Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?

[a44bigdog]

I have had success with a balanced approach, and due to what happens with an ignored Japan I think it is the best way for the Allies to proceed. I know for me it is. Some of this is counter intuitive but as with anything I post it is founded on experience not theory.

Russia. Stacking Bury is fine but I only send 1 infantry into an open Manchuria instead of the whole bunch. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate this stack leaving the entire Northern approach vacant. While I do this I pull back all but 1 infantry from Buryatia to Stanovoj. This forces Japan to commit a few forces to retake Manchuria if taken and to take Bury. If I think I can delay the Japanese for a turn or two, I will attack their forces in Bury with the Stanovoj stack. This entire front is fought as a delaying action. That means I will attack, withdraw or hold as the situation appears to warrant. I attack Finland with an eye at taking Norway on round 2 and Deadzone Karelia. I find that Russia can generally not hold Karelia but it can deadzone and set it up for trades. As long as Germany is not producing anything in Karelia, other than the NO and 2 IPCs for the territory they have not gained anything that will immediately harm Russia. At a minimum the Novosibirsk Infantry are going to China and if at all possible the Kazakh duo as well. The longer Russia can hold up Japan in China the more free infantry China can produce, the Japanese income expands more slowly, and Russia has some less concerns with defense. I try to keep a steady stream of 2 or so infantry headed this way backed up by a an armor or air power if such looks favorable.

UK
Normally the UK Atlantic fleet is reduced to practically nothing so I will spend round 1 and 2 building this up. I will also buy up to 4 transports for this new fleet. This is what goes against the normal thinking, but the Pacific Transport should load 1 infantry and 1 Artillery from Australia and sail west. On turn 3 it and the new Atalantic fleet can dump up to 10 units in Algeria. The 4 Atlantic transports can send in 8 units on round 4, while this transport can bring over the Canadians for a second dump of up to 10 units. Depending on what had to be purchased for the Navy there may even be additional units in the UK for it to ferry over on subsequent turns. More than likely though it will be of better use sailing south and liberating sub-Saharan Africa. By doing this a steady stream of 8 units can be landed from the UK in Africa every turn. If this transport is used in the Pacific it will most likely only be of an actual benefit for one turn. The UK proceeds in force across North Africa to fight Japan in Persia and India. While it will take some time to get there, I have found that when it starts to encounter Japanese forces it will have numerical superiority.

USOther than the initial Eastern US troops going to Africa to reinforce the British and the starting bombers being used for SBRs it is 100% against Japan in the Pacific. With the US actively fighting in the Pacific it should maintain its second NO and make 48 IPCs per turn. This works out very nicely to 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 transport, 2 fighters, and 1 carrier EVERY turn. Naturally there will be turns where other ships or perhaps additional bombers are called for but this is THE primary purchase. While it will go against all traditional Axis and Allies thinking to be purchasing a transport every turn I have found that this is vital in the Pacific. The chances of setting up any transport chain are almost nil and many times an entire fleet may have to be sacrificed. Many times the transports themselves WILL be sent to take islands where they will be destroyed by air power, while fleet strength itself is preserved. Any island Japan has to retake is troops not headed to Russia, or Africa, or anywhere else of great concern for the Allies. If Japan engages in a naval race with the US that is fine as well as it reduces the amount of troops available in Asia. Also there are many islands Japan would LIKE to cover but most likely can not. While you may find yourself in a position where both neither Navy can eliminate the other by sending out a steady stream of transports it overloads Japan.

[Panzer Leader]

@Zhukov44:

I don’t understand the rush to capture India (ie landing en masse in Burma J1).  Why is that worth skipping the Philippines and granting the USA an NO?

That a Russian bomber can hit the East Indies tranny is pretty cool…still as Japan I might go ahead and sacrifice the transport to take it J1 anyway because I want to get that factory up immediately (though perhaps not in a full scale KJF).

The logic for aiming for a J3 attack on India is that holding down India will cost the United Kingdom and Russia on other fronts…it seems like Japan can afford to build up in that region until the potential exchange is entirely in Japan’s favor…and then eventually claim the free factory.  Meanwhile, Japan can expand at will, securing China and denying the Allies Pacific NOs.  If the Allies put up determined resistance at India, why not wall them off at Burma and wait until the Jap advantage is overwhelming?

Last time I played as Japan I actually did go after India right away and did leave Phillipines alone on the first turn but went after them on the second. I actually forgot about the US NO and was striclty looking at strategies. Once I realized what I had done (on US turn) I thought I screwed up big time, but as it turned out it did work better in the long run as Japan was able to eliminate the US fleet and hold India with turn 2 factory that I built there. So I do not know if taking out the Phillipines first is better or if taking out India right away is better, but it did work. Just some food for thought. 8-)

[bugoo]

@Funcioneta:

The problem with ignore Japan strat in this game is that Japan will eat all Asia by round 3-4 as much and start sending troops to Africa round 4-5, stopping the traditional North African dominance strat, and Germany and Italy are stronger than Germany was in Revised so they can hold much more. Not defending Pacific Ocean has also a risk of losing WUSA in 41 scenario (5 starting trannies, probably 2 more built round 1, why do Polar Express when you can catch California instead?). The problem with japs attack on WUSA is that you need one round of preparation to defend from it or Japan will catch you too late to defend, but if you note the menace, Japan will simply shift to Asia without losing none in the process

Anyway, in case of a traditional JTDM approach, lets compare numbers:

1. Revised

USSR 25-30
UK 25-30
USA 37-40

Allies 90-100

Germany 30-35
Japan 45-50

Axis 75-85

And still, with a small bid, axis had a 50% chances of win

2. Anniversary, 1941 scenario

USSR 20-25 (Arkangel NO lost because of KGF dinamics)
UK 25-30 (if buy SAF IC, if not it will be 20-25)
USA 42-44
China 0 (last chinamen popped China 1)

Allies 90-100

Germany 35-40
Italy 9
Japan 65-70

Axis 110-120

See the pattern? Axis has the economic advantage in this game mid game, not the allies. I really cannot see how allies can win with a ignore Japan strat. If you think Japan is slow now, you are wrong: they have income to purchase tanks and bombers from the rear and fodder from India and Burma or East Indies, and also start with a crazy amount of trannies (arrive to Africa sooner). USA is also slower now because trannies built don’t defend so you must buy more defending boats and italian navy is harder to kill now anyway

A balanced approach will not save your rear normally but at least you have a slim chance because economic gap will be lesser (more NOs to allies; Australia, N.Zealand and Hawaii saved, no trades of Alaska, soviet NO conserved, etc.)

I find an error with your allied income assuming a KGF strat.  One major goal within turns 3-5 is to gain Russia her $10 NO which is not extremely difficult and puts Russia in the 30-40 bracket.  The other goal is to establish a trading of france, which may or may not be possible that early depending on the situation which is another 11-16 IPC boost to the allies.  The last thing to keep in mind is unit efficiency, Japan is shoving mainly armor at Russia, while they are defending with large quantities of INF, more effective IPC for IPC.  Also note it is easy for the other allies to reinforce the Russian positions with fighters.  Granted, the allies need to purchase transports, however, G/I typically must defend atleast 3 territories (rome, france, berlin) against a large allied drop which evens it out a tad.  And I don’t see G making much more than 30 after a few turns (-5 from norway/finland, only having 1 or 2 NOs).

And as far as killing the UK units retreating from India, any decent allied commander will rally there UK units in persia T1 if there is a large threat, and then reinforce with Russian Inf for the rest of the game to hold the Japs from getting past persia.  The 6 UK units make this much easier with a feed of 2 or 3 russian Inf a turn until the US armor get there. That is an extremely important tactic as Persia is the quickest way in for the Japs and must not fall.  It is also important to stack Chi with any surviving chinamen (typically 1 or 2) and Russian Inf.

[Funcioneta]

That assumes various things: first is that Japan is ignoring USA. You should not assume that with 5 starting jap trannies. Second is that Japan is slow. It’s not because Japan can reach to Africa pretty quick and also SBRing USSR and UK until stone age. It’s easy for Japan buy infs at India and Burma and tanks at Manchuria and FIC, and you need clearing Africa and Mediterranean sea with allies to start thinking in D-Day and such

I don’t see how KGF can work in AA50. You are trying using a tactic that worked in Revised 50 % of times (assuming bid), but in this game axis is way richer than in Revised and USSR is about the same it was in Revised

[johnmk]

@Funcioneta:

I don’t see how KGF can work in AA50.

Don’t you mean that you can’t see how KJF can work in AA50?

[bugoo]

Funcioneta, i’d be thrilled to show you how a KGF can work in AA50 if your up for a no tech game.  I’m not saying I win 100%, but I win enough for me to feel it is balanced.  Tech makes it too dicey though for a test game imho.  Japan cannot hurt the US enough if the US begins their shuck in LA, and the shuck is much more important on the UK end anyway, the US just needs to go after africa/keep italy honest and SBR if possible.  They do not need to do D-day, just threaten it.

The US role in a KGF strat is as such and in this order

1. help cover UK’s fleet by landing fighters on the UK carrier(s)
2. land troops into africa, both to kill the Italy NOs and to threaten a drop on Italy herself and france.
3. Kill italy’s fleet
4. steal german funds, hopefully with SBRs, or by building up a tranny fleet near africa to threaten a huge drop on italy or france (this is an indirect steal as G must help stack rome and/or france), building an IC in finland/norway and shoving tanks into europe, etc.
5. irritate Japan if possible.  Building 1 or 2 bombers in LA on US1 is a great way to start this, dropping a fleet on US3 or 4 is also a possibility.  Landing bombers in Africa to SBR japan’s mainland factories, etc.

The main component of a KGF is russia being offensive against germany, and the UK shuck into Karelia.  This keeps the german’s income low and allows you to push her back.  With the US taking away italy’s funds the germans end up with too much dirt to defend and slowly crumbles.  The key is to make germany crumble fast enough to allow the Russias to turn and face a 70 IPC japan with her own 40+ IPCs, along with allied aid holding Persia.  Persia is the single most important territory to hold as allies, not trade, not deadzone, hold.  The second most important is Karelia (as well as Caucasus but that is obvious).  Persia is important because it is the easiest territory for all 3 allies to get units into, and it is the quickest way for Japan to bring large quanities of units against Russia.  Karelia because it is worth 7 IPCs to Germany, and the difference between tearing apart a 50 IPC germany and a 43 IPC germany should be obvious.

[Bardoly]

The game is not quite over, and we both made some mistakes, but here is a pretty successful KJF game if you want to look at it.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15297.0

[Zhukov44]

One of the big things that get in the way of a KJF in the Revised style is that it’s hard for Russia to make an impact against Japan.  A big (weak) China strengthens Japan enormously, because it takes so long for Russia to get close to the coast to block the Jap expansion.  In Revised, it’s possible to immediately threaten the Pacific Coast…not so here.

The classic KJF move of advancing into Manchuria (or at least threatening this advance) is effectively neutered by Japan’s existing fighter and transport fleets.  Stacking Manch is suicidal, while the opportunity cost to Japan isn’t bad given the reward.  Russia can try to support China from the West, but it can’t realistically spare many units, and only 2-3 inf doesn’t seem to have much (if any) effect on Japan’s expansion in China, given that China often has 1 or less inf left after J1.

It seems that at any point in the KJF, Germany can switch to armor buys and (as Bugoo notes) use the Italian can opener to threaten Moscow.  It’s tough for Russia to do anything besides face Germany, even though it’s the only power able to do something about Japan’s land expansion.

[Panzer Leader]

@Zhukov44:

One of the big things that get in the way of a KJF in the Revised style is that it’s hard for Russia to make an impact against Japan.  A big (weak) China strengthens Japan enormously, because it takes so long for Russia to get close to the coast to block the Jap expansion.  In Revised, it’s possible to immediately threaten the Pacific Coast…not so here.

The classic KJF move of advancing into Manchuria (or at least threatening this advance) is effectively neutered by Japan’s existing fighter and transport fleets.  Stacking Manch is suicidal, while the opportunity cost to Japan isn’t bad given the reward.  Russia can try to support China from the West, but it can’t realistically spare many units, and only 2-3 inf doesn’t seem to have much (if any) effect on Japan’s expansion in China, given that China often has 1 or less inf left after J1.

It seems that at any point in the KJF, Germany can switch to armor buys and (as Bugoo notes) use the Italian can opener to threaten Moscow.  It’s tough for Russia to do anything besides face Germany, even though it’s the only power able to do something about Japan’s land expansion.

I agree with your statements. Russia is not very effective against Japan and Germany will crush if they try to go after Japan. Russia simply does not have enough to fight Italy, Germany and Japan. That is why US and UK have to deal with Japan while Russia stops Germany’s (& Italy’s) advance. UK has got it the toughest as they need to go against all three axis powers right from the beginning.

[cymerdown]

Nah, Japan is just too unstoppable in '41.  Even if you pull all the possible resources you can summon, like India & Australia ICs, pulling the US fighters, Russian INF and ARM from Caucasus, all you can do is slow Japan down… by the time you can make any headway against a good opponent, Moscow is about to fall.  It just can’t realistically be done without huge help from the dice.

[Pin]

A kjf is very much possible, but you have to play for it from turn 1. Look on my running tourney game for how to do it. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15572.0

[Yoshi]

Well, when on J1 the Japan BB is killed by the US DD, I think that helps a lot a KJF strategy ;)

[Pin]

yup, but search up my other games in the league. The big picture stays the same. If you setup a sinking off jap trannie in z38 with a russian bmber buy T1, and setup of transfer of either russian armors or inf to India on T2 (depening on how the eastern front is after G1, if you can afford move 2inf to Persia, if not just make sure you have 2-3 tanks in Cau so you can move them if needed.)

US 1 move 2fgt + 1bmber to Aus, and the UK dd from z41 > z48 to prevent a hard hit on australia Jap 2. (IF jap have moved the cruiser there on T1 it might prevent an IC if everything else went perfect, not saying there aint a counter to this strat but it works almost everytime). US buys solely for Pacific.

This forces:
a) Jap to go all navy with its builds, meaning not enough ground forces enters mainland Asia, and US and Japan will keep each other at bay in z56 and z62. And the UK can sweep up mainland Asia, and might even be able to regain some grounds on the islands or in Africa without using atlantic fleet for it.

b) Jap ignores the US navy for too long, and its just a matter of time before the US will regain all the islands and kill of the remaining jap forces. (my tourney game this is the case)

Remember that when you LET Japan expand, it wont match US cash til T3, if you go for a contain strategy Japan will never get much higher then the US and it might even never get above the US income.

The key is to recognise the insane amount of IPC and bonuses in the pacific that either lets Japan become an uncontrollable monster or gimp them hard fast.

[Yoshi]

Yeah I agree with your ideas, and also think that doing something against Japan from the begginning can be nice.

I usually buy a bomber R1, stack Buryatia, put 2inf in China, and put at least two tanks in Caucasus, in order to have options in Asia / Pacific after. It does not cost a lot to Russia (and in worst case, you just keep your units on the German front). But if Japan answers well and is not screwed by the dices, I think it is really uneasy to make something serious against them.

Nevertheless, Japan power can decrease very fast if they are pressured from the beginning and something does not go well / they make a mistake.

In the same way, I think that you can always contain Japan. The problem is to contain Japan and keeping Russia from Italy & Germany.

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

I don’t see how KGF can work in AA50. You are trying using a tactic that worked in Revised 50 % of times (assuming bid), but in this game axis is way richer than in Revised and USSR is about the same it was in Revised

Wrong again…KJF in Revised fails 99.99% of all times against decent players. The only option for allies in revised to win a kjf game is if Japan+Germany has extremely poor dice, or the allied player is much more experienced than the axis player. Moscow will fall long before Japan in kjf. How come only 2-3 players tried kjf against me, and those games was lost for allies in rnd3 or sooner.

As for AA50-41 playing axis, I might have lost to a kjf strat many months ago, I can’t say for sure that I haven’t lost a single kjf game, but almost all my losses in 41 was against a kgf strat by allies.

[Zhukov44]

That’s an exaggeration Sub….KJF probably fails 80% or more in a ll 9 bid expert scenario but if you think it’s that hopeless you probably haven’t gone up against the best KJF experts.  I don’t know if you are active on GTO but you should try playing someone like Bmaster or Acesup and give them a reasonable bid you might be surprised how tough it gets for Axis.  The thing is, it’s best to lower the bid to 6 or so in any game where Allies build an India complex…this makes for an extremely fun game for both sides as it’s all action from the start.  That said, there are players who can beat experts with 8-9 bids…it’s just hard to do and never as reliable as KGF/Lurch tactics.

Segway to the topic…what can be concluded (imho) is (so far) KJF strategies seem much more effective in Revised than in AA50.  I’m no noob at Revised and have lost to KJF several times and have lost to it recently–can’t say the same about AA41.

[Lucifer]

I haven’t been playing at GTO, only against the AI. And it has been several months since I played much revised. After AA50 was available in TripleA thats the name of the game!
But I think TripleA players, at least the best ladder players is as good as the GTO players. What matters is experience, (not where you play), perhaps at least hundreds of A&A games is needed to be “better than just decent”. That’s a lot of training.

AA50 +NOs are different in many ways than revised, b/c the map and the money is different enough so that we can’t use the same combination of overall strats and tactics in the same way as revised.
In AA50 (+NO) there’s money all over the map, and a balanced game to get money and production is important, more complex and more “widely” than in Revised.

The most effective overall allies strat in AA50 (+NO), imo, is to keep the second US NO as long as possible, but then send everything else against Europe and Africa.

By kjf I define that as using everything what US build from rnd1 against Japan. What is in EUS from start can ofc go to Africa or Europe, but everything else must be used against Japan, building and moving units from LA,  or else it is not kjf. A US pac strat is not the same as kjf. With US aircraft in both pacific and Europe, that’s not kjf, that’s a balanced strat, and it can be a good one, depending on the situation in any specific game.

Other allied powers can help in a pure kjf ofc, this will only make it easier for Italy+Germany to take all of Africa and then Moscow after a few turns.
Point is that w/o kgf, or a balanced strat, Italy will not be contested at all, and UK is not strong enough to help Russia AND Italy against the Germans.

[Zhukov44]

Yeah TripleA has great players, I just haven’t played enough there to know who is good at KJF.

I agree with your analysis.  A strong point of AA50 is there should always be some Pacific conflict–as Allies it’s definitely wise to contest those Pacific NOs as long as it pays off.  But I’m skeptical whether Allies can indulge in much more than that against a skilled Axis without a lucky tech or dice god intervention.

In Revised, by contrast, I think it’s been established that it is possible to neuter Japan through coordinated Allied action and decide the game that way.  Though admittedly this may not be the most reliable strat against the strongest opposition–it can work.

The difference is that in Revised you have an instant mainland component to the KJF…  Allies can pressure Japan immediately on the mainland with Russia, with the USA China forces and air, and with the India garrison and the RAF.  In 41, China is effectively dead after J1, and Russia cannot afford to intervene (even if it does, China is a huge buffer for Japan).  India is far away from the action and easily neutralized, and UK has no planes and hardly any boats in the region…  This leaves the USA to fight essentially alone.

KJF seems more promising in AA:50 42 scenario, where Japan only starts with 1 transport and is thus far more vulnerable.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

By kjf I define that as using everything what US build from rnd1 against Japan. What is in EUS from start can ofc go to Africa or Europe, but everything else must be used against Japan, building and moving units from LA,  or else it is not kjf. A US pac strat is not the same as kjf. With US aircraft in both pacific and Europe, that’s not kjf, that’s a balanced strat, and it can be a good one, depending on the situation in any specific game

That is fun, usually a balanced strat in Revised is labeled as “KJF”. I don’t like that name, but many use it as opposed to “try ignore Japan” strats (called KGF). Just I was using “KJF” label as a reference, but in fact a so-called KJF in Revised is a balanced approach, sometimes involving India+Sinkiang ICs, but always including a Pacific allied navy

It works 50% of times if you know how do it (assume bid is not greater than 9). Of course, I don’t use that house rule called LL, that could alter (and probably does) the ratio of victories

Same goes for Anniversary, balanced game is labeled sometimes as KJF. However, depending from scenario, chances of victory vary assuming balanced,experienced players. 1941 gives monster advantage to axis, but a bit lesser advantage to axis if you make a balanced approach; 1942 gives moderate advantage to axis if balanced approach and monster advantage to axis in case of KGF

All assuming NOs in play. Without NOs, 1942 scenario is probably almost balanced

[Funcioneta]

Mmm… after thinking from a technical point of view, in fact I should answer there is NOT a KJF strat in AA41 and for that matters also not in AA50-42 and Revised, they should be called balanced approachs  :|

Also KGF should be called “invite Japan to enter in America”, but that is more a philosophical point of view …  :roll: