Open Ended KJF challenge

[Bunnies P Wrath]

low luck sux... 

Concur.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

Another member of the "general public" chiming in with the fact that I frequently give $1 or $2 to Japan from the Bid.

$1 being the most common when I am planning a 2 TRN, 1 IC build on J1.
$2 when I want to make the Allies think I am building 4 TRN (or when I actually DO build 4 TRN)

Just figured I would throw that out there...

Yeah, well, I think Jen wants to play her version.

 

[Bunnies P Wrath]

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.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

No, Jen just wants all the NORMAL rules of the game to be applied.  National Advantages are not NORMAL rules, thus, they are not applied.  With National Advantages going KGF is just plain stupid!  Enigma + Colonial Garrison + Wartime Economy + Marines + Russian Rail + Siberian Winter = one very dead, very fast Japan.

That's why I'm not testing this with National Advantages, despite your continual attempts to claim I am.  I'm just testing this for mainstream cases to prove it is a viable strategy.  Low Luck gives the best chance to test a strategy for the majority of cases. 

However, ADS is how you would normally play it in a for credit game.  Of course, I've just witnessed Japan hit the SZ 30 fleet and the Pearl fleet and get trounced resulting in no warships left except a solitary destroyer that it had just built that round.

So, should I use that ADS and say it's true all the time?  Or would the LL results of Carrier/Battleship in SZ 30 and Battleship, Carrier, 2 Fighters, Destroyer in SZ 52 have been a better result for a base line?

[Subotai]

Jen should use LL, but not tech.
So the initial suggestion is all fine.

But if u would use triplea Jen, I'm sure it would be easier to put your KJF theory to test.

It's not impossible that she is right, but I don't believe it until i see the prove.
She might have discovered a KJF strat that is slightly better than the ones who have been tried before and have
failed against decent players.
This is ofc fully possible even if I don't believe it for a second

One single game will not prove that KJF is better, but it will be an indication, presumed that Jennifer plays against a player who is equally skilled at A&A revised.
What I do believe may work good or decent, is that allies use little or a great amount of ipc to contain ���, or slow ��� down.
I don't believe that a 50/50 production split of US units used both in pac and in Europe will be any better than a straight KJF,
but if u help Russia enough against G, afr is safe ipc's for UK, then the rest may go against ���, and this might be smarter
than pouring everything against G. But then again, ��� will not be reduced below 30, it will be held at +/- 40 ipc...
I keep repeating myself, but to reduce ��� to 20 or below, and win games with this strat, no way.
Not if this means G have over 50 ipc, and closing on 60.... 
If allies used this strat during the historical WW2 then none of us would ever heard about holocaust...
It would simply never happen 

[Subotai]

For all of you who think you can stop a KJF easily I make this challenge:
Note:  Definition of KJF is the reduction of Japan to the Japan Territory ONLY or the conquering of the Japan territory.  Either effectively ends Japan as a treat for the duration of the game, in most circumstances.

If this is your only goal then it's "easy".
If u use enough ipc's against ���, ��� will be reduced, eod.

But do u really believe that u can win more games with this strat than KGF?
Why isn't KJF more common than KGF, is it because ppl lack creativity?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Yes, but Lucifer, i am currently engaged in KJF against two of the best players on the site.  At least they both have better track records then I, and technology has not yet come into play in either game.  But using technology does not negate the validity nor does it create the validity of a straight game.  However, as Allies, I do have more financial assets to exploit technology in early stages of the game which may or may not speed up the process.  Later, the Axis will have more assets to exploit technology which may or many not speed up their own process.

Further, I don't see why TripleA would be all that much better then the in house dicey.  Rather, the in house dicey displays the results right there on your screen when you look at the thread for all to see.  That, I think, would make it much easier for non-players to follow the thread and see if they can guess the next step.

As for a "better" KJF strat then before.  I cannot attest to that.  I was being shot at when Revised was coming into it's own.  When I got back, everyone was on KGF and that's how I learned the game.  Only recently have I begun to see various moves in different games that, when tried together, would be devastating to Japan's war making ability, and really, that's all you need.  Without Japan England is +9, America is +4 and Russia is +8 income.  That's not including what was taken by whom or when.  That's just in territory that you don't lose as the allies!

BTW, thats:

Russia: Soviet Far East, Yakut, Buryatia, Evenki, Novosibirsk and Kazakh
England: India, Persia, Trans-Jordan, Madagascar, New Zealand and Australia
USA: China, Sinkiang

Of course, Germany might get some of that.  But odds are it isn't getting a lot of it.  Germany has it's own problems with England collecting 25-35 IPC a round and Russia earning in the upper twenties to lower thirties as well.

[ncscswitch]

Jen, I moved our game thread to the Games area instead of in the Revised Topic area.

[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.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

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.