Will the National Objectives benefit the Axis or the Allies

[axis_roll]

Rakeman has it right.

Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.

I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.

---

The only way too tell is more game play.  Hell we don’t even have the initial set-up correct and we’re speculating heavily at this point.

I guess a more viable Pacific US war is better than a full-on ignore Japan strategy.

[Funcioneta]

@axis_roll:

Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.

I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.

*** Yoda mode on ***

KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger

*** Yoda mode off ***

In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

But why fight the Japanese in Africa, the Middle East, and somewhere on the Russian Steppe when you can directly affect them in the Pacific.

Totally agreed. Add Alaska and Canada to the list if allies try ignore a Japan with NOs

[Lucifer]

I cant wait to try the AA50, playing different strats, KJF/KGF, both with and without NOs.

I’m going cold turkey to know the real setup  :lol:

If the gencon setup is almost correct, then Jap can kill most of the US navy in the Pacific J1, this will slow the US if they try to take on Jap in the pacific. This can give Jap enough time to tackle an US pacific strat.
Now, even before we know for sure, almost everyone agrees that NOs will favor axis, it seems likely, but if thats true it also means that the game is unbalanced, maybe even more than AAR.

[axis_roll]

@Funcioneta:

@axis_roll:

Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.

I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.

*** Yoda mode on ***

KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger

*** Yoda mode off ***

In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)

Would you agree that all things being equal between two methods to accomplish something (whatever it is, taking a path to the liquor store, making dinner, whatever)
That the easier, simplier method is better….

If yes, then WHY???

BECAUSE it is easier and simplier!!!
so therefor, KGF is optimal in that sense.

[axis_roll]

@Funcioneta:

@axis_roll:

Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.

I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.

*** Yoda mode on ***

KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger

*** Yoda mode off ***

In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)

Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute.  I like a challenge.  Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.

So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy.  :wink:

[Lucifer]

The problem with KJF is that if you are playing against top players you won’t win with this strat, except maybe one in 10 games by luck.
If axis get no bids for a fun game, then that is different.

For AA50, I would not be worried that Japan may threaten the US mainland if Japan is not contested in the pacific, even if playing with NOs. I would be worried that a 65 ipc Jap is fully able to take and hold Moscow….

[Imperious Leader]

I would think AA50 is scripted to a balanced game so either can’t be exclusively pursued. Most likely the NO are favored to KGF, but the terms KGF and KJF or (whatever is this weeks term for totally ignoring Japan) lose all meaning because both theaters of war have to be pursued to win the game. I am quite sure Larry saw the problem is ignoring a part of the map and giving more meaning to a balanced game. One of the big things was to lower Naval costs, so Pacific sea battles are more viable.

Thank god that Japan has no objectives in USSR, but only focus on the Pacific, while US has both Euro and Asian objectives. UK mostly is in Euro, along with the Soviets. W/O playing the NO’s i would admit its back to the same mumbo jumbo as before.

Lastly, don’t look at AA50 thru the ‘filter’ of Revised strategic ideas. Its totally different ballgame now. Thank god for that too.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes but they are linked. If you concentrate on NO’s the result will be eventually taking the VC, but yes w/o using optional NO the game is entirely as you state.

[Funcioneta]

@axis_roll:

Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute.  I like a challenge.  Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.

So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy.   :wink:

KJF is harder of master, not of execute. When you master KJF, it’s more powerful than a mastered KGF. First, because very few people know how counter KJF and many start to do strange things. Second, because it’s easier for axis reach economic parity in KGF than in KGF. Third, for league games, I found it’s easier reach 9 VCs with KJF (Manila, Shangai, Paris). Fourth, a KGF strat let Japan try invade american mainland (a strat I still don’t master, but seems very nasty in a initial KGF game)