October 25, 2014, 06:56:51 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Help support TripleA software development. Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Kill Japan First (KJF)  (Read 5611 times)
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2006, 12:36:18 pm »
0

Japan's only hope against America is to either get lucky on round 1, as I did in my J11 move killing a massive unified pac fleet from England and America or have Germany crush Russia before America get's too big, thus solidifying Japan's asian holdings.


Now, with that said, i'll say this.  Odds are Japan's buying an IC on Round 1.  Not because it's a good move, but because it seems to be habitual in the Axis and Allies Revised community.

Even if they do not, Japan will quickly run out of forces to use in Asia because they're devoting all their money attempting to keep pace with America.  It is NOT enough to go defensive with the fleet.  yes, you can out pace America in defensive value with just a few carriers and some submarines for fodder.  But how does that secure your islands?  You can secure 1 island, the one your fleet is around at that time.  Meanwhile, America goes where she pleases because your impotent against her defensive might.  And America doesn't have the pesky problem of having a 3rd of her income tied up in highly indefensible islands like Japan does.

So what you do with an America strat is force Japan to yield her islands, making America a financial dynamo or yield Asia to continued Russia control making life hard on Germany.


And that is the point.  After all, in a classic KGF game, America is nothing but designated casualties for a number of rounds.  But if you could free up British and Russian finances so they could build more units on the front in lieu of American forces they have more consolidated punch.  They don't have to hit and then have an ally follow up because they have the units themselves.

ie:

Classic game you might see:

5 Russian Infantry, 2 Russian Fighters
7 British Infantry, 3 British Armor
3 American Infantry, 3 American Armor, 1 Ameircan Fighter, 1 American Bomber


KJF game you might see:

8 Russian Infantry, 3 Russian Armor, 2 Russian Fighters
7 British Infantry, 3 British Armor

Yes, you're short a fighter and a bomber, since they're now in the Pacific.  But how much better off are you offensively with Russia then you were with Russia and America combined???  Remember allies can defend together, but they cannot attack together.
Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2006, 06:17:45 pm »
0

Paint:

Where are you getting 8 fighters from?  DM's post?  Cause I never said anything about 8 fighters I can remember.


USA 1:  2 Carriers, 1 Fighter purchased + 1 Battleship, 1 Transport, 1 DD, 3 Fighters starting units
USA 2:  5 Submarines + 1 DD, 2 Transport starting Units

That's 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 5 Submarines, 3 Transports right there.

That's no "small force" that japan has to "let" do anything.  A force that size can seize Solomons whenever it tickles their fancy to do so.  (Like 1 infantry is going to stop 3 infantry, 3 armor, 4 fighters and a battleship?  Puh-lease.)  And it's one movement from LA, so it isn't like Japan's going to stop an attack there.  That's why the game designers never gave it any value.  IMHO.


Of course, that's assuming no American landing in Africa, which is a waste of materials for America anyway and probably won't do much more then get 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 armor killed anyway.


Meanwhile, Japan has spent two rounds building up, has conquered unoccupied SFE and Bury, taken China and stacked some troops on the mainland.  Maybe even gotten an IC out there. 

More likely then not they've lost at least a destroyer and a submarine, if not a battleship and a carrier as well in the counter attack on Pearl (which may have cost America her battleship and a transport, maybe even her bomber since the fighters are more valuable then the bomber in a pacific campaign.)

Yeah, that thing about the eight fighters was DM's post.

KJF without Africa, what cheek.  I think that's very dangerous.  But then again, I don't see the U.S. proceeding *early* in the Pacific without that additional destroyer and two transports.  Without those, Japan can still make some nasty plays, but with that additional fodder, it's pretty tough for Japan to stop the KJF.  So OK, that's pretty interesting, yes.  On the other hand, German-owned Africa?  I think the Axis might be able to pull off a trade of Moscow for the Pacific.  Whether or not Tokyo falls is open to question, I think.

Seriously, I rarely if ever park a battleship and carrier and Pearl, just because of US battleship, transport, W. US fighter, Hawaiian fighter, and E. US bomber counterattacking.  It's just too expensive for the Japs.  But maybe if you do that UK transport to New Guinea and fighter-sub to Solomons, you can force Japan to push a capital ship to Pearl Harbor?  I'll have to try that.

Clarification - although SOME Japan players leave capital ships at Pearl, I haven't for a long time, because of the US counterattack.  I typically go sub-destr-fighters-bomber vs. Pearl.  Lose a fighter or two at worst, but no capital ships are committed.  ��� carriers and a battleship consolidate off Solomons in my usual Japan move, which makes any US attack there very expensive.

Logged
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2006, 07:05:03 pm »
0

I'll admit a KJF takes more skill then a KGF.  You have to know a little something about balancing your units or you'll loose lotsa coin for little gain.

And you can, actually, make good progress in the Pacific without those extra 3 naval ships from teh Atlantic.  They'd be an aweful big help - kinda like adding 2 cylinders to your engine helps you accellerate faster - but even without them you can still take the Pacific because Japan's on the defense which is going to hamper them.  (Oh yea?  This aint like defending Sinkiang, India or Yakut, there's no one territory to cover!  You gotta cover at least 4 islands - Borneo, East Indies, Philippines, and Japan)

What does America have to defend?  LA.  Maybe Alaska.  Probably nothing at all though.


And yes, if you let Germany get Africa you have GOT to move fast.  And really, there's next to nothing you can honestly do to stop Germany from taking Africa unless Egypt goes well for you.  So you're going to have to move fast.  The only bonus you get is with a weak Japan on the mainland, you can slowely walk your Russians to the German front, an added 30 IPC in Infantry is going to help off set the 3 rounds Germany gets with Africa.
Logged
ncscswitch
Guest
« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2006, 07:06:39 pm »
0

Put up or shut up Jen... UK is up, and they have 1 TRN in the Pacific, and Japan still has the lion's share of their capital ships...
Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2006, 07:16:39 pm »
0

NPB:  1.  This "small" attack force of eight fighters came from - where?  How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free?  You can't threaten Japan's navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters.  That means that from the Solomons, you can't do much with those fighters.  If you build a minimal navy, you're vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.

You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.

--

DM:  This is wrong. 
You can go to Sol as early as rd 3 (pending J moves), but more likely rd 4.
You don't need LRA.
Ftrs on AC's in the Wus sz can reach sz 60 and land quite easily.  Sol is only 2 moves from sz 60.
You are not vulnerable to a suicide attack.  It is waaaaaay too costly for Japan.
US starts with a BB. trn, dd in the Pac (minus Pearl).  Buy 2 AC's 1 ftr on US 1 and you have:
1 BB, 1 DD, 2 AC, 4 ftrs, 1 trn in Wus Sz.
US 2 looks like this:
1 BB, 1 DD, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 1 trn
US 3:
1 BB, 1 DD, 4 AC, 8 ftrs, 1 trn

Now you move to Sol on US 4 and Japan is going to suicide with what?Huh

XXXXX XXXXX

Well, when you said you were going to pop onto the Solomons, I assumed you were going early fighter heavy, planning to rush Japan ("That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers").  But given the above information, it looks like you're going mass carriers.  Which is probably pretty solid in general, but slow.  Which changes my whole bloody reply, because I assumed you were trying for some sorta "turbo KJF".

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  Mass air, you better be buying more ftrs/boms cause 6 ftrs, 1 bom will get slaughter.  And if you are buying air that means less ground units for Asia and you still have to deal with the unified UK1 fleet floating around the Indain ocean which consists of 1 AC, 1 ftr, 1 DD, 2 trns, 1 sub.  By UK 3 you can have a second ftr on the AC.

Or did you take that out on J1?
That carries its own downside for Japan.

XXXXX XXXXX

Right, I do advocate buying Japanese fighters against KJF.  But although the ground war in Asia suffers, it is actually not that terrible, because Japan has a hard time running troops in on J1 and J2 anyways (not enough transports).  If you just build infantry and support the attack with fighters, you can keep the fighters close to the Asian coast, and still do all kinds of fun stuff.  Not as fun as massed tanks, not nearly as much, really.  But still fun.

Yeah, killing the UK AC is a real b**** for Japan on J1, because it has to allocate fighters all over the bloody place.  I think I mentioned this in another thread somewhere, so you know it's not like I'm just thinking of this now . . . or maybe I am?  bwahhaha, no not rly.

Typically, my response to the UK AC depends on what UK did.  Germany should have killed everything in Anglo-Egypt, so I don't have to worry about a second UK fighter on that Indian carrier on UK1, which is potentially horrible for Japan.  This should leave me with Pearl and Asia for my fighter targets.  I can usually ignore the UK fleet depending on its positioning, and perhaps kill it on J2.  Although that isn't possible if UK consolidates southwest of Australia, UK consolidation carries its own set of drawbacks that I am sure you will be familiar with.

Short version:  Usually I kill the UK AC on J2, not J1, because I just can't spare the fighters on J1.  But sometimes I leave Pearl alone and kill the entire Indian/Pacific UK fleet instead.  Which carries its own drawbacks for Japan, which I am sure you will be familiar with as well.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  Japan is quickly forced by to sz 60 (or more likely 61) conceding the South Pacific to the US and UK fleets.

XXXXX XXXXX

My point is that it's quick *once it starts happening*, and very difficult, if not impossible for Japan to stop.  But US4 to Solomons is not what I consider "quick" overall.  Quick once it starts happening, yes, but quick overall, no.  Quick for me is US1 in Algeria, US2 in Libya or Norway, then steady progression.  US4 without any territory gains is what I call slow.  Of course, once you grab Solomons, you start decisively holding 3 and 4 IPC islands, whereas in Europe, it's hard to hold anything against a German counterattack.  So basically I play a quick ramp up against Germany to bleed off its strength, then I gradually squish it to death.  As opposed to a gradual buildup against Japan, followed by a quick offensive.  And why do I prefer that?  Because I find that if you go slow against Japan, you give the Allies time to crack Moscow.

The US bleeds Japan's strength off if Japan tries to recapture the islands (and if Japan doesn't, US can build factories that pump out 4 units per turn each).  But it's still US 6-7th turn to support Moscow, at least.  And if you fly US fighters to Moscow to assist, the US Pacific must retreat because of the loss of fighter cover, unless you have long range aircraft.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  The logical course at that point is for Japan to concede the South Pacific and the 12+ IPC over the next turn or two, in order to save the Imperial Navy.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  (in response to a comment about Japan leaving infatnry/fighters in Japan)  Yes!!!  This is precisely the point.  If Japan is leaving 2 inf and ftrs behind that is less units to Asia.  It becomes dead weight and very frustrating.  If Japan is leaving anything behind they are not maximizing their purchases or their moves.  This is bad and to be exploited by the US and UK (if they still have their fleet around).

XXXXX XXXXX

No.  Not rly.  Because Japan can afford to cycle fighters that land in Japan and still assist in Asia.  And because the U.S. must outspend Japan to threaten Tokyo.  The US must spend something on the order of 16 IPC to outweigh Japan's 6.  That is - US spends 8 IPC on a transport, 5 IPC on a tank, and 3 IPC on an infantry, while Japan spends 6 IPC on infantry.  Even then, the U.S. only has the advantage of skew.  (Not inconsiderable, but not quite what you want).  If the US does NOT spend that much on transports, Japan does not need to spend that much on defensive infantry.

Really, the above paragraph does not entirely reflect the situation, because keeping Japanese fighters at Tokyo reduces their effectiveness on the Asian front (unless you have an aggro Russian player that is trying to make gains in Asia, in which case the Japanese fighters function quite well).  And the US fighters have multiple possible targets, including the Japanese navy, and can concentrate their forces while Japan must divide theirs.  BUT, even with those compensating factors, it is no joke to try to take Tokyo by sheer force.  It is far easier to try to grab Asia and the Pacific Islands and reduce Japan's IPCs, then attack the weakened Japan into oblivion.  But that is very time-consuming.

And, by the way, the UK and the US should not BOTH have their fleets.  If they both do, the Japanese player probably sucks.  Because the UK can consolidate off Australia, but then there is no particular reason why Japan shouldn't do Pearl.  But if the UK decides to go aggro in the Pacific, Japan can choose to kill UK or US navies.  Either way, if Japan doesn't kill EITHER navy, well, I just don't know what the heck Japan is thinking.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM: Btw, I didn't mean 2 IC on rd 1 or anything.
As a personal note, I go no J IC until at least rd 2, possibly rd 3.
I also find the Man/Sin IC connection quite deadly.  Man IC say rd 2, Sin IC around round 4 or 5.

XXXXX XXXXX

In a KGF game, I produce gigantic loads of tanks, and switch them between India, China, and Yakut as needed.  I shuttle infantry from Tokyo to French Indochina to support the attack on India, and into Burytia or the Asian coast as needed.

I find that I do not use mass ICs, because I just have so many transports running around, I can just barely squeak out one - and even that one, I'm thinking twice about these days.  BUT if it works, why not try it, I say.  Maybe I'll try to pop a Ssinkiang IC out one of these days.

XXXXX XXXXX

DM:  I am by no means suggesting the US can just go full force Pac strat in all games.  There are certain things to look for as a Allied player.  Air and trns can be one way, but there are still holes in that.  Big holes.
You're offensive punch is limited when trying to hit the US/UK fleets.
And you can't prevent the US move to the Sol, which is problematic.

XXXXX XXXXX

Ah.  OK then.

XXXXX XXXXX

Read the rest.  No real additional comments.  Pretty much agree, yes, yes.
Logged
Feds10
A&A.org Infantry
*
Posts: 31



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2006, 08:55:11 pm »
0

Wow...cudos to newpintbrush, darthmaximus, jen, and ncscswitch. i've only faced a KJF twice...both were horrible attempts...and they failed in terms of killing japan first....b/c th german player was so horrible that it never even happened...(lost on uk4)

great info...amazing counter strat's and opinions

id give you all medals....but i rele don't wanna go through the trouble..

i wanna face al of you in the near future


feds 10
Logged
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: November 20, 2006, 07:32:46 pm »
0

Put up or shut up Jen... UK is up, and they have 1 TRN in the Pacific, and Japan still has the lion's share of their capital ships...

Bah, you're not even a full round in at that point and you're puffing your feathers.  Barring more insane dice, you're going down hard!


It's not even USA 2 and I already have you out classed and out gunned in the Atlantic and the Pacific and I havn't even gotten to burying you yet!
Logged
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: November 20, 2006, 07:34:22 pm »
0

Wow...cudos to newpintbrush, darthmaximus, jen, and ncscswitch. i've only faced a KJF twice...both were horrible attempts...and they failed in terms of killing japan first....b/c th german player was so horrible that it never even happened...(lost on uk4)

great info...amazing counter strat's and opinions

id give you all medals....but i rele don't wanna go through the trouble..

i wanna face al of you in the near future


feds 10


Yea the major problem with debates like these are you end up with those off hand battles where Germany attacks a larger force but for somereason ends up wearing bulletproof armor becasue they get by unscathed.  So instead of a light strafe, it ends up in a route.  Or Japan lucks out and scores 6 of 8 submarine hits followed by 11 of 20 regular ship hits against a slightly more powerful combined navy pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat like I did against JSP.


Logged
ncscswitch
Guest
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2006, 03:01:35 am »
0


Bah, you're not even a full round in at that point and you're puffing your feathers.  Barring more insane dice, you're going down hard!


It's not even USA 2 and I already have you out classed and out gunned in the Atlantic and the Pacific and I havn't even gotten to burying you yet!

You have the Atlantic... but only with PARITY to the Luftwaffe (and that is far better than is normal in a game).

As for the Pacific... Japan still dropping units in Asia, and your teeth have been effectively pulled in the Pacific.  You can be annoying for a few turns while you continue to gear up in the Pacific, but by then it will be FAR too late...
Logged
Sankt Hallvard
2007 AAR League
A&A.org Fighter
*
*****
Posts: 1379


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2006, 07:48:18 am »
0

Bla-bla-bla. Can someone summarize this thread? KJF is now considered a viable strategy or does one need to be a professor to execute it to have a chance?
Logged
DarthMaximus
Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*******
Posts: 20268


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2006, 02:10:55 pm »
0

Lol!   grin

IMO, yes it is possible and viable given the right circumstances.
Logged
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2006, 03:11:09 pm »
0

It's very viable. 

Also, the threat of KJF is even MORE viable.  As you can see with my game with Switch, I managed to not only destroy 25% of his naval assets without a scratch (Pearl on J1 doesn't count, you don't get to do anything to stop it) but I forced him to blow 2 rounds of development to stop an assumed KJF tactic, all without loosing any assets I wouldn't have lost anyway.


It's B > E > A > Utiful when a plan comes together!



Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe does not have any say over the Atlantic at all.  It's not shared.  It's denied for anything but pleasure flights over unoccupied waters. Tongue
Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2006, 03:49:56 pm »
0

Bla-bla-bla. Can someone summarize this thread?

You just did.

Crack pipe!
Logged
ncscswitch
Guest
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2006, 03:53:32 pm »
0

but I forced him to blow 2 rounds of development to stop an assumed KJF tactic, all without loosing any assets I wouldn't have lost anyway.


I would hardly call 1 SUB, 1 DST blowign 2 turns of production.

And with the US pull-out of the Pacific, the extra Navy allows me to float TRNs wherever i want to, and with no real concern for counter-attacks smiley
Logged
Cmdr Jennifer
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 47909


League and Tournament Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2006, 04:17:59 pm »
0

It was more then that.  You also pulled back your fleets which means you are a full two turns behind on clearing islands and your airforce is all concentrated.

Does 1 destroyer, 1 submarine = invincible transports?  Only against British dice man!  Those brits havn't caught a break all game.  Strategy's sound, but the dice suck in your game...the rest of my games have been going pretty well, just your game I get the bad luck....

Ah well.  I'll look back and laugh at all this when I'm having Tea with the Kaiser in Berlin. (The Kaiser will be Kaiser Neville Chamberlain, the First.)
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2014 Support Drive
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Field Marshal Games

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2014 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!