The KGF strat is not about ignoring Japan, no countries can be ignored, it’s just that allies cant do much against Japan for the first 2 rnds, and Japan can be partially ignored early in the game. The KGF strat involves slowing Japan down as much as possible, but most resources goes against Germany.
The reason why KGF is most popular among the best players is because a good axis player will make a too strong Germany if only Russia and UK tries to stop them.
And there is no such thing as KGF fanmania, it’s about the-most-effective-strat-fanmania
There is not really a KGF for many (99%) Revised games. A true KGF will include some US naval units to Pacific to distract Japan and force fight it … I only had seen a true KGF once in my PBEM games and it was in AA50. 99% of players do a Try Ignore Japan strat that includes sending all stuff to Europe and Africa, even the starting Pacific fleets. Most (99%) of players will counter this making a JTDTM, while some others will counter with a Polar Expres, that’s why I call the “so-called KGF” a “Try Ignore Japan (if you can)”
Allies can do a Ignore Japan strat only if Japan lets them. In my games I noticed that Polar Express is, at least, as good as JTDTM, and I’m pretty sure that Polar Express can improve because it has been used less (many play by memory with TIJ-KGF)
The funny thing is when in some games Japan gets diced J1 and anyway allied player lets Japan breath and TIJ just because they think that a Pacific Fleet is useless
My point is that in this or any future A&A games many players will never stop from trying ignore Japan, no wonder how bad idea is, how many income have Pacific Ocean and mainland Asia, how bad gets Japan diced, how good can be Polar Express or how boring can be ignoring Japan. KGF is a religion
If they try that in Global 1940, Japan will destroy everyone with its 2 BB, 3 CV, and lots of transports/income.
The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.
The person who played the bid, switch, said this:
It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.Â Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.
Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.Â Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.
With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.
I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.Â I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.Â Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.
2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.
Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.Â But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.Â I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.Â Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.Â If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.Â If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.Â And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.
The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.
2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.Â I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.Â But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.Â If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.
Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.
3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.Â Not much room for a great defense there.Â And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.Â Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.Â (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)
I do this as a bid because it greatly increases Japan’s options on round 1. While a transport bid to SZ50 does allow for a possible invasion of Hawaii its other options are rather limited.
The transport added to the E. Indies fleet not only allows the mentioned amphibs but is also fodder if need be for a strike on British naval units in sz30 or sz34.
Again I think it gives Japan the MOST options on round one.
You can alternatively play with 8VC and it will be doable. Just add a smal rule that the VC needs to be controlled for a whole turn iso checking just after US.
Uk cant pull out of india for afrika.
USSR is almost forced to help india from the start and defend karrelia
UK barely has time to build up and needs to focus on keeping karrelia safe.
US is pressured to help either russia or go pacific in order to get some VC there.
Yes you can take india the first turn but 2 inf and 4 fig 1 bomb vs 5 inf 1 AA and 3 fig ( 4 if germany did not attack egypt ) is not verry favorable.
Not much sense to Germany or Russia building ICs in Revised. Germany already starts with the ability to make 16 units a turn–that’s all you need. The only interesting places I’ve seen Germany place an IC are Western Europe (for naval strats) and Ukraine (to help aggressive stack there). And I’d argue stacking Ukraine is better achieved by simply buying more land units and moving em out.
ICs are expensive enough as it is–no need to buy em w/o reason.
To me I’m looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn’t have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don’t really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we’re talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I’m looking at the forest, not the trees.
I think it’s something to have to live with, but it’s still better to look at overall strategies than having every other game in ADS screwed over by some important battle going horribly wrong.