Just do not let Japan unhindered, because you will likely lose. Japan will make 55+ income and then it’s impossible to stop it.
When should the Allies try a KJF?
-
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.
-
@ 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.
-
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:
- There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
- 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?
- 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.
- 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:
- There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
- 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.
- 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.- 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. -
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.
-
Thank you for the responses, gentlemen.
I’m afraid that my primary approach to this game, or any game, is aimed at winning it. So when a situation arises where a certain strategy looks good, I will pursue that strategy, even if it’s the same strategy as in earlier games. Case in point: when certain events have occurred that seem to weaken the German position (be it through their own choices or through misfortune), then this would encourage me to try KGF, rather than look the other way. Maybe my point of view would be a different one if I had played the game more often, but generally speaking I’m not adverse to a quick win.
On the other hand, if it is indeed true that KJF is not necessarily more promising than KJF, but merely the better explored option, than that would be excellent news, and an indicator that the game is fairly well balanced and that more than one strategy is viable. So it’s good that this thread exists for doing some of that exploring.
I tend to agree that going KJF all-out on UK1 would be too early, but if I believed that the circumstances were favorable to a KJF strategy (quite apart from what those circumstances would be), then I would at least try to purchase units that I could use in KJF while not being entirely useless in KGF either. An India IC on UK1 would be too much of a commitment before Japan has moved, but I’d consider buying at least one fighter and some ground forces, and postpone Atlantic fleet purchases.
Africa – I agree that you wouldn’t want that entire continent firmly in German hands for the remainder of the game, but I suppose that you can still try to sink the German Mediterranean fleet early while aiming for KJF as a general strategy. With no more German forces going to Africa, it wouldn’t be too much of a drain on Allied resources to counter what’s already there.
So, in general terms, if Germany looks strong after its first round, I would lean towards KJF as the UK, without fully committing to it. Then, suppose that Japan would be less successful in its first round, the decision could be finalized on US1.
-
In chess, some moves, such as castling, capturing en passant, and moving pawns forward two squares instead of one, are fairly recent innovations.
In the game of Go, komi is now almost universally accepted, though it did not start to become standardized until around eighty years ago.
When the rules change, new lines of thought are necessary to find the best lines of play.
–
But even when the rules do not change, the perception of what the “best line of play” is still changes.
The rules of chess haven’t changed for about five hundred years. But the popularity of the King’s Gambit has waxed and waned over time. A few hundred years ago, it was thought of as one of White’s better options, sacrificing a single pawn to give White a lot of early tempo and attack openings. Later, though, more extensive analyses showed Black to be able to defend its position with accurate play, but also that Black would often have to give up a pawn in return, balancing the material.
What was once considered a flashy but still powerful and dangerous attack is now simply one of a series of openings/systems (such as the Ruy Lopez/Spanish game, the Stonewall Attack, etc. etc.) that high level players must be prepared to face.
–
Using the King’s Gambit against high level players will probably not result in any particular advantage. In fact, if the player using the King’s Gambit has not studied the analyses thoroughly, it could very well be that the opponent will have the advantage.
But a player that has studied the King’s Gambit can do quite well with it against low to intermediate level players that have not studied the King’s Gambit.
–
The King’s Gambit sums up how I currently feel about KJF, and a lot of other lines of play in Axis and Allies. It’s less about “right” and “wrong” than it is about having a wide arsenal of strategies and tactics that can potentially see an opponent unprepared.
If you’re a intermediate chess player that has thoroughly studied and prepared for the Ruy Lopez, you could still be caught off guard by the Sicilian Defense.
Advanced chess players study the Ruy Lopez, the Sicilian Defense, the Caro-Kann, and all sorts of other openings, so they don’t get caught unprepared.
-
@Bunnies:
In chess, some moves, such as castling, capturing en passant, and moving pawns forward two squares instead of one, are fairly recent innovations.
KJF has been the ‘holy grail’ since Classic… it appears easier with each edition but it’s very hard to repeat a win.
-
@Bunnies
I fully agree with the chess analogy.
The best strategy will change over time, even though A&A has less possibilities for variants than chess IMO.HKL brings up the dilemma of the UK1 commitment.
Buying an IC and placing it on India UK1 is the point of no return, and gives Japan full knowledge of what the Allies strategy is.
Waiting untill UK2 with the India IC is very difficult. Since this would mean India is missing the units from the UK2 (and UK3) purchase.I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?
Is it possible to wait one round - maybe buying air UK1 and still establish the IC?
Should an India IC be used to build up a UK navy in the Indian Ocean to join with a US Pacific Fleet?
Or should the IC produce ground units and try to push Japan of the Asian mainland, along with UK air from London?
Which UK1 attacks supports this strategy the best (Egypt or FIC, Bury stack etc.)?
How should the US build up a strong pacific navy fast enough to come to aid? -
I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?
Is it possible to wait one round - maybe buying air UK1 and still establish the IC?
Should an India IC be used to build up a UK navy in the Indian Ocean to join with a US Pacific Fleet?
Or should the IC produce ground units and try to push Japan of the Asian mainland, along with UK air from London?
Which UK1 attacks supports this strategy the best (Egypt or FIC, Bury stack etc.)?
How should the US build up a strong pacific navy fast enough to come to aid?India IC in general is poor play; it must first be protected against Japan, then after Moscow has fallen, against Germany. Waiting a round for a UK India IC usually serves little good purpose. I think there may be lines in which a UK1 India IC may be useful with careful play, but I am not at all convinced. Players will think about the immediate situation at India, but complications like a German Baltic transport buy threatening invasion of London also need to be considered.
The UK1 India IC is useful as it contains multiple threats, one of which is the unified UK2 fleet at India sea zone. But UK should not put itself into a lockstep mentality where it is determined to build a UK2 fleet regardless of the Japanese move. If the opportunity presents itself, UK should switch to a ground push fueled by the India IC.
Which attacks complement a UK1 India IC depend on the situation. Sometimes it is best to hit Egypt, sometimes best to hit FIC, sometimes it is best to have a Buryatia stack.
The US needs at least one carrier on US1; any less slashes US’s ability to project power early. The rest is discretionary. Subs, destroyers, and transports each have a particular role to play (when I write this I am not thinking of generalities either; a player should not just start randomly buying a mix of units; a player should think about early attacks on the Japanese fleet, defense against Japanese air attack, and threatening invasion of high IPC islands and Japan itself, as well as the 9 VC win condition), as well as the ability of destroyers to block enemy fleet movement (Germany should send a fighter to the Japs if it looks like there’s a KJF in progress for this very reason).
On US2 and US3, US should buy a mix of carriers, fighters, subs, destroyers, and transports. A carrier a turn is very useful because it lets new fighters be placed closer to Japan, which seriously increases US’s ability to project power.
The typical US threat involves moving the US1 fleet to Solomon Islands, from which it threatens Borneo, East Indies, Phillipines, and Japan. This is why US1 transports can be particularly useful; they set up a wider US3 threat. From there, US just keeps cramming more power in Japan’s direction. It’s not too difficult to push Japan’s fleet into the Indian Ocean area.
What happens next, though, is questionable. I think if UK built an India IC that UK has to end up controlling the Pacific Island income to compensate for Africa and to allow UK to project power to the region through another IC. If UK built an Atlantic fleet, US may try to funnel reinforcements from the Alaska-Buryatia route.
-
I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?Bunnies post covers the matter of the Indian IC, although I’ll just in conclusion that the move simply switches the main target for the Axis (and the main territory to defend) from Russia to India.
KJF is a very demanding strategy because you need to defeat/stop the Japanese on Asia while eliminating the Japanese fleet from play or rendering useless to contest US landings on the money islands.
That’s why it is so attractive at the same time - you need to take a calculated risk when some of the above conditions are met and hope it doesn’t turn into a gamble.
Suggested Topics
