Reasons why KGF happens

[LuckyDay]

@Subotai:

I have never seen or lost to a polar express in AA50. In revised, I may have seen it once, a complete failure.

you probably need to play funcioneta then.

[DarthMaximus]

I certainly agree with the ideas in the opening post, but I feel the main reason is simply the Capital Locations.  London, Berlin, Rome, and Moscow are all close together and with the exception of the UK none of these powers ever have to buy a ship to be successful.  And just looking at the board if you never played any A&A games and had to guess which country falls first, I bet everyone would say either Russia, Germany, or Italy.  Island nations are just harder to capture.

I think if we’re following Sun-Tzu, you attack what is weak and avoid what is strong.

Now, I do agree with Func, that it is up to Japan to prevent the KGF.  If Polar Express proves to be too deadly mid game and Ger or Ita doesn’t fall that may change things, but it still leaves Europe as the easiest target.

I don’t think VCs would help.  I usually find that most people like to take a Capital.  I certainly perfer too, assuming time isn’t an issue.  So people will still want to play until a capital falls or is likely to fall.

I think if people want to see more Pac action a few things need to happen including re-valuing of Pac IPCs and possible playouts where both Tokyo or L.A. could fall within the same time frame as Berlin/Rome - Mos.
This would likely require a new map.  Maybe add in a Central Canada and one more Central US ter and add another Atlantic Sz so you can’t shuck directly Ecan to Alg in one move.

I think the most drastic solution would be to split the US into 2 players an East and a West US.  West US also gets China.  Both end up earning about 20-25 range and essentially forces a 50-50 split of US resources.

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

This would likely require a new map.  Maybe add in a Central Canada and one more Central US ter and add another Atlantic Sz so you can’t shuck directly Ecan to Alg in one move.

Agreed with the splitting of mainland America. As now, it’s easy shuffle tanks from EUSA to WUSA and viceversa

I must add something about sea zones: at start I didn’t liked the fusion of both Japan’s szs but now I like, because you can grab units both from Manchuria and Japan at the same time. It probably counters the splitting of west canadian szs (that prevents the powerful unload Japan-WCan we had in Revised), so in general I like the change. But the point is that, to prevent ignoring Japan (a thing FDR would never do in real life), not only the splitting of America would aid, we need a easy shuck from Japan to America

A interesting thing with Polar Express is that you can always cancel it before landing on mainland America: the trannies built aid troops go faster to Africa, and also the troops can redirect to West if needed

About techs and Japan choice JTDTM/Polar Express: if USA builds Pacific fleet, Japan has no choice, she must go to a lesser JTDTM while competing with USA in the naval race. Since you never know what strat is going to follow USA, I’d never buy tech teams with Japan until USA has decided: if USA builds Pacific fleet, Japan should roll air/naval tech tree, but if not, you should roll land/production tech tree:

• Superartillery and mech-infs will have greater use in JTDM or Polar Express
• Rockets can create havoc in soviet ICs, but also one rocket in Alaska and another in Hawaii can annoy USA
• War bounds is always good anyway
• Paratroopers is pretty good also: it can work better than trannies in Africa, and there’s a chance of annoying Mexico! Also, uses making troops walk faster in China/Siberia are obvious
  -But the king of techs in this case is improved industry: Alaska can produce 4 units, Wcan 3, Japan 10 (you can see the pattern) but India and Manchuria will produce 5 each and even those 1 IPCs territories in China, Siberia and Africa can be pretty annoying. You can even make a shuck from Hawaii(production of 3). Against a USA that will colect 40 IPCs in a Polar Express (13 units maximun), Japan with Improved Industry can be a true pain

There is so much strategical options playing with tech in Polar Express that I’d hate miss some. If the price is nerfing HBs or delaying tech, I’m pretty ready to pay it  :-)

@DarthMaximus:

If Polar Express proves to be too deadly mid game and Ger or Ita doesn’t fall that may change things, but it still leaves Europe as the easiest target.

This is true in long race: the true goal of Polar Express is prevent USA coming in aid of Africa or Europe. That makes easier to axis hold or retake Africa, and that leads to axis economic advantage, the true goal of the strat. If axis success in this, it’s probable that USSR falls before than USA unless crappy dices or badgameplay of USA, but it will be matter of time one or another

[bugoo]

Look in a KGF you ignore Japan for the first 2 or 3 turns, not the entire game.  I know I will have to face Japan either in Persia or Egypt or Alaska, but I am hoping to cripple G/I before then.  I am trying to get economic superiority by shutting down G/I’s income, and boosting Russia’s and the US’s.  The gamble is, do I succeed.  No matter what though, why would I devote resources, like stacking Persia R1, when there is no threat there yet.  Those troops can turn the tide against G and THEN on turn 2 or 3 or 4 I can move some inf and figs there.  Remember, J has to establish a much more difficult supply line than any of the allies do for a KGF no matter what she does, and that offsets her huge income.  Also, defending with combined nations is easier than attacking, etc.

I’m not saying KGF wins every time, but its the allies best shot at victory.  And for all you Polar Express people, play some games and PROVE your right, get on tripleA or link me a forum game where two equal skilled players without dice going bonkers stopped a full bore KGF with a Polar Express, i’d love to see it.

[Woodstock]

And for all you Polar Express people, play some games and PROVE your right, get on tripleA or link me a forum game where two equal skilled players without dice going bonkers stopped a full bore KGF with a Polar Express, i’d love to see it.

Okay, not exactly what you asked for, but here’s a picture: I am currently in a TripleA '42 scenario game.
It’s my first 42 game ever, and I was stunned by the lack of Japan’s options.

But look at it now. Turn 4, all the Allies went for Germany. And guess who’s knocking at America’s door? Japan.
The entire attack plan of the Allies now falls to bit.
Agreed, the Japanese got foot at the US mainlaind just in time, as Rome was about to fall, but USA now definitely needs to divert it’s attention, giving both Germany and Italy the chance to catch a breath again. The entire US supply line is halted (or needs to be halted, US isn’t up yet) to kick out the Japanese.

Now, while US is going to divert it’s forces, Japan is already in Persia, China is gone, and it’s income is nearing 70. Russia will be soon toast if they don’t start diverting infantry to the Japanese front aswell.

Germany is still in the +30’s (Italy is indeed down to 9), so the UK wont be able to cripple Berlin on it’s own.

Now, this is nothing out of the extraordinary. Everytime I play as the Axis, I pretty much follow the same tactics. With Germany, I delay the invasions with some navy, meanwhile stacking up on ground units for the big waves to come.
In the meantime, Japan is slowly creeping up to Russia, collecting IPC’s and NO’s, and by turn 3 the first Japanese reach American shores.

The few times I lose as Axis, is when someone indeed pulls of a decent balance, or even a full bore KJF.

[Woodstock]

I think this post from a different topic says it better then what I just rambled:

@atarihuana:

well germany moving heavy in BST its quite tough to defend, even if you send all allied planes in range and buy 2 ftr for russia there… pretty much the same in india. if it turns out that KGF is more “effective” than a combined global allied strat …(keeping russia alive, uk focus africa first, us pacific first > see note) this will  become even more true for both since BST and  burma will then become top priority (imho).

note:
keep in mind thoose NOs. imho ppl underestimate brit vs jap/ita NOs… its hard to get the europe NOs for allies in the first 4-6 rounds, but you can get 2-3 UK, deny ITA its 2 (japan possibly one but that ones a biggy -9J +4B )

ps:
“effective” doesnt mean just because KGF is faster, its better.  strictly strategically thinking brings me to the conclusion that it aims for a decisive battle(since axis cash out bigger), and i personally dislike that. i’d  rather outproduce the axis and that means meet them where the IPC are.

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

And for all you Polar Express people, play some games and PROVE your right, get on tripleA or link me a forum game where two equal skilled players without dice going bonkers stopped a full bore KGF with a Polar Express, i’d love to see it.

Well, I have one against JWW now and I’m about to take Whashington DC. It’s a Revised game, true, but the basis should apply for AA50, where Japan is way bigger and USA only gets 5 IPCs more (from one NO). Check my last axis games in 2008 league, I won all with Polar Express

In Revised, I only lost two games with Polar Express: one was a multi where the german player built tons of bombers. The other was against Uffish this year, because I did some stupid things with germans and also got some crappy rolls

Also I have won one in TripleA taking WUSA, but I cannot prove that one because I didn’t save that one

[bugoo]

So am I correct in assuming that all you polar express fans are saying the game does just fine in promoting fighting in the pacific?  And at what turn does your polar express ‘go off’ so to speak, as in becomes a real threat to the US, J2, J3?  What is the general shuck setup, 6 trannies moving 8 units a round into Alaska?  Factory in Alaska?  Factory in Man?  Do you still put ICs in India, Burma?

And stop bringing up revised, this is NOT revised, thank god.

[Zhukov44]

When I first had a look at the Anniversary map, the biggest disappointment was that the Atlantic sea zones were essentially the same as Revised, while the Pacific became larger.  Even the silly Canada to Africa shuck was exactly the same.  This, and the fact that in 41 the 2 key islands are British and thus can’t have American factories–-this makes KJF very difficult.  As long as the Japanese player is vigilant it seems extremely tough to pull off, although perhaps not impossible.  But unlike Revised, the Brits hardly have any units in the area so the burden is all on the USA.

If we wanted to redraw Anniversary to encourage varied tactics then the first thing to do is make the Atlantic Ocean larger so that it makes more sense to go with a naval strat in the Pacific rather than focusing on an immediate impact in Europe and Africa.  Larger Atlantic, stronger China and factories in India and Aussie so the Brits can have some kind of presence.

[Veqryn]

If we made the Atlantic larger…  well instead of needing 4x4x4 (12) transports to send just 8 land units into italy/france, you would need 4x4x4x4 (16) transports, which is ridiculous.  I think the current need of 12 is ridiculous already.

I think the solution would be to make the pacific smaller in a way that benefits america but not japan.

[Veqryn]

A different thought:

Perhaps the Factory on the West Coast could have “Improved Shipyards Tech”, but the factory on the East Coast would not have that tech.

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

And at what turn does your polar express ‘go off’ so to speak, as in becomes a real threat to the US, J2, J3?  What is the general shuck setup, 6 trannies moving 8 units a round into Alaska?  Factory in Alaska?  Factory in Man?  Do you still put ICs in India, Burma?

In Revised, the amount of trannies needed was 9: a 4x4 Alaska/Wcan shuck and one more for Africa. Since now we cannot reach Wcan from Japan, probably we need a 4x4x4 shuck. However, in Revised we started with 1 trannie (the other was usually killed by UK) and now we start with 5, so I guess that doesn’t matter. Also, I’d buy 2 trannies, 1 inf J1, so we have 7 trannies for round 2. It means you can use one to Australia and send the others to west, taking Hawaii or approaching in a way they can menace all the 3 key territories: WUSA, WCan, Ala. There’s no way USA can defend the 3 at the same time, even if they started the shuck in WUSA. So Japan will make a big landing in Ala and another small in Wcan if USA stacked LA or a big in Wcan and a small in ala if stacked Wcan. You must also bring some figs/bb/cruiser to the attack

If it works, the shuck will be started round 3. But even round 4 is OK if finally success on the beachhead

About ICs: Alaska, Manchuria and India. If India is not possible, maybe Eind (that would need one more trannie)

Japan has enough income to build all the trannies and ICs needed. The only trick is mastering the timing, and it’s only some difficult in case of USA starting the shuck in WUSA

But the better is that you can shift to JTDTM if really needed. A 2 tra, 1 inf J1 buy is good also for that, nothing will say allies if Japan will dare or not to Polar Express until it really starts (J2/J3)

Anyway, I’m not saying Polar Express is unbeatable. You still need play a good western axis that can hold Euro-Allies until Japan reaches to Africa or USA is in serious troubles (that means a jap stack in Wcan). But I must remember that Western Axis has much more income than Germany in Revised, and Euro Allies income is only a bit higer

And if Japan gets Improved Industry, those are bad bad new for allies

[Lucifer]

I have almost never seen a polar express, and I have never seen this strat win any games. Why? b/c it’s not a good strat.
Only once, it was AA50 LL, NT, +NOs, and no bids….but it’s not the strat, its the axis bias in this setting.

For AA50 with NOs, axis are favored, but this doesn’t mean that polar express is a good strat, in a revised game with no bids maybe a kjf can be done, I’ve seen the kjf in revised a few times even with 8-9 bid, but only succeeded when the allied player was superior of his opponent.
A kjf strat in revised will usually fail and always against decent players, a polar express in AA50/revised will also fail against decent players, unless really bad dice for allies.
The reason why polar express and kjf are inferior strats is the same reason why kgf happens. It’s b/c of the fundamental mechanics in the world of A&A, and it’s just like the law of nature.

Sometimes paratroopers survive even if the parachute fails to open, and it’s not b/c the law of physics doesn’t apply to a specific soldier/person, it’s b/c luck…sometimes paras falls into water and survive even when the parachute fails to open. How can I explain it simpler than this?
In A&A it’s about the money, even if a player is not so good, and his decisions are not so wise, with more money, more units, stronger units, etc etc etc etc in the long run the economy, the mathematics, the law of physics…will determine which side will prevail! You can test this thesis by playing against the utterly stupid TripleA AI wich will send units against your capitals, with enough money, if you give the AI an extremely high bid, it will also win the land battles, and in the long run it will win the war. In kjf/polar express strat, if a player choose this option instead of going for the money, he will have less money, less units, weaker units then the opponent, so with equal and decent players a kjf/polar express will fail more often than not. How can I explain it any simpler than this? Why are laws of nature not suggestions, but absolute?

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

In kjf/polar express strat, if a player choose this option instead of going for the money, he will have less money, less units, weaker units then the opponent, so with equal and decent players a kjf/polar express will fail more often than not

Polar Express in fact is based on axis winning by economic advantage, making use of USA’s decision of conceding the iniciative to japs in Pacific Ocean

KJF is another issue, because there are many types of KJF. But the one I use mainly bases in defending all possible zones with valuable IPCs while stealing japs some big islands

Both cases are strats that pursue winning by economy: reach a point where you have such economic advantage that no capital taking (positional advantage) is possible for rival. However, KGF and KTDTM are the opposite: take a capital and have a positional advantage that leads to economic advantage. The thing I don’t like with KGF and JTDTM (as counter to KGF, not as counter to KJF) is that both give a theater to opponent’s mercy (in both cases, Pacific ocean), so you are losing the iniciative. But I guess it’s a matter of tastes

But I think that KGF fanmania is more due to a psicological “fear” to use a supposed worst strat. You said that bad dices can aid a KJF/Polar Express. Well, you are right. But in Revised, I have played tons of games and never faced one of them, even when Pearl 2 or China went ubercrappy and the board was crying for a KJF. I always faced KGF online. I could understand a 90% of KGF games, but 100%? Man, me, even being a KJF fan, I have tried a KGF a couple of times where the board was asking it.

[Lucifer]

This is almost like debating if axis needs a bid in revised, it’s not that axis can’t win w/o a bid, its about balance, and if 2 players play “effective”, then a bid is needed, not if I’m axis vs a 5 year old. There are some players who have not get rid of delusions like axis can win 40% w/o a bid, yes, axis can win 100% against a 100 ipc allied bid if I play vs a 5 year old…

Why is it that in competitive games, where 2 players are really trying to win, the kjf strat is not an option? When kjf is hardly never used in tournaments/ladder games  by the players that have the highest rankings, it’s b/c kjf strats are inferior. But you’re welcome to try a kjf strat against me. This is for revised, and in AA50 it is too soon to say for sure that kgf or kjf is the most effective strat, although, w/o NOs, kgf is as effective in AA50 as it is in revised.
If  a polar express strat in AA50 +NOs is working, it’s b/c axis are favored, and they are, with average dice during the first rnd.
This is almost the same as kjf in a no bid revised game, allies are already favored, so obviously allies should win either way, regardless of kjf or kgf.

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

Revised is far more balanced than AA50, 1941 scenario. If that’s fun or not, I left that to your choice

You still think allies need a $12 (+NOs) (or higher) bid to survive?

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

You still think allies need a $12 (+NOs) (or higher) bid to survive?

Not sure. But a thing is clear to me: 8 or less is not enough. I can try playing against a 12 bid when I have more time (after june, 12th). Of course, whe are talking with unit bids. With cash bids, I guess 20 is the minimal

And with the rules we have for league (deleting starting cash to axis), well:

• You can lose 17 IPCs as Japan without any problem
• Germany can lose 1 IPC (and buy 10 infs)
• Italy can lose 1 IPC (and buy 3 infs)

So I doubt any bid higher than -20 will do much. I think a proper bid with that system would go near to -30. I’m not sure, but I guess I could dare with -28 and buy only 10 german inf as Germany and nothing more to axis round 1 or even if I feel very confident, -31 and buy only 9 german infs

But the easiest way of solving the things is a official fix from Larry for China’s setup. They made it in AAPacific, so I guess it can happen again