• '16 '15 '10

    Some thoughts on KJF……

    I played mostly KJF for my first dozen games or so as Allies, mostly on TripleA live against opponents of varying skill.  I never got to play KJF much on GTO since nobody ever wanted to let me Allies without a silly Axis bid for them.

    In general I found that while I did fine against less skilled players, for the most part I couldn’t win with this strategy against experts.  This may be because my strats were too crude.  But anyway I switched to aggressive KGF tactics and found them just as (or almost as) much fun to play, with a much higher rate of success.

    Anyway, here are some of my working hypotheses from that time.

    -In conjunction with WR/UKR R1, I would use a sub buy + r2 med fleet assault with Russia, sometimes in combo with an air buy (nowadays I would strongly advise against the latter…but at the time I was uncomfortable with the 10% chance that the R2 attack will fail).  The reasoning is that Allies need to gamble early to secure Africa.  If Germany is allowed to blitz Africa, then they’ll have so much cash for tanks that Allies don’t have a chance in hell.  But if Germany’s income is limited to around 40-45 or so, then alot of Axis players won’t be making heavy tank buys (as they ought to against a KJF strategy).  This gives Russia valuable time.

    -I have a hard time justifying a FIC attack over an Egy counter if Germany hits Egy.  If Germany has 1-2 tanks on Egy, those tanks need to go…simple as that.  Plus FIC is super duper ueber risky…  What I would do is hit Egy and then go ahead and buy the India factory anyway, and just leave the 2 inf + aa.  My hope was that the Axis player might be tempted to spread himself too thin (i was typically stacking Bury too).  There’s also a 33% of an aa hit if Japs bring 2 figs to ind, and 50% if they bring 3.  In other cases where I was feeling less risky, I’d simply withdraw the 2 inf + aa to Per, and then move them back in on UK2 (if r counters with 2 inf 2 arm, then on average they should take ind back with 1 inf 2 arm, so after uk2 there should be something like 4 inf 4 arm fig aa defending India).

    Note that I’ll have bought 2 tanks with Russia and place them in Cauc.  Also, I usually moved the 2 inf in kaz (or at least 1) to per.  So if japan takes India, I would liberate india with the inf/tanks r2, and then build 3 more units with uk on uk2.

    I suppose Japan could try to counter these tactics and seize India if they have the foresight to move everything towards India (btw nobody ever did), but in that case I would fight for India aggressively with Russia, and hope Japan being distracted allowed for a big USA success in the naval war, as well as hope that Japan takes big aa losses in the battles for India.   If Japan doesn’t hit China…then maybe a double factory USA1 to really put the heat on (this never happened either).

    -I rarely used the Sink factory.  I’m not sure if this was good strategy or not.  My reasoning was Sink is expensive, vulnerable, easy to bomb, and spending there distracts from the USA air/naval offensive.  Further, unlike India, allies can’t liberate Sink for you.  I’d rather spend that money on air power that forces Japan to buy defensive naval units and which can also strafe Japan land units and act as can openers for Russian or UK tanks.

    -I used primarily air power with USA.  The key is getting a mainland base close to Japan’s naval production to really frustrate them and force them to spend the majority of their income on naval production or lose their navy and transports.

    -I’m on the fence on whether it’s a good idea for Russia to stack Bury with just the 6 inf (ie without the brit fig, which presumably is attacking Egy).  The problem is a smart Japan player might decide that the sub buy + Bury stack=weak as hell Russia and just skip Pearl and go all out for Bry, leading to a quick conquest of Russia.  On the other hand, those 6 inf can be very dynamic and it’s always fun to have the extra options the bry stack provides.

    To reiterate, I simply experimented with these tactics.  I don’t recommend them against dangerous opponents.  But I would wholeheartedly recommend them for a F2F game or for something fun and different.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Bunnies:

    Caucasus naval/air build:

    On Russia’s turn, it may choose to purchase a sub and/or a fighter for Caucasus, to threaten German shipping to Anglo-Egypt.  Pro - If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt, Russia can destroy the German Mediterranean navy BEFORE Germany’s second turn comes around, which makes a big difference.  Con - buying a single sub means the attack risks Russian air, and the battle is still far from a sure thing.  Buying more means Russia is spending far less on ground units that it will need to fight off a very aggressive Germany.  If Russia does this buy, it needs to hit Ukraine and West Russia to prevent Germany from trying to smash Caucasus.

    Germany has some counters to this.  It can keep its fleet safe by keeping it at Southern Europe and either buying a carrier, or doing certain moves that will discourage attack (such as hitting Caucasus and killing Russia’s fighters if that option is available).  Or Germany can attack Gibraltar.  Or Germany can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air, as well as hurting Russia’s ability to trade territory on R2.

    On the other hand, if Germany spends IPCs on navy, that is less that Germany can spend on ground units; if Germany overcommits to navy, the Allies could switch to KGF.

    I can’t see how any of these options are good compared to simply taking Egypt (and then hoping to get the 10% miracle result in sz15, or to at least kill a Russian fighter).  It seems to me that allowing those UK units in Egy to survive is too much of a sacrifice.  It allows UK to slip the indian fleet into the med…very useful for a KGF.  Moreover, any German spending in the Med seems ultimately counter-productive since Allies have more disposable income for air power then Germany has for navy.

    IMO Germany should take Egy, and concentrate on exploiting how Russia will be weaker on R2 given the sub buy and the upcoming R2 attack on sz15.


  • @Zhukov44:

    I can’t see how any of these options are good compared to simply taking Egypt (and then hoping to get the 10% miracle result in sz15, or to at least kill a Russian fighter).

    I did mention Germany could ignore a Russian naval/air buy as an option.  “Germany has some counters . . . can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air”.  That is to say, Germany could just hit Anglo Egypt anyways, then allow Russia to hit its German battleship with Russian navy/air on R2, and hope to drag a Russian fighter down.  Probably the confusion arose because I was not quite specific.

    As far as Germany building a carrier at Med and fortifying Libya, allowing the UK fleet to move into the Mediterranean, and allowing additional UK units to survive in Africa, it’s the choice that Germany makes when it decides to build a German carrier in the Med - it loses additional irreplaceable German air early, and forgoes the short term strategy of “early ground trading in Europe while fending off the Allied fleet in the Atlantic” for a longer term strategy that concentrates on late game German infantry/tank blocks in Europe, fueled by African IPCs.  Which is not to say that the “short term strategy” is short sighted; it’s just that the gains are more clear and immediate there than with the German Africa game.

    At end of G1 you see German battleship, carrier, 2 fighter, while UK1 threat is 2 fighters 1 bomber and surviving UK Med fleet (this is why Germany loses air early; it wants to destroy the UK carrier and destroyer in the Mediterranean).  On G2, if UK left fighters on its fleet, Germany uses its six ground on Libya to take Anglo-Egypt and uses its air and navy to crush the UK fleet, after which Japanese fighters can land on the German carrier to reinforce, preventing US from making a followup attack to destroy the German navy.  If UK didn’t leave fighters on its fleet, Germany whacks Anglo Egypt with six ground plus air, kills the UK fleet, and lands in TransJordan or Ukraine with its German Med transport (German navy/air kills the UK Med fleet; the German transport follows the German Med fleet around like a good doggy and dumps wherever it can to help out).

    Moreover, any German spending in the Med seems ultimately counter-productive since Allies have more disposable income for air power then Germany has for navy.

    IMO Germany should take Egy, and concentrate on exploiting how Russia will be weaker on R2 given the sub buy and the upcoming R2 attack on sz15.

    Both Axis and Allies have to spend their income wisely.  Neither UK nor US want to lose air without seeing some significant gain, as that air is very useful to trade territory against Germany, and to help protect the Allied fleet.  Also, UK and US will need to spend the first few rounds getting set up, whether it’s the traditional naval and fighter buys for UK/US for a KGF plan, or some industrial complex/navy mix for a variation of KJF.  As far as cracking a German battleship/carrier combination in the Mediterranean, it quickly becomes impossible.  Once the Axis control the Suez canal, if the Allies are going KGF, Japan can easily afford to send a battleship and carrier through, for a defensive fleet of 2 battleship 2 carrier 4 fighter.  Add to that the fact that after UK hits, Japan can reinforce with fighters, and after US hits, Germany can reinforce with fighters, and for all practical purposes the Axis Mediterranean fleet is more trouble to kill than it’s worth.  I find it’s usually better for the Allies to put a defensive fleet west of Algeria to help contest Africa, then shift that fleet off to Europe as needed, rather than trying to take on the Mediterranean fleet head on.

    As far as Germany exploiting an R1 naval/air buy, that’s fine, but that’s just running the German game along the more commonly seen Europe-Atlantic play instead of the African play line.  If you’re saying Europe-Atlantic is superior to Mediterranean carrier/African play line, I’d appreciate any details you would provide.


  • I always approach Britain as a supplemental force when playing them. Early on I like to build 1-2 additional bombers and strategically bomb Germany every turn to slow their push on Russia and weaken them overall. Then I try to mount enough of an amphibious assault group so that I can either take, or significantly weaken the territory the US is going to hit later that turn. This works well as the British and US go before Germany goes again.

    As far as the India IC goes; I am tempted to build one there every time I play the Brits, but I hold off. In our group, I have never seen that IC last very long, it just ends up being a free IC for Japan.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
    Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.

    By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.

    I agree with you on the India IC - it’s too vulnerable, and while it may be used as a part of a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy, I don’t think I’ve seen many KJF enthusiasts on this forum.


  • @Herr:

    I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
    Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.

    By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.

    Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
    However a US shuck to Europe requires twice the amount of transporters as the UK.

    I am quite convinced that the most feasible UK strategy is establishing an atlantic navy and hit Europe with 8 units per round. The acquisition of early round UK air (figs and bombers) can however be used to slow Japan, so that a UK navy is established later in the game (maybe round 3-4) under the protection of an already established US navy, maybe even at a time when Germany has less airforce and no subs as to earlier in the game.


  • But the UK bomber always has better things to do than bombing, already from the first turn (attacking in the Med or Africa or some place in the Atlantic).

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    @jiman79:

    Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.

    You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.

    As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.


  • The bombers aren’t my end all be all strategy by any means, and I wont buy more than one or MAYBE two. (game dictating) However, at least in our games, it usually takes a few turns before UK and the US are able to mount an effective offense in the West. I use them to hit Germany in the mean time. Then, once we are ready, they  become great support to our amphibious assault and further operations.


  • @Herr:

    @jiman79:

    Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.

    You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.

    As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.

    I totally agree in all you said.
    The standard opening for UK is to buy AC+2dstr and place them in a safe position according to the G air and navy positioning. Retake Egypt and kill the baltic dstr+trnsp.
    Besides fom this I think the best location for an allied bomber (UK or US) is in caucasus.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts