking it until G4.

The most common tactic for J is to go for india, so in that case you stack it (should have at least 70% to hold it) and send R troops through china to reduce J income. J will have to pull out of burma a few turns later, at which point UK starts trading it again. J cant match both ground and navy, so either they will start bleeding income or they’ll skip sub production(both sides should be spamming subs as the main navy unit). If you ever get odds you should stack borneo and get an IC there.

From there you’re going into a KJF endgame, which is all about the US/G race. Russia typically falls G7/G8 and should be abandoned, do not give axis a profitable battle! R sends its remaining stack east through china. US meanwhile should get IC’s in phillipines and east indies, and also needs to shove the J navy off of Japan to stop J from shucking to the mainland. Novice axis players will often let you kill the J navy with a profitable battle, but if J is good they’ll run when the odds get poor.

Main priority is to build a US stack to merge with the fleeing R stack to be able to hold the G stack off. UK should be trading karelia/france if possible. Africa income should be contested. Allies have a decent shot at a VC snipe if US gets progress before R falls, and even after if India is in UK hands. Placing a UK transport outside morocco to snipe italy/france/karelia is a good way to set this up.

Also you need to watch out for a sealion attempt after russia falls. G has a lot of income and could potentially drop a carrier and 7 transports to try snipe it. Either get some inf or try to deadzone baltic SZ.

You win by playing for income and grinding G out while J is stuck on the island, or by VC snipe.

This is based on my practical experience laddering with KJF to allies #1 back in season 1. Some of it is outdated but I think the general playpattern holds up. KJF is weaker but I think its still possible to get top 10 with it. So while I wouldnt play it against another top player I’d say its viable for the vast majority of the playerbase.

I agree with parts of your post, best J1 is getting up to 4 transports. UK india navy isnt a thing. And that KJF is generally weaker.

The J approach you mentioned though I think is among the weaker choices for J in KJF. Back in april when I made #2 allies doing only KJF the my main strategy was to trade Russia for the money islands and the coast of asia, then grind axis out in an endgame with a 10-20 income lead. Also important was denying J any IC’s on the mainland, so their income could not be spent efficiently.

The 2 sub / ground hybrid plays into this plan, as US will get naval superiority and get the money islands. You suggest a push on india, and you’re right that this can only be held by giving ground to germany. But giving ground to germany to hold india is fine for the goal of tranding J’s important land for Russia. Germany will inevitably make progress no matter what you do as allies in KJF. The games I’ve played where J went for this they ended up bottled up in burma and lost china income. G gets russia around G8, US gets borneo IC US6 or US7 if you’re only doing 2 subs a turn and then the endgame is favorable for allies.

The methods I’d suggest instead is either a pure sub one or a pure ground one. The pure ground you pressure Russia as much as possible as J with the aim to accelerate the G timing on russia to G6 or G7. Get a J IC on kazakh or in manchuria or both and try to win the income grind in the endgame. I call this an accelerated KJF.

The pure sub one puts the stack in yuunan and only pushes lightly for income against russia and trades burma every round. Navy is placed either outside yuunan, or outside burma if US goes to w-aus. Early turns J can match US pretty well, but if UK keeps pushing and Russia abandons russia to push J US will eventually get naval superiority. The goal is to keep this from happening until after round 9 or 10 assuming a normal G8 russia timing, as the endgame is axis favored with G being 2 tempi ahead. When US gets close to getting superiority J mixes in some destroyers, and will bleed these off to escape. Either to europe to contest a UK navy, or back to hawaii to do VC pressure.

Pure sub route can also end with allies just never achieving naval parity if they dont pressure with UK or Russia on land. Especially as the most common KJF route seems to be the weak alaska route, which doesnt even contest any valuable income.

Its a bit of a shame that KJF is weaker since the endgames it produces are very interesting and skill intensive. Both sides have VC snipes they can go for, G has sealion pressure after Russia falls and the himalayas make for some interesting stack maneuvering between US shuffling into burma and G producing from Cauc/Russia. Not to mention all the G naval options in the med. Once allied carriers gets implemented it may open up a brute force timing on borneo, with UK fighters and US carriers, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Hi!

I was ranked #1 as allies last season and I always went all in on ukraine and sent the rest to w-russia (9 to ukr, 12 to w-russia). Ukr works out to about 80% odds you capture it, 90% odds you clear it. As long as you dont get a bottom 10% result you’re good. I always capture it too, since this trades off G units which is good in a KGF. Buy is 4 inf 2 tanks, 4 inf to cauc 2 tanks to Russia. This deadzones karelia G1 if 5 or more inf survives in w-russia. Meaning you’ll sometimes get to start R2 with no german stack threatening w-russia and can start aggressively trading. 1 Russian inf to szechwan, all far east inf goes west except 1 in bury.

W-Russia only is a bit weaker since it allows G to wipe egypt G1(which would stop UK killing the BB) and makes a UK1 fleet buy unlikely. I’ve seen people reach platinum with it though and its for sure better than a bottom 10% result in ukr.

RNG doesnt seem too egrigeous as far as a dice complaint thread goes. 12 w-russia 9-ukr R1 is the standard opener. the avarage for UKR is 2 tanks and axis survives Russia having 2 extra inf in w-russia. Only really sucky part is SZ7. Did you send all 3 subs? If not you have about 10% chance of straight up losing it, and about 20% of losing at least 1 fighter. If you sent everything you still lose a fighter about 10% of the time, but you’ll win it 98%. If you still lose it then oh well, at least the destroyer didnt kill the battleship right?

Only thing I’d even register is the SZ7 loss, rest is just bog standard compared to stuff like losing ukr three times in a row. If you get frustrated by such playable disadvantages I’d recommend playing the game with low luck on tripleA, gets a lot more predictable.

@panzer666

Rebuilding the navy and attacking Germany while giving Japan the pacific is actually the main way the game is being played at a top level.
A VC snipe is indeed the main axis threat early game, but is avoidable as long as allies properly defends india round 3 and hits fast with US and UK in europe.
If you lose ukraine its disastrous, but when it works(80% of the time) its too strong to not do it.

Pulling historical accuracy in these WW2 games is kinda moot, since for the axis players to have a shot the game cant be historically accurate. US would have more IPC than J and G combined, R would have more IPCs than germany etc.

For a video example of an allied opener you can check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVvXfL0vnMU

Thinking about strats that get easily and consistently refuted is a waste of time, unless you like arguing for the sake of arguing. There has to be some baseline of viability, or you end up discussing full sub G, full bomber G, full cruiser G etc which isnt productive. G2 Sealion is mainly for cheesing inexperienced players. Even then for stomping newbies a J3 india timing into a round 4 VC win is a lot more consistent and less risky(though less flashy).

@panzer666

Rebuilding the navy and attacking Germany while giving Japan the pacific is actually the main way the game is being played at a top level.
A VC snipe is indeed the main axis threat early game, but is avoidable as long as allies properly defends india round 3 and hits fast with US and UK in europe.
If you lose ukraine its disastrous, but when it works(80% of the time) its too strong to not do it.

Pulling historical accuracy in these WW2 games is kinda moot, since for the axis players to have a shot the game cant be historically accurate. US would have more IPC than J and G combined, R would have more IPCs than germany etc.

For a video example of an allied opener you can check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVvXfL0vnMU

Also if UK attacks SZ37 and wins with enough to have boats left, clearing that is a higher priority than pearl. If the battle is won by J or UK only survives with planes I think doing pearl is prudent since allies are signalling KJF and hitting pearl delays US by a turn. If UK does SZ37 in conjunction with other allied aggressive moves(like the ones Boston mentioned), I think you should consolidate on land and skip pearl.

I disagree on the opportunity cost. Unless something bigger if offered by the allies doing pearl is a perfectly viable alternative to these marginal improvements on the ground battles.

Just to clarify, doing pearl means sending 2 fight, 1 bomb, 1 cru, ,1 sub and taking the 0 movement fighter as a casualty to land the remaining 2 aircraft safely on an island.

Another alternative I favor against strong opponents is hitting szechwan with 1 inf, 1 art 2 fight 1 bomb, even when the R inf is there. Overall w/l is about 80%. If UK lands the india fighter there, this is off the table. Then I generally default to pearl.

Also worth noting that pearl is stronger if G buys a bomber G1, or if allies have fewer ships in the atlantic. This is because thats where the pearl boats would generally go(at high levels of play the US ships ditch the pacific), and it might induce US to buy more navy in the atlantic, effectively trading off deadweight J navy for reduced pressure on G.

Edit: As for the J fighter and bomber being out of position J2, I dont think this makes a significant difference. Szechwan and sinkiang is usually uncontested, which leaves only Burma and Yakut. The difference between 2 planes and 3 planes in a 2 inf vs 1 inf trade is quite small, and the bomber has reach to Burma.

Luckily for allies UK doesnt need to get any inf until after G commits and flushes his G1 buy down the toilet. You reactively get the inf. Same as in your example where the US player would reactively defend W-USA, only buying stuff after J sends troops in range.

At that point its fine if UK doesnt get a navy until UK2/UK3 since G isnt progressing with the actual axis wincondition: pressure on Russia.

The posts would be a lot more convincing if you had tried and won with this against plat rated opponents.
If anyone is curious there is a match on youtube where aardvark tries this. Not exactly a fair example since he failed SZ7, but its the only documented case of what he’s advocating against a decent opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqzpuBQPEQ

Thinking about strats that get easily and consistently refuted is a waste of time, unless you like arguing for the sake of arguing. There has to be some baseline of viability, or you end up discussing full sub G, full bomber G, full cruiser G etc which isnt productive. G2 Sealion is mainly for cheesing inexperienced players. Even then for stomping newbies a J3 india timing into a round 4 VC win is a lot more consistent and less risky(though less flashy).

It runs into the same issues cruisers always do, how is it worth the extra 4 IPC compared to a destroyer.
Defense wise a battleship + cruiser is not that different from a battleship + destroyer. Since you said it’s primary purpose is against small air attacks, which I agree with by the way, I’ll compare some air attacks. Playing around with the calc a bit 3 fight 1 bomb has 90%+ against both, while 2 fight 1 bomb has 58% against the cruiser and 65% against the destroyer. In both battles I’d be comfortable going in with 3 fight 1 bomb, and not with 2 fight 1 bomb. The extra defense only matter in 2% of cases (91 vs 93) for those battles since ideally you’d want your opponent to not go for it at all.

So if the extra defense doesnt make a big difference you’ll have to get the value back from bombards. With a value of 1.5 IPC per bombard you’ll need 3 bombards for it to be worth it. To actually make a difference it’ll have to hit where other units wouldnt have wiped the enemy units round 1 already. So if you’re naval invading egypt with 1 inf blocker in it and the battleship hits its bombard, the cruiser bombard is irrellevant. Of course I cant say you’ll never get value back from the bombardment(especially if it goes into a KJF endgame), but I will assert that in the majority of cases you wont.

Tl:dr: Dont let the cruisers allure fool you, the trusty destroyer is better.

Me and some others actually collected some data on the dice in ukr and w-russia R1. Data matches up with expected values from dice calculators.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZaxlHT88cYRAFYu2F8umLatRIRmKaA6wGw8YpCikYkE/edit?usp=sharing

Not that this makes losing a 99% battle less painful.

@brian-cannon
A G1 ukr stack and hitting egypt, 6 units to SZ7. Egypt is a bit risky at 60~% but its the biggest punish G has round 1, optionally you can shuck troops from italy to ukr instead. Dont remember if you need fighters to stack ukr, but any spare ones should be in NW eur. 6 fight together with the bomber it makes a UK1 fleet drop unlikely. You also obv trade cauc and karelia. the ukr stack forces R to pick between cauc and w-russia. If they stay in w-russia you get bonus cauc income, if they retreat to cauc you’ll go into an axis favored middlegame where G only has to trade w-russia with R, making it easy to preserve your stacks.

I dont like it as a KJF opener either tbh. It leaves the german med navy alive which allows for efficient logistics from G.

So how I did it is I did the standard 4 inf 2 tank R1, with a 9 ukr 12 w-russia. UK1 you still aim for a UK1 fleet drop and 3 inf in india. Killing the G battleship is key, I’d go so far as to say you should never to KJF if its alive. US1 is 2 sub 2 des 1 car. I never managed to get UK india navy to work so I didnt do that, I also didnt do SZ37 because its so inconsistent.

I put the US bomber in w-australia and put the fleet in solomon islands. If US doesnt have odds to stack borneo I send 1 transport out with the bomber to trade borneo. Important bit is that US must deadzone borneo so that J has to sacrifice a transport back.

UK should trade burma every round, and you have to cover the J3 india timing with a combination of pulling troops from transjordan, and putting the R tanks in cauc/kazakh and even by sending some inf to persia R2.

Russia should also contest china and far east, keeping just enough to deadzone w-russia for as many turns as possible. Goal is to keep G from stacking it until G4.

The most common tactic for J is to go for india, so in that case you stack it (should have at least 70% to hold it) and send R troops through china to reduce J income. J will have to pull out of burma a few turns later, at which point UK starts trading it again. J cant match both ground and navy, so either they will start bleeding income or they’ll skip sub production(both sides should be spamming subs as the main navy unit). If you ever get odds you should stack borneo and get an IC there.

From there you’re going into a KJF endgame, which is all about the US/G race. Russia typically falls G7/G8 and should be abandoned, do not give axis a profitable battle! R sends its remaining stack east through china. US meanwhile should get IC’s in phillipines and east indies, and also needs to shove the J navy off of Japan to stop J from shucking to the mainland. Novice axis players will often let you kill the J navy with a profitable battle, but if J is good they’ll run when the odds get poor.

Main priority is to build a US stack to merge with the fleeing R stack to be able to hold the G stack off. UK should be trading karelia/france if possible. Africa income should be contested. Allies have a decent shot at a VC snipe if US gets progress before R falls, and even after if India is in UK hands. Placing a UK transport outside morocco to snipe italy/france/karelia is a good way to set this up.

Also you need to watch out for a sealion attempt after russia falls. G has a lot of income and could potentially drop a carrier and 7 transports to try snipe it. Either get some inf or try to deadzone baltic SZ.

You win by playing for income and grinding G out while J is stuck on the island, or by VC snipe.

This is based on my practical experience laddering with KJF to allies #1 back in season 1. Some of it is outdated but I think the general playpattern holds up. KJF is weaker but I think its still possible to get top 10 with it. So while I wouldnt play it against another top player I’d say its viable for the vast majority of the playerbase.

RNG doesnt seem too egrigeous as far as a dice complaint thread goes. 12 w-russia 9-ukr R1 is the standard opener. the avarage for UKR is 2 tanks and axis survives Russia having 2 extra inf in w-russia. Only really sucky part is SZ7. Did you send all 3 subs? If not you have about 10% chance of straight up losing it, and about 20% of losing at least 1 fighter. If you sent everything you still lose a fighter about 10% of the time, but you’ll win it 98%. If you still lose it then oh well, at least the destroyer didnt kill the battleship right?

Only thing I’d even register is the SZ7 loss, rest is just bog standard compared to stuff like losing ukr three times in a row. If you get frustrated by such playable disadvantages I’d recommend playing the game with low luck on tripleA, gets a lot more predictable.