Open Ended KJF challenge

[U-505]

Well, to be honest Switch, I have noticed that the “general public” does indeed use the bid for units only and habitually avoids giving Japan cash. Personally, I think giving Japan bid money is essential and most players are making a mistake by not doing so.

Commander, you might want to edit your first post to include the limit on not giving Japan bid money so there isn’t any more confusion.

[Jennifer]

@U-505:

Commander, you might want to edit your first post to include the limit on not giving Japan bid money so there isn’t any more confusion.

@Cmdr:

To balance the game Germany should be given 7 IPC for equipment, this is the mid-point of the average which is 6 to 8 IPC and generally goes to Germany anyway.

I thought that pretty much determined it.

[Guest]

To be honest Jen, I am not going to accept that restriction on a bid.

I won;t go $7 to Japan, but as I posted, I often use $1 or $2 for Japan.

I also will NOT play Low Luck as it is a completely different game from ADS.

You want to roll the dice and accept a game from someone against whom you have NEVER won a game and test your strat, then go ahead and accept MY challenge…
$7 bid.  Not more than $2 to Japan.  ADS.
I will do a “traditional” opening with the Axis, until the Allies SHOW KJF.
Examples of showing KJF:

• USSR sends offensive units toward Japan on R1
• UK builds an IC in India, Australia, etc.
• UK sends RAF to Russia R1
• UK takes Borneo or other Island territory UK1
• UK does fleet consolidation in SZ30, or skips Egypt Counter.
• USA drops significant income in the Pacific.
• USA builds an IC in Asia

I’ll be using TripleA, and since you do not, that means in-site Dicey, force summaries and land/cash summaries each move.

Put up, or shut up!
:evil:

[trihero]

Switch definitely fits the image of the alpha dog  :-o

[Lucifer]

@ncscswitch:

To be honest Jen, I am not going to accept that restriction on a bid.

I won;t go $7 to Japan, but as I posted, I often use $1 or $2 for Japan.

I also will NOT play Low Luck as it is a completely different game from ADS.

You want to roll the dice and accept a game from someone against whom you have NEVER won a game and test your strat, then go ahead and accept MY challenge…
$7 bid.  Not more than $2 to Japan.  ADS.
I will do a “traditional” opening with the Axis, until the Allies SHOW KJF.
Examples of showing KJF:

• USSR sends offensive units toward Japan on R1
• UK builds an IC in India, Australia, etc.
• UK sends RAF to Russia R1
• UK takes Borneo or other Island territory UK1
• UK does fleet consolidation in SZ30, or skips Egypt Counter.
• USA drops significant income in the Pacific.
• USA builds an IC in Asia

I’ll be using TripleA, and since you do not, that means in-site Dicey, force summaries and land/cash summaries each move.

Put up, or shut up!
:evil:

Some of those opening moves are standard by many decent players also within a strict KGF.
Should have a good defenition of KJF so we’re all familiar with what KJF is in details.
As I mentined before, KJF may also be a KJF even if Berlin falls before Tokyo.
IF Jap is significantly reduced by rnd 4-5-6-8, then it’s a KJF.
And it cannot be because of stuipid gameplay by the axis.
To take mainland TT’s, island TT’s from Jap and hold it for several rnds then it’s KJF.
US must build a lot (imo 90% + ipc) in sz 55, else it’s not KJF, it’s not KJF if Jap skips pearl, and US builds everything in EUS, but uses the remaining fleet in pac to disturb Japan. That is slow Japan down…
What determines a KJF or KGF is how allies are spending and moving which units during an entire game.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

For all of you who think you can stop a KJF easily I make this challenge:

To keep extremes out of the game, it should be Low Luck
To balance the game Germany should be given 7 IPC for equipment, this is the mid-point of the average which is 6 to 8 IPC and generally goes to Germany anyway.
To allow others to follow the game, the in house dicey will be used for all battles.
To allow others to follow the game, ABattlemap will be used to track the games.

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.

How easy it is to stop a KJF will depend, but it will always be easier than stopping a KGF.
What I would do if I were you, Jennifer, is first to (try) beat all the best players in your playgroup with whatever strat that
will accomplish this goal, and then you can claim that the KJF better than KGF, as in: KJF wins more games than KGF.
But the fact is that with the current revised map TT’s, a KFJ will always be less effecient than KGF.
If you say KJF is more fun than KGF, fine. I don’t agree beacause imo it’s not fun to lose, but if you are winning more games than you
lose anyway, I guess KJF can be more fun sometimes, or maybe even very funny in most games…?
If your goal is to reduce Jap ofc it can be done, and has been done. But reducing Jap is itself pointless. The goal is
to win the game, or…?

[Jennifer]

I just went with how the majority of players I have seen play.  That’s 6-8 IPC of equipment for Germany, nothing for Japan.

Russia moves 1 tank to India, not necessarily KJF, just means they don’t want India to fall on J1.
England does SZ 30 unification, not necessarily KJF.  Just means they want to have defensive punch if Japan attacks.
England builds IC in India, not necessarily KJF.  Just means they want to hold India for a long time.
England puts RAF in Russia, not necessarily KJF.  I put the Bomber in Novosibirsk almost by habit now.  Just so convenient to lock a warship in Japan’s home waters.

America builds 2 carriers, fighter in SZ 55, that’s KJF.

If Japan gets +2 IPC in bid, then the Allied player is going to look at Russia 1 and Germany 1 to determine if they are going KJF.  Why?  Because Japan can immediately throw down 4 submarines and that can slow the allies enough to almost make it as hard to win KJF as KGF.

And why Low Luck?  Because I don’t want you to get lucky with some ungodly attack or defense when you had almost no chance to win, and then have you end up winning the game and declare you are just a better player.  If you only have a 1.8% chance to win and you win, that does not make you a superior player or the strategy bad, it just means you got lucky.

[Romulus]

To minimize luck influence more games should be played.
Only one games is too few to make any affirmation even if it is played with low luck.

Ivanova, you seem obsessed of losing a game at A&A in consequence of the defeat in a single battle in which the opponent have only 1,8 % chance of winning.

If it was so A&A should not be the great game it is. And A&A IS a great game.
A&A victory come from good strategy, good purchasing, good tactic, and good logistic. Positioning on the board is important.
A&A games may not be lost as a result of one battle the enemy have only 1,8% chance of winning. Or he won also other battles or the chance has been miscalculated .

[Guest]

I won;t build 4 SUBs on J1 REGARDLESS of USSR1 and UK1 moves.

LL is a completely different game than ADS, and I prefer to use League and Tournament standards for a real-world viable test.
NO battle should ever be 100% predictable.  3 INF, 1 FIG against 2 INF SHOULD fail periodically instead of being an automatic win for the attacker.

My challenge stands, you can accept it and put your game where your mouth is, or you can try to come up with ways to not test your ideas against someone who you have already stated explicitly (in another thread) is a superior gamer to you  :evil:

(yes, I am no longer using a glove for the slap of this challenge, THAT was a a Field Plate Gauntlet slap)  :-D

[U-505]

Two things.

First, Commander, if the UK builds an IC in India, it better be KJF or that was a pretty bad move.

Second, Switch, 3 inf, 1 fig vs. 2 inf isn’t automatic in LL. It’s close, but not automatic. 1 bmb, 3 inf vs. 2 inf is automatic but, then again, even in ADS you can pretty much count on it. Even 2 inf, 1 fig vs. 1 inf falls pretty close to the ADS results. LL prevents things like the sz52 attack failing miserably and Japan losing half their fleet which pretty much ends the game right there.

[Guest]

ADS.

How you deal with variables on battle results is the key to being a skilled player.

If Jen wants sim results, then just run the SIMs and post the results.

If she wants GAME results, then my acceptance of her challenge with two minor changes to make it a real-world test stands.

… but not for long.  I don;t feel like arguing and debating and re-posting an acceptance of her challenge on almost every single one of her terms and having her ignore it or try to weasel out of it.

If she is that afraid of me as a gamer, then so be it.

I am done here unless there is an actual test game to be played…
I have little patience for people who issue a challenge, then evade when the challenge is accepted.

Oh, and on the sample of 3 INF & FIG on 2 INF…

LL gives only a 2.9% chance to fail to capture, with more than half the time 2 INF, 1 FIG remaining for the attacker
ADS is an almost 15% chance of failure to take the territory.

There are folks on these boards who don;t attack with less than 85% odds in most cases.  So in one case, the attack may not even happen, in the other it is basically guaranteed win.  That is a pretty significant difference.

[Jennifer]

Other problem I have with games with you, Switch, is you give the impression that you will refuse games with technology.

Besides, you won’t play a KJF game since you have too many games going on right now and not enough boards. :P

[Guest]

Fine Jen, just keep evading.

PM me if you actually want to play an ADS, League and Tournament Rules, $7 IPC bid w/ not more than $2 to Japan test of your hypothesis (it is not a theory as you have failed to prove anything yet)

[Jennifer]

I’ll accept, but technology has to be on the table.  It’s in the box rules, but I’ll submit to the LHTR caveats on Technology.  But, as they are integral to my KJF strategy, they have to be on the table.

[Guest]

If you have a KJF Strat that is technology dependent, then you do NOT have a viable KJF strat.

But I’ll accept the tech provision, LHTR 1.3

Angel and I are heading out for the evening, so we can get this underway tomorrow if you like.  You are of course welcome to start the thread and post R1.

I place my bid as:
1 ARM Libya
$2 Japan
(copying a bid I just had used on me)

[Jennifer]

Technology is part of the game, any strategy that incorporates it as a component, regardless of level of use, is a viable strategy, just as Strategic Bombing Runs are a viable strategy.

National Advantages are optional rules.  Technologies are integral rules to the game.

And just to clarify, these, all KJF games started by this thread, are test games testing the viability of KJF.

[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.

[Jennifer]

ADS can give you fracked results.

Just had a Japan player in a tournament quit a game against me when I moved KJF in Round 1.  He lost Japan’s entire air force (save the bomber) and all surface warships except a destroyer and a transport. (He built a destroyer and forgot to move the transport in SZ 59.)

SZ 30 was left with Carrier, Fighter - British
SZ 52 was left with damaged American Battleship
SZ 59 was cleared by Chinese Fighter (He consolidated in Manchuria instead of attacking.)

America had 1 Battleship, 2 Carriers, 2 Fighters, Destroyer in SZ 55 / SZ 52.

I would hardly call that bad strategy or a good reflection on a KJF strategy.  It didn’t even finish round 1!

[Lucifer]

If you play with tech or NA’s, it’s a completely different game.
Imo it’s not an overall “big” difference between LL and reg dice, but the mindset might be.
It still is revised 4th. ed. right?
The Ukr attack R1 is a good example. This battle is just a minor detail, if you do it the right way, but the mindset and
thinking/philosophy during a game and throughout several games can be very different if you’re using reg dice or LL.

I agree with Switch who stated that he thinks 10%-20% of all games are decided by dice rolls.
I think it’s more like 15%-30% in reg dice games, but we all agree with that GENERALLY it is not luck that decides the
outcome of games in more than 50% of all games. It’s well below 50%, and even with reg dice, tech and NA’s, if
players play enough games (100 + ?) then the best player will be known by his stats.

Jennifer, you cannot do a test KJF game with tech and claim it’s not easy to win as axis if allies try a KJF.
With tech, one diceroll (one dice, 5 ipc!) may change the outcome of the whole game.
Not so with reg dice, generally … :)
Jen, you might wanna tell us why and how allies can win a KJF with tech, cause I don’t play tech, but if you do then
all discussions of tactics, opening moves, KJF, KGF is worthless.
I have bashed you in KJF threads, but I cannot know if a KJF could be a good overall strat as KGF with tech, and I don’t  wanna know either. With tech or NA’s you could be right, without tech and without NA’s, I know for sure that KJF is not as good as
KGF.
I have challenged you earlier Jennifer, if you wanna play with triplea, LL, no tech, axis bid 8, all ipc to G, one unit pr. TT.
All of my G bid goes to Afr.

[Jennifer]

With tech you can spend 100’s of IPC and not get any technologies either.

Besides, there is no one tech in LHTR 1.3 that is a game winner.  Classic was the last time there was a game winner technology.

However,there’s also no wasted techs where you get something you didn’t want.  If you get something, it’s what you wanted.

Japan and America, in KJF want Super Submarines
Germany and England and Russia want Rockets
Germany, Russia, and England want Jet Fighters

etc.

No matter what tech you get, it can help either side.  But it IS part of the core game.  So it SHOULD be included in any test game, even if it is not used by either side, it should be available.

It’s my biggest beef with tournaments and leagues on this site.  Other sites that run/ran leagues and tournaments allowed technologies because its part of the core of the game.  It’s not an optional rule.