• @jiman79:

    Always hiding the UK carrier behind Madagascar on UK1 - this would mean you use the cruiser for the J transporter and do not use the cruiser bombardment in the amphibious assault on Egypt/FIC/Borneo?

    @Bunnies:

    I think the best play for UK’s India carrier in Africa is UK carrier southeast of Africa on UK1, regardless.

    I edited that to specify that means if the Allies go KJF.

    It all depends on the position at the beginning of UK’s turn.  It is possible that the UK cruiser ends up doing neither, or that UK ends up putting the beginning of a KGF into play.  Whether Allies go KGF or KJF isn’t really decided until the unit placement phase on US1 in my opinion.


  • @jiman79:

    I’m looking forward to that strategy article Hobbes. I nearly always start a game with the intent of doing a KJF, but early round dice usually makes me switch towards a traditional KGF instead.
    I find some of your voting options a bit difficult to say yes or no to, so I’ll try to elaborate instead:
    USSR: 6 INF on Buryatia
    Stacking bury along with a FIC attack puts some pressure on the Japanese. But I would not call it a requirement. Japan can usually only attack 2 countries on the asian mainland - China should be on, and Bury the other. But if Japan only has 7 ground units, these attacks require a lot of support from air, which means that Japan probably skips sz52.

    If you’re going for Indochina then the answer is definitely yes to that question, agreed. I’m usually a fan of stacking Buryatia because of the pressure it places on the Japanese and how it forces them to react, including skipping SZ52.

    _USSR: Losing less units than average on R1 attacks  _
    Yes, a strong USSR is needed because it will have to stand alone against Germany for some rounds. If USSR1 goes bad I would aim for a strategy with british+US atlantic fleet and north passage shuttling of troops.

    Also a key factor, imho.

    _Germany: failing attack on Egypt  _
    That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

    If it fails I think it is a big incentive for KJF.

    Germany: heavy ground losses on G1
    Good yes, requirement no.

    Germany: not stacking Karelia or Ukraine on G1
    Difficult one to answer � I assume USSR bought 3inf 3 arm � so stacking Karelia or Ukraine could mean severe German losses to a USSR counter or strafe.

    Yeah, this is a bit a dilemma. Even if that USSR buy the Germans may still be able to stack Karelia. Ukraine really depends on Russian attacks (another factor - which ones favor more KJF? Ukraine and WRus? just WRus?)

    _Germany: not attacking West Russia on G1  _
    A successful attack on West Russia makes it difficult to perform a KJF, since USSR can�t trade belo and Karelia next round, but this depends on what Germany then did not do, and which losses they suffered. Regardless I would probably go for a KGF in this scenario.

    To me this is a definite no to KJF.

    _UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter  _
    This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

    _UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans  _
    Well you probably can�t do both this and FIC.
    Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

    This is the key issue to me right now - it seems all really depends on the UK move, because without that attack Japan isn’t pressured enough at the beginning. But not attacking Egypt means that you’ll be conceding Africa to the Germans.

    _UK: conquering Borneo and/or New Guinea  _
    Again you can�t do both Borneo and FIC

    FIC is definitely more important - also because that move sets a Japanese landing on Borneo on rounds 1-2, which would stop a US landing on Solomon on US2.

    _UK: fleet at SZ2 survival  _
    A perfect KGF scenario for the allies

    Or KJF as well.

    _UK: building IC on India  _
    You can probably do a KJF with only US naval pressure and then leaving UK and USSR to contain Germany. But a �pure� KJF IMO must involve Asian ICs. Preferably in India and Sinkiang � but not necessarily UK1. Perhaps it is doable to apply the pressure from South Africa or Australia?

    South Africa and Australia are a waste of IPCs for an IC, imo. Putting 1 on India on UK1, even with a FIC assault is too risky. Japan can mount an assault on it on J3 and the US will still be too far away so it will have to be the Russians helping out.

    _Japan: defeat on China attack  _
    A key battle. A defeat or marginal victory would make a US round 1 Sinkiang IC viable. A strong Japanese victory (say 3 inf surviving) makes a KJF very difficult.

    US: reinforcing the UK fleet with cruiser and fighter(s)
    Which UK fleet?  If UK goes for a fleet build, which is not a bad idea to keep some German units away from the eastern front, then the US might as well support it. But if Germany made a classic �fortress of Europe� opening then UK can only put a fleet in sz8 if it spends all its 30 ipc on navy (AC+2dstr) and then we are probably not talking KJF anymore, but a balanced scenario with allies pressuring both Germany and Japan from the seaside only.

    Sorry, on this case I mean SZ8 as you mentioned.


  • @Hobbes:

    _Germany: failing attack on Egypt  _
    That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

    If it fails I think it is a big incentive for KJF.

    _UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter  _
    This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

    _UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans  _
    Well you probably can�t do both this and FIC.
    Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

    This is the key issue to me right now - it seems all really depends on the UK move, because without that attack Japan isn’t pressured enough at the beginning. But not attacking Egypt means that you’ll be conceding Africa to the Germans.

    So to boil it down, I think we can agree on Egypt+FIC being the key battles. Along with USSR doing well on USSR1+G1.

    But to be honest I have a hard time finding scenarios, where a KJF is preferable to a KGF.
    I am looking forward to your strategy paper.

    I am currently doing some calculations and interpretations on the UK India fleet options UK1. I will probably post during the weekend.


  • Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.

    It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.

    I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.


  • @Hobbes:

    Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.

    It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.

    I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.

    I don’t feel that I have a good grasp on the Allies.  For KGF, I get the feeling that I’m missing some key line of play, and I’m pretty awful at KJF, because I’ve never practiced or developed my KJF games.  So when Hobbes says there were weak points to the KJF play that I did, he’s perfectly correct in terms of what he had to face.  But I think it’s possible that if I developed the lines of play that KJF might be much stronger.

    On the other hand, as Hobbes wrote, he could have done things differently as well.  Besides which, Hobbes did fail the high percentage attack on Moscow, and although he didn’t mention it, a lot of small important battles went my way as well, which is very important.  So perhaps KJF IS a doomed line of play after all.  I can’t say a very luck-sacky game speaks well to the validity of a strategy.  But we’ll see.

    A few comments -

    One thing I’ve always maintained is that protecting a UK IC on India means giving up Moscow.  Hobbes comments that Russia falls, but I think that’s a foregone conclusion with an India IC.  (The idea of the India IC is to push the clock forwards on the US KJF plan to the degree that the Allies can afford to let Moscow fall.  But it is quite possible the Germany grabs Moscow earlier than the Allies can afford, which means eight German tanks racing towards India a turn.)

    In game, Hobbes made a comment about taking and holding Karelia on G1.  I think, on reflection, that following a R1 WR/UKR attack, that Germany can take and hold Karelia regardless of the Russian build, if it abandons Norway.

    The conditions for a KJF India IC plan were NOT favorable when I committed.  I led with a West Russia/Ukraine attack with a Russian fighter landing on India and another Russian fighter to Kazakh, with 6 Russian infantry on Buryatia.  Hobbes followed with a 5 infantry 5 tank build on G1 consolidation to Karelia using the German Atlantic sub against UK’s East Canada transport, and hit Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 German tank surviving, landing fighter and bomber on Libya to forestall UK fighter and bomber landing in Africa (after hitting Anglo-Egypt or after attacking the German battleship).  Also I ended up NOT sending the UK bomber to points east in Russia or sending the UK fighter to land in Buryatia.  This gave Japan more freedom on its J1 build, which made a big difference.

    Consolidation to Karelia means Russia’s contained early, and having a tank at Anglo-Egypt meant UK’s income would be cut early.  These are both unfavorable conditions to an India IC, even more so when taken together.

    If I remember right, I attacked French Indochina with 3 infantry 1 fighter, used the cruiser to hunt the Japanese transport at Kwangtung (if the Jap transport at Kwangtung doesn’t die, it can hit India.)  In retrospect, I probably should have done a small attack into Anglo-Egypt to stop the tank blitz, and I have to take another look at the odds on the French Indochina attack.

    The theory behind the India IC is -

    Japan has a lot of options, but the India IC, Buryatia Russian 6 infantry stack, and 2 Russian infantry on Sinkiang combine pressure.  I think the strongest counter goes something like -

    Japan hits Pearl Harbor with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber, moving East Indies battleship and carrier to New Guinea to pick up the fighter from the Hawaiian Islands battle.  Japan hits China with the infantry from Manchuria and 1 infantry from Kwangtung plus air.  The remaining infantry move to French Indochina along with the Caroline Islands carrier and Japan battleship and transport, ending the turn with 5 infantry 1 tank on French Indochina.  Russia ends up able to grab Manchuria, but that can’t be helped.

    Japan has 7 infantry 1 tank (2 from East Indies), 5 fighters, and a bomber that can hit India on J2, or 2 battleships 2 carriers 6 fighters and a bomber against an Indian fleet.  These are simultaneous threats.

    UK can choose one or the other - sea or land.  If defending at sea, UK has sub, 2 destroyer, 2 carrier, 4 fighter (1 Russian).  If on land, 7 infantry (5 UK 2 Russian) 3-5 fighters (3 UK 2 Russian) plus UK’s 3 units it can build plus Russian tanks.

    BUT

    IF Japan prepared a fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, then Japan’s J2 reinforcement of French Indochina will be weakened.  (Japan can’t move its battleships and AC to hit India and also build enough defensive fleet to easily handle a UK fighter and bomber, unless it skips on some transports - and skipping transports means less reinforcement to French Indochina on J2).

    IF Japan did NOT prepare its fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, UK just builds a fleet at India.

    SO

    One way or the other, UK should be able to pull some tricks, and the UK IC should last until at least UK3, which means there should be time for the Allies to pull some shenanigans.  Unspecified shenanigans, but I get the feeling something should be possible with all the small potential pressures that Japan faces.  Japan’s pushing on any of those - Buryatia-Manchuria, or China-Asian coast, or potential UK fleet at India, or the US fleet in the Pacific, means that the Allies can push on the other fronts.


  • I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
    Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.


  • @Hobbes:

    I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
    Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.

    I would put a R1 sub buy and a UK1 India IC in different categories, because I am pretty convinced there are enough German options to compensate for a R1 sub buy, but I am not convinced Japan has enough tricks to overcome a UK1 India IC.  It could easily be that Hobbes has done a more complete assessment or has a better intuitive understanding, though.

    I haven’t seen strong players use KJF, but I get the feeling there’s a lot of small tricks in there.

    For example, in a KGF, the Axis typically want Japan to control Caucasus if possible, because Japan has the numbers to take on the combined Allied defense at Moscow, while Germany’s numbers are depleted by trading with the Allies and maintaining defense.  (That’s small trick #1, controlling Caucasus with Japan).  The Axis can try to force this by pushing Germany to West Russia.  Even if Russia obliterates the Germans, that often depletes them to the point that Japan can capture Caucasus in force, after which ideally the Allies can do nothing about Japan’s holding Caucasus and Japan uses that to crack Moscow.  (That’s small trick #2, using Germany to force the issue to create an opening for Japan).  But maybe the Allies have enough power so they could obliterate West Russia without suffering much losses; that would let them push Japan out of Caucasus later.  But Japan can increase the power of Germany’s position at West Russia by landing Japanese fighters on West Russia (that’s small trick #3, using Jap fighters to reinforce German positions).  Etc. etc. etc.  So many small things that add up to a decent Axis plan.

    On the other hand, most Axis players just ram tanks at the Allies and hope something cracks.  Which is the difference between strong and weak play, the lack of small tricks (or small devices or whatever you want to call them) that improve the Axis game.

    Since I haven’t used or thought about KJF much or seen strong players use a lot of these “small devices”, I get the feeling that my KJF game is quite undeveloped.  Oh, sure, I know major stuff like using German fighter to stop US destroyer blocks, and not to buy any ICs with Japan (using the IPCs for infantry/fleet/air instead).  But what about the rest of the plan?

    For example, UK starts with a transport in Australia.  Supposing UK lost income in Africa, would it be feasible to use a UK fighter and infantry to take control of high IPC islands like Borneo, East Indies, and Phillipines?  Even so, where should the Allies divide territory control between US and UK?  US will want at least one high IPC income island for an island industrial complex to shorten logistic lines to the area, and US can use high income to push more air/navy against Japan.  But UK will want to compensate for lost income in Africa, and needs to maintain a certain income so once Russia falls (if it falls), UK can maintain defense against Germany.  Then there’s the question of coastal industrial complexes for the Allies; if the tide is in Germany’s favor against Russia, coastal industrial complexes are a bad investment for the Allies because with German forces at China, Germany can strike into any one of those ICs.  Once Germany maintains control of a coastal IC, it can provide naval/air support to Japan very quickly.  What is best, and when and why?

    I’m sure I won’t be publishing an article any time soon on a UK1 India IC for KJF, but maybe I’ll put up a post with some of the stuff I’ve looked at.


  • Earlier I wrote that the German/Russian situation in Karelia/West Russia and the German/UK situation at Anglo-Egypt were important to the decision of whether to build a UK India IC or not.

    If the Germans hit West Russia on G1, they’re keeping Russia on its heels economically (conversely, Germany is that much stronger).

    Having the Germans consolidate at Karelia on G1 (2 inf from W Eur, 3 from Norway, 2 from Eastern Europe, 3 from Belorussia, 2 tanks from Germany, 1 from Balkans, 1 from Eastern Europe, total 10 infantry 4 tanks) threatens about the same thing, specifically German attack on West Russia on G2 (the Karelia units plus 2 tanks from Eastern Europe that started in Western Europe on G1 - the Southern Europe tank often used against R1 control of Ukraine), plus 4-6 odd German fighters plus German bomber.

    UK fighters on West Russia is important in the second case, and quick UK support via transport is important in the first case, so Germany can’t hold Karelia and cripple Russia’s economy.

    The German situation in Anglo-Egypt is similar.  If UK allows Germany to hold Anglo-Egypt on G1, on G2 Germany can blitz a tank through Africa for 2 more IPC per turn and 2 less to UK a turn.  This is unlikely to be countered by the Allies, as the US1 cruiser/2 transports are probably dead if they dropped to Algeria on US1, or even if they headed south to Brazil, because of the German subs that should be in the Atlantic.  Particularly in a KJF situation, the Allies will probably not drop to Africa (US will be busy with Pacific, and UK will either be dropping to Europe or supporting its India IC, plus which UK dropping to the south of Africa requires two moves via transport, then there’s two moves back before the UK transports can threaten anything like Western Europe again, which slows the Allies a lot.

    Plus there’s the fact that another UK fighter is on Anglo-Egypt.  If the UK fighter dies, UK has 3 fighters and Russia 2, which makes for a maximum of 2 carriers 2 destroyers 4 fighters 1 sub at India on UK2.  (Or 1 destroyer 1 battleship instead of 2 destroyers).  UK could go all in on carriers, and do 3 carriers 1 destroyer 5 fighters 1 sub instead - much more expensive, but possibly not that worthwhile.  But with a 4th UK fighter, it’s possible to bring the fleet to 3 carriers 1 destroyer 6 fighters 1 sub instead.  That sixth fighter makes the fleet much much scarier and interesting.


  • That is, if the Germans hit West Russia or fortify Karelia on G1, or if UK does not plan to retake a German-held Anglo-Egypt on UK1, a India IC is probably not best.


  • If G stacks Karelia with units from Norway, they either did not hit SZ2 or lost the fig+bomber. Otherwise they would need some protection.
    Anyways this would invite to a KGF IMO, either to exploit that G is unable to hit an allied atlantic fleet, or simply to assist USSR asap (since as Bunnies stated they are on their heels).


  • Duh, forgot to select 6 INF on Buryata :/


  • I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

    Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

    UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.


  • @Bunnies:

    I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

    Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

    UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.

    With 6 inf on Bury there is a 45% chance that 3 inf 1 tank 3 fig 1 BB will suffer 4 hits or more.

    So it is a risky battle for Japan on J1. Landing the UK India fig there is of course a viable option, but it also makes it unable to participate in combat on UK1 (it can take out the lone Japan transporter).

    A succesfull FIC attack forces Japan to choose between China, Bury and sz52 (and recapturing FIC). But FIC only makes sense if Bury was stacked IMO.


  • @ Hobbes

    Have you come any closer to a viable KJF strategy in A&A42?

    I find it very difficult to think of a scenario, where KJF is feasible, and basically it requires bad Axis play or lucky dice to win with this strategy.

    But in order for the game to remain interesting, I think it is necessary to have alternative strategies.


  • @jiman79:

    @ Hobbes

    Have you come any closer to a viable KJF strategy in A&A42?

    I find it very difficult to think of a scenario, where KJF is feasible, and basically it requires bad Axis play or lucky dice to win with this strategy.

    But in order for the game to remain interesting, I think it is necessary to have alternative strategies.

    I agree. Paying attention to the poll conditions help but KJF really depends on the outside factors that you listed. Those are why I’m having a problem formulating any strat i.e. you need for one of them to happen but you can’t plan on it.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    It’s not that I have a whole lot of experience at the game, but from a general strategic point of view, I’m a little surprised at the options offered for Germany in the poll, because all of them are possibilities that seem suboptimal for Germany.

    My reasoning is:

    1. There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
    2. If Germany doesn’t do very well in round 1 (for instance, because several of the options mentioned in the poll, actually happened), then it stands to reason that KGF becomes even more promising. So why go KJF in that case?
    3. Conversely, if Germany is very successful (as in: destroying the SZ2 UK fleet; inflicting heavy losses on Russia; taking Egypt with strong forces remaining), then KGF would become more difficult.
    4. The situation that then exists, on the UK’s first turn, may indicate that KJF could be a viable alternative as compared to the KGF possibilities that remain.

    So basically, I would consider KJF only when the Allies ended up in a situation where it looks better than KGF.


  • @Herr:

    It’s not that I have a whole lot of experience at the game, but from a general strategic point of view, I’m a little surprised at the options offered for Germany in the poll, because all of them are possibilities that seem suboptimal for Germany.

    Well, I don’t see them as options that G would take but rather the most favorable G1 results for a KJF - that’s why they look suboptimal, because they favour the Allies for KJF. If you invert those conditions favoring G then you’ll see those optimal options.

    My reasoning is:

    1. There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
    2. If Germany doesn’t do very well in round 1 (for instance, because several of the options mentioned in the poll, actually happened), then it stands to reason that KGF becomes even more promising. So why go KJF in that case?

    Absolutely true but the consensus seems to be that Allied players will want to try something different, rather than the same old KGF.

    1. Conversely, if Germany is very successful (as in: destroying the SZ2 UK fleet; inflicting heavy losses on Russia; taking Egypt with strong forces remaining), then KGF would become more difficult.

    In most KJF scenarios the key is to hold out with Russia/UK against Germany until the US can clear Asia/Pacific and switch towards the Germans. The trick is that a good German player can push the Russians, specially if they are focusing also in pressuring the Japanese on Asia, and take Caucasus.
    If the Germans manage to get the 3 results you mentioned then it will be very strong on Europe, specially if they manage to retake West Russia on G1. You’ll have then a Case Blue scenario, where G can take Caucasus on round 3-5 and the Allies really don’t have an option other than KGF, otherwise Russia will fall quickly.

    1. The situation that then exists, on the UK’s first turn, may indicate that KJF could be a viable alternative as compared to the KGF possibilities that remain.

    The problems for the UK going KJF are too many on that situation:

    • They’ll lose most of Africa soon and it will be harder and time consuming to liberate it.
    • They’ll lose needed income on Africa that will be used by G against Russia.
    • If they invest on an IC or planes that will mean that there will be no amphibious attacks in Europe/Africa until round 3 or 4 and those will be quite limited.
    • Without the UK/US harassing G it will be free to switch completely their initial forces and production to deal with the Russians, eventually overwhelming them in production and number of units.

    So basically, I would consider KJF only when the Allies ended up in a situation where it looks better than KGF.

    So far the general reasoning points the other way - the Allies should only try a KJF when KGF seems certain to get them a quick win, allowing for the US to switch to the Pacific and using the UK and Russia to contain Germany on Europe. It is counterintuitive but from my experience so far it seems the best shot at KJF.


  • 1.  My opinion is that it isn’t so much that KGF is more promising than KJF.  It’s that there’s more documentation and practice on how to go KGF than KJF, especially for later rounds of play, so players tend to favor KGF.

    2.  There’s a novelty value in some strategies.  The novelty factor appeals to players that don’t want to do the same KGF plan they’ve used for the past few games.  The value factor comes from opponents that do not respond appropriately to the novel strategy.

    3.  It isn’t so much a matter of KGF being more or less difficult that determine whether KJF is viable or not.  I think there are certain key factors that determine whether or not KJF is feasible.

    One key in my opinion is Africa.  Germany’s in ideal position to attack Africa with a quick offload from Southern Europe.  The earlier and more Germany puts in Africa, the more the Allies will need to counter; if the Allies don’t counter, Germany maintains a high income while UK’s income is slashed.

    There’s a huge bag of tricks the Allies can use in Africa/India, most of which I have not seen in serious play or discussed recently.

    4.  The real decision on KJF is made on US1 unit placement phase, no earlier.  Sure, there are indicators of whether KGF or KJF is favored in earlier rounds, but it comes down to in the end where US decides to place its US1 buy.

    I mentioned earlier (maybe another thread) that I think there’s two ways to go KJF.

    1.  UK India fleet.  Optimistically, the Jap fleet is forced into battle or at least is completely locked out of the Pacific very quickly.  Russia collapses like a house of cards.  The Allies take control of all the island income from Japan.  US can maintain a flow of infantry into Soviet Far East and Buryatia from Alaska.  Once Moscow falls, Germany has a huge invasion threat against London that must be guarded against.  Otherwise, Germany takes control of the Suez Canal and tries to unify with the Japanese fleet to start pushing the Allies out of the Pacific, also trying to push the Allies off the Asian coast to regain Japan’s income, while surviving Russians ally with UK/US forces in the area.

    2.  UK reinforcement to Europe.  Russia is used to keep control of Africa out of German hands.  Germans take control of Caucasus around G3-4, reinforced by Japanese fighters, while UK starts dropping reinforcements to Archangel/Karelia.


  • @Bunnies:

    1.  UK India fleet.  Optimistically, the Jap fleet is forced into battle or at least is completely locked out of the Pacific very quickly.  Russia collapses like a house of cards.  The Allies take control of all the island income from Japan.  US can maintain a flow of infantry into Soviet Far East and Buryatia from Alaska.  Once Moscow falls, Germany has a huge invasion threat against London that must be guarded against.  Otherwise, Germany takes control of the Suez Canal and tries to unify with the Japanese fleet to start pushing the Allies out of the Pacific, also trying to push the Allies off the Asian coast to regain Japan’s income, while surviving Russians ally with UK/US forces in the area.

    My last game the Allied player tried to pull it off, since G didn’t attack Egypt on G1. UK with 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD and 2 FTRs. I attacked it on J1 with 1 AC, 1 BB and 4 FTRs and still did the Pearl attack and China.
    I got 3 hits off India (UK got 2) and retreated the fleet after sinking all the UK ships, with the exception of the transport (which was sunk on G2 by a German fighter from Libya). The Allies stopped Japan on Asia afterwards with their 2 ICs and Russian help but Japan held the Pacific and Germany quickly moved into Africa and then Russia.
    I don’t recommend an Indian fleet because Japan can focus on defeating both it, SZ52 and China (and it still had the advantage of the DD from SZ15 joining it). Afterwards it’s a matter of retaking Asia. Even if you pull back the UK fleet off to Africa it still is too risky.


  • @Hobbes:

    My last game the Allied player tried to pull it off, since G didn’t attack Egypt on G1. UK with 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD and 2 FTRs. I attacked it on J1 with 1 AC, 1 BB and 4 FTRs and still did the Pearl attack and China.

    That isn’t like the setup I had in mind at all.  UK shouldn’t leave a fleet in range of a J1 attack, particularly the Japanese battleship, for precisely the reason that you described.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 4
  • 16
  • 44
  • 5
  • 4
  • 27
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

24

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts