Kill Japan First (KJF)

[Guest]

It does not have to defend ALL of them.

Against a KJF:
Japan uses 1 TRN to send reiunforcements to islands, starting with the most valuable
Japan builds AC’s and lands existing FIGs on them (3 loaded AC’s, or 6 standard carrier fleets)
Japan preserves 2 initial BB’s
Japan Adds a couple of SUBs for offensive punch, TRNs to move units, land units for Asia and Island defense, and additional AF.

US moves in, loses a lot of ground troops on an island assault, then the Japan fleet converges and wipes out the US fleet.  While the US rebuilds, Japan replaces losses, re-takes the island, and continues to push in Asia.

[Jennifer]

Sure.  The allies would truely enjoy Japan sending hoards of infantry to her islands.  Meanwhile, America sails around them all, lands in Asia proper and sets up 1 infantry, 5 battleship invasions of Japan while sending 9 tanks to Europe.  Japan, meanwhile, is stuck on her pretty little islands, most of which arn’t worth taking anway.

[JLord]

@newpaintbrush:

I feel that Borneo/New Guinea for UK1 is overextension, and that the Japanese will make the UK pay.

How would they make Uk pay?  By taking India early?  By killing the UK Pacific fleet early?

I’m just saying that if you are going to be throwing US fleets at Japan right from the start, it is very difficult for Japan to ever get around to taking back Borneo and New Guinia.  This amounts to an extra 5 IPC for UK for the entire game.  I think this is well worth losing your pacific fleet, losing India, and losing the chance of a Egypt counter.  Stacking India or countering in Egypt will give you extra IPC for a few turns, but I don’t think they match the benefits of holding 5 IPC for the entire game without having to spend any UK resources in defence.

[ajgundam5]

But if UK loses India / Egypt Japan has a path into Asia and unless US builds an IC in Sinkiang on US1 there is only Russia to defend it

[Jennifer]

But if England takes Borneo/New Guinea on round 1, which is actually doable, not huge chance of success, but pretty good, you are stealing 5 IPC from America too.

[ajgundam5]

I don’t think America needs the 5 IPCs as much as UK but if UK takes Borneo it is probably going to lose India and its Pacific Fleet which I don’t think it should do in a KJF strategy

[JLord]

@ajgundam5:

But if UK loses India / Egypt Japan has a path into Asia and unless US builds an IC in Sinkiang on US1 there is only Russia to defend it

I’d say in most games I play that is the case.  I rarely build an IC in India or Sink.

But I guess if you are trying to go KJF you would probably want an IC in both.  And I guess that would involve defending India with Russian forces for one or two turnes if you wanted to grab Borneo and New Guinia.  Might be possible…

[ezto]

KJF turns into all for america, none for the other allies.

[Jennifer]

Problem is, in a KJF, Japan’s fighting so desperately not to loose their fleet they won’t recover Borneo and New Guinea.  That means America looses out on a prime island location for a forward industrial complex.

[JLord]

That’s true.  But wouldn’t you rather than Uk had the extra 5 IPC?  The US can still take East Indies or Philipines for an IC.

[Jennifer]

Yes.  But I’d rather England retake Egypt and maybe New Guinea and leave the Japs to America and Russia.

[JLord]

Retaking Egypt is a very good use of those troops as well.  But sometimes it is not possible.  And Egypt is nothing more than a minor delay for Gemany unless you have immediate help in Africa.  Wheras Borneo and New Guinia in a KJF game will likely result in 5 IPC every turn for the entire game.  A benefit that nearly offsets losing all of Africa.

But I do like retaking Egypt as well.  But in a KJF game?

[Jennifer]

If you cannot retake Egypt, you CAN stack Kenya which will force Germany to put more feet on the street in Africa to take those last 3 IPCs.

Or, you can stack India.  4 Infantry, 1 AA Gun and an IC is a pretty good stack for UK 1.  Just don’t EVER move out and make sure to put at least 10 IPC into India a round.

And yes, England and Russia are all but superfulous in a KJF strategy.  American should be putting nearly 99.9% of her assets into the Pacific which requires Japan to do likewise or yield the Pacific to the Americans.  Meanwhile, 10 Infantry from Russia, 4 Infantry (5 if you can run that guy from T-J fast enough) and a Fighter from England plus the Fleet that is normally IN the Pacific and lost ANYWAY is plenty to hold Japan back for a few rounds.

3 Rounds = 120 IPC in Units + 44 IPC in Fleet already in the Pacific (BB, TRN, DD - Assuming Atlantic Fleet invades Algeria to harass Germany, or lands in England to secure from Op Sea Lion) is a large Whollop to take out.

And the units I’m asking for from England and Russia do not cost them anything more then is normally cost to them in a Kill Germany First game.

[Guest]

Actually you ARE asking for extra troops, at least 2 extra Russian INF (that normally go Evenk to Moscow) and the FIG from UK that eitehr goes to an AC, or to Moscow/Caucuses/West Russia as needed for defense (and offensive strike once the UK lands in Europe).

And you will not ahve the US mass then either.

That means the ENTIRE UK FLEET is at immediate risk in Turn 2, and if the Germans can sink the UK fleet AND make a strong play for Africa, UK is toast as an offensive power in Europe.  And with No UK threat, and no US presence at all, except that paltry US1 landing of 4 units, Germany with an income over $40 and riusing, is free to go after Russia with an income of $24 and falling.  Even assuming a good solid R1 open, Caucuses falls about G4, after Germany has taken/liberated Karelia/Archangel/West Russia/Ukraine, and most or all of Africa.

[Jennifer]

Lotsa ifs

And in my games, 10 Russian Infantry usually go to the Eastern Flank.  6 In Yakut, 4 in Novosibirsk.  The 2 Infantry in Evenki go to Russia still.

The British Fighter almost 100% of the time stays in teh Pacific or in Africa.  Whatever you normally do with the fighter you can still do.  If you want to bug out of India you can do that too.  It has no bearing on a KJF strategy no matter what England does, provided the Japanese Transport in SZ 59 dies, as normal.

So no, I’m not asking for anything that the British or Russians don’t NORMALLY put towards slowing down the Japanese anyway.

And I highly doubt Germany’s going to do much of anything to the British Fleet.  1 BB, 1 AC, 2 Fig, 3 TRN is a significant defensive force, especially if you place it wisely (SZ 3 or SZ 4) and make sure to keep Norway or Karelia so the Germans have no airbases to land fighters they are using for defense in Europe.

In fact, in all the games I’ve played, and I’ve played a lot of games since June when I started (probably around 50, all online) I have NEVER seen the British loose their fleet when America doesn’t come help them.

And let’s not forget the American DD and 2 Transports I’m sacrificing to the British as designated Casualties.  It’ll take two rounds to get there, but so what?  It’ll take the Germans more then 2 rounds to get in a position they have the forces needed and available to sink the British fleet.  Now you have to sink 5 Transports, 2 Fighters, 1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier and a Battleship.

Meanwhile, Japan’s been crushed.  I mean totally crushed, navally.

Now, it should be noted that if Japan is smart and only hits Pearl with 1 SS, 1 DD coupled with fighters and bombers so there’s no loss of capital ships, I recommend going to Europe with America.

It’s not that you cannot still out spend the devils and blow all their pretty little boats into splinters.  But it’ll take too long.  You don’t want to give Germany 6 rounds without American interferance before Japan’s fleet is sunk and you can start grabbing islands willie-nillie. (And yes, I recommend leaving 2 infantry on every island you want to keep.  For me that’s 6 wasted infantry, 2 on Borneo, 2 on East Indies and 2 on Philippines.)  That’s just in case Japan builds a fleet after you move on, if you choose to move on.

But in the case of an Average or Better then Average result for America in Pearl where Japan brings both an Aircraft Carrier and a Battleship, shoot, son, you just sunk half their effective fleet and you havn’t put a single boat in the water yet!

[newpaintbrush]

“Problem is, in a KJF, Japan’s fighting so desperately not to loose their fleet they won’t recover Borneo and New Guinea.”

Disagree.  J1, Japan either wipes out the UK fleet or Pearl Harbor (agreed?)  Regardless of which Japan chooses, it will take time for the Allies to build a serious naval threat to Japan.  Japan doesn’t have much to do with its battleships except escort transports and use amphibious assault shots (which go together nicely).

Against a KGF with no US in the Pacific, I’d grab Borneo back on J3 at latest.  (J1 build transports and tank(s), J2 build more transports and infantry/tanks.  If UK built an IC on UK2, the J1 transports retake Borneo on J2.  If there’s no IC on UK2, J2 transports retake Borneo.

Against a KJF with heavy US fleet, I’d move the Japanese fleet closer together on J2 and start using double support shots plus heavy fighter escorts, with a couple fighters and a bomber assisting in Asia, along with transports in the sea zone west of Japan / at French Indochina.  It’s very difficult for the Allies to take out an early combined KJF fleet, and with the additional forces in the area, Borneo can easily be retaken.

I believe that a UK attack on Borneo is possibly disastrous, and at best offers a passing distraction to Japan at the cost of the UK Pacific/Indian forces.  The carrier, transport, and Indian fighter are all locked into place near Borneo.  Also, sending 1 destroyer against 1 transport offers a decent chance of failure for a very important battle.

–

“Now, it should be noted that if Japan is smart and only hits Pearl with 1 SS, 1 DD coupled with fighters and bombers so there’s no loss of capital ships, I recommend going to Europe with America.”

Well, there is a UK counter to prevent that.  If you use the Australian sub and Indian fighter to attack the Japanese sub at Solomons, and land the fighter on the US carrier at Pearl, that means less fodder for the Japs, and a harder hit for the Allies.  You can also run the UK transport to New Guinea, which forces Japan either to use a fighter vs transport (which is risky for Japan, and ties up a valuable fighter that first turn which means even less hitting Pearl, or means less hitting Asia, either of which will help a KJF).  Or Japan uses two fighters, which is even worse for Japan.

Or Japan uses the East Indies battleship to attack the UK transport, leaving the Japanese carriers alone with their fighter escorts alone at the Solomons (Japan will probably be forced to move at least one carrier to the Solomons to take on fighters from the Pearl battle).  Now, with no battleship at the Solomons, the US can possibly attack with Hawaiian island fighter, battleship, transport and either press on or retreat, if forced to retreat, the Japanese may be sucked into the US1 naval build in hopes of killing that US battleship (if the Japs don’t pursue, the US keeps the battleship).

Of course, that’s moot if the Japs can just use the battleship at east of Japan to reinforce the Solomons, which is why a UK bomber is so handy.  If you’re stuck on reclaiming Anglo-Egypt, you could run the Indian fighter to Anglo-Egypt after all, and use the UK London bomber at Egypt as well, then land both fighter and bomber in Italian East Africa, where the bomber would still threaten the sea zones off Japan with a strong USSR presence in Burytia giving the UK bomber a place to land.  OR, if you want to stick with the naval KJF plan, just fly the UK bomber east to China, where it can attack then land in Yakut (it’s hard for Japan to crack Yakut early), or possibly to Novosibirsk if you wanted to try to hit the German Baltic fleet.

(edit) To be clear, if you have the UK bomber as a threat, then any Japanese transport builds on J1 have a hard time surviving.  If Japan leaves a group of transports completely unescorted, they’re bomber bait.  If Japan keeps a battleship to escort, it runs into the problems outlined above.  (no battleship at Solomons, or fewer fighters at Pearl).  (Of course, I assume both Japanese carriers must go to Solomons).  If Japan builds only two transports and an IC, and puts one transport west of Japan and another east, bomber vs single transport is likely good for the Allies.  If Japan builds three transports and puts them together without any escort, that’s a potential disaster for the Axis.

On the other hand, if Japan tries to take Pearl with capital ships, avoiding most of the pitfalls above, the US can counter more heavily.

[Jennifer]

I agree that England can easily counter a threat of hitting Pearl light with Japan with the Fighter/Sub to SZ 45 option.

However, then you are NOT using that fighter in India or to retake Egypt.  Makes a LARGE difference.

However, I disagree that it’ll take too long for the Allies to build a fleet to counter you.

USA 1: 
2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Fighter
SZ 55 Now has:  1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer

USA 2:
4 Submarines, 1 Transport
SZ 55 Now has: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Submarines, 4 Transports, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers

USA 3:
Move Fleet out if Japan didn’t build one, if they did, hold back
Build 4 or 5 Submarines (depends if you owned Sink or not last round.)

Now you can effectively neutralize the Japanese by forcing them back to a port (IC near the water) or sink them before they can get reinforcements.  Meanwhile, you can put out transports, carriers and fighters to supplement or replace losses as you see fit.

*Note:  If you decide to send 2 transports, 1 Destroyer from E. USA to England then subtract them from above.

[newpaintbrush]

“However, then you are NOT using that fighter in India or to retake Egypt.  Makes a LARGE difference.”

“If you’re stuck on reclaiming Anglo-Egypt, you could run the Indian fighter to Anglo-Egypt after all, and use the UK London bomber at Egypt as well, then land both fighter and bomber in Italian East Africa”

–

See, I do think of these things!

–

“However, I disagree that it’ll take too long for the Allies to build a fleet to counter you.”

“USA 2:
4 Submarines, 1 Transport
SZ 55 Now has: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Submarines, 4 Transports, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers”

Japan has 2 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 5 fighters, and a bomber.  Assuming Japan was unlucky enough to lose a fighter, and that Japan didn’t purchase any units.  It is far more likely that Japan will have 6-8 fighters and 3-5 transports by J2 (if high on fighters, low on transports and vice versa).  Japan can usually hold off on building fighters, but a US Pacific build is pretty obvious.

So assume the US holds back for another turn until USA4.

"Now you can effectively neutralize the Japanese by forcing them back to a port (IC near the water) or sink them before they can get reinforcements. "

Basically, the US is running into the teeth of the Japanese navy and air force.  The Japanese are not really FORCED back, they can just sit in the South Pacific until the US gets close.  Then, if the US commits units to attack the high IPC islands, the Japs wipe them out or pull a hit and run; either is massively expensive for the US fleet.  Of course, the US can use 100% of its funds to rebuild, while the Japs are busy in Asia as well, but it takes time, while Germany is running around making trouble.

–

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t say KJF doesn’t work.  But I find it far more certain to smash Germany.  By USA4, I am usually using US and UK forces to trade off territories with Germany to conserve Russian forces; at worst, I can set up a secure reinforcement through Archangel and bolster Moscow with Allied fighters.  With the Allies in firm control of the Atlantic, and Moscow secure, it is just a matter of time before the Axis lose.

In contrast, if I allow Japan the time to run in Asia, and allow Germany to do its thing in the Atlantic, the fate of Moscow is much less certain.

[Jennifer]

If the Japanese are sitting off the islands in the S. Pacific, why wouldn’t America move into SZ 60 and start making landings from Alaska into Buryatia, cutting off the Industrial Complexes and land in SE Asia that way?

If Japan goes to SZ 60, then why not just take her islands, put up an IC in East Indies and Borneo and start dumping 8 units a round into FIC until you win and hold or Japan screams at you and throws the board across the room in frustration?

[Guest]

If KJF were so easy, more people would use it  :mrgreen: