General Strategy: KGF vs KJF

Some posters on Discord are saying how the Allies player counters Japan’s invasion of Alaska is dependent on “player level”. Sure.

But magical abilities are being ascribed, and it should be understood there is no magic.

For example, I read a “top level” player will supposedly “defend” Alaska. How, exactly? When, exactly? Is it magic?

The first post is to players that already have a very good grasp of what’s going on, telling them this is the timing, the timing shift, the opportunity cost, and so on.

This post is more basic.

Assuming Germany doesn’t have early advantageous dice against USSR (or other disasters), assuming Germany is not in a position to dash forwards and crush Moscow before the Allies can really do anything, the game takes a slower pace. Germany and Japan build up and move towards Moscow; UK and US carry out their own development.

But let’s give some concrete numbers. Suppose Japan decides to attack Alaska early. Why would Japan do this? If the US player was very silly, and only then. Generally at the end of J1, Japan should have made whatever opportunistic attacks to start choking USSR’s income. Every unit sent to Alaska is a unit not sent to Asia, and any units Japan dumps to Asia next turn from the Alaska transports will have to be to Buryatia or Manchuria, which is far from India; India has an existing industrial complex that UK uses to disrupt the Axis, and controlling that industrial complex is a big boost to Japan. For reasons I shall not get into at this time.

So the only reason why Japan should hit Alaska J1 or J2 (or generally early), considering it detracts from the basic Axis strategy, considering it detracts from what is normally one of the Axis’ stronger tactical focuses - is if Japan does better to hit Alaska somehow. Which amounts to US overextension. Which shouldn’t happen.

So Japan should not invade Alaska early, unless Allies are super unlucky or super bad. Or unless the Japan player just wants to have fun; games don’t have to be about “winning” or “losing”.

==

What about late in the game? Supposing the Allies go KGF?

We must first talk about tanks and opportunity costs. Suppose US buys tanks. A single transport can transport, say, two infantry, or an infantry and a tank. Though tanks are expensive, they can blitz (probably useless if dropped on France but whatever), and they are more efficient defenders than infantry. So should we expect that the US has lots of tanks? Probably not. Because infantry are much cheaper than tanks, and we may expect that the US will use IPCs to buy more transports and infantry.

But there are other reasons to buy tanks, specifically, tanks on Western US defend Western US and threaten Alaska. Tanks on Eastern Canada are ready for US’s usual KGF transport routes and also threaten Alaska.

Then there’s also certain things about timings at Finland. But suffice to say that building a heavy tank force is quite expensive, and though I expect US to build a few tanks, I don’t expect heavy investment.

Yes, three paragraphs to go over things that veteran players already know very well. I did mention this post is more basic.

Those things said, what can we reasonably expect of a Japan to Alaska invasion? Let’s say reasonable worst case.

REASONABLE WORST CASE, JAPAN TO ALASKA

In KGF (if KJF, then Japan hitting Alaska is opportunistic / “best chance”. After Japan takes India (before capturing India, Japan needs its transports to speed attacks on India. Even afterwards, one or two transports may be used for Africa and/or Australia.) US has a few tanks East Canada.

All makes sense? This is as bad as it gets for Japan hitting Alaska. But let’s throw in a few more things that we also know, if we think about it.

Japan isn’t making good progress supporting Germany in Europe. (If Japan were doing great with Germany, who cares about Alaska, just smash Moscow and win). Germany’s position isn’t hopeless, or near hopeless. It just needs a “little more”.

Okay. Now let’s say Japan dumps 2 units to Alaska, 4 units, basically a distraction. This is not the supposed “hard counter” that a lot of players are talking about on Discord. It’s just Japan saying “hi”, now Japan is +2, US is -2.

Now what is the magical defense?

Obviously if US has a pile of infantry on West Canada, then US smashes Japan in Alaska and sits there, and Japan can’t really do much about it. (Remember, we expect Japan to have 8-12 ground on the followup, plus up to six fighters, a bomber, two battleship and a cruiser support shots, plus maybe some more air power, who knows.)

Well, if US was sitting on a huge chunk of infantry on West Canada, then let’s really think on it. Somehow, the Axis are not doing particularly well, despite the US holding back a huge chunk of income on a threat that Japan never even needed to commit to? Then why are the Axis generally doing not so hot in Europe?

You see the magic? Where did this perfect defense materialize from? It comes from the assumption that somehow the Allies are basically already winning.

But let’s make it a little less magical, you say? Let’s say there is a small infantry reserve on West Canada? Well, that infantry reserve will get blown up by Japan’s counter. So really, US needs a lot on West Canada. That’s just how it is.

But US can use fighters against Alaska? Most of US fighters are in or near Europe. They simply haven’t the range.

Bombers? Again, out of range.

But the US fighters and bombers are NOT out of range, one claims, if they are held back? True, but then we again have the situation where US is pre-emptively holding back counter forces, and considerable forces at that, against a potential Japanese invasion.

We need more magic!

Then let’s say US responds late to Japan’s attack. That is, Japan secures Alaska on the initial or the followup.

Then everything I wrote in the initial post is true; Japan threatens multiple locations with a single stack of units; US must pull multiple defenses or come out the loser, Axis units that would not be really relevant until a few turns in suddenly become immediately relevant.

This is just the numbers. The situation. The timing. The logistics. No magic involved.

Japan to Alaska isn’t about some poorly considered premature invasion that pulls away from Axis strategic and tactical goals.

Nor is Japan to Alaska about some late game Hail Mary, trying to brute-force some solution. This is what some posters are saying on Discord, but it’s not about that at all. It’s about pulling a US response, where US wants to invest more in the defense than Japan needs to on the offense, because US wants local superiority of force, Japan gains income from invasion while US is merely reclaiming, and US cannot really afford to lose, given the multiple threat development of Japan.

If US does not respond to the threat with sufficient force (including taking reasonable chances and getting unlucky), then Japan captures Western US. That shouldn’t happen, but Japan may still fuel its invasion with traded territory income. But those are both actually silly scenarios. What probably happens is, US responds “late” (if not, then US was paying an opportunity cost for a threat that never needed to materialize), then US has to keep shoveling resources into repelling the threat, then after Japan switches back to Asia, US’s logistics chains are inefficient for some time while US readjusts, and the majority Allied stack holder may be severely disrupted at least.

About contingencies:

I mentioned contingencies a few times in passing. If Germany can’t break USSR from Karelia into West Russia with raw power, Germany can go in through Ukraine to push USSR / Allies combined stack back. If Allies can’t break Axis defense at Karelia with one power, it can do followup attacks with another.

Or when contingencies are absent; if Allies commit to France but can’t do much off the position, if Axis pressure Russia then the Allies may not have any outs. If Allies are committed to France, a partial pullout means Dunkirk except Germany doesn’t hold back, and anything sent to try to help Russia may not arrive in time anyways. If Germany tries a stack defense of Karelia and it fails, well, probably all Axis air is dead, most German tanks are dead and Germany can’t recover.

So you’re looking at this and maybe thinking “well, if Axis are in danger at Karelia why don’t they just pull back? isn’t aardvark always saying not to assume players are brain-dead?”

Right. But that gets to what I want to lead off with when talking about contingencies.

Some other players say things like “there are always things you can do”, or “if you’re smart you can always figure a way out.”

Usually, yes. Always, no.

If players want to play accurately, they need to think about things mathematically. Not romantically, not movie hero defying the odds, but coldly, mathematically, objectively.

So the problem with going right into how to use “contingencies” is when players build up a little confidence in their abilities they think maybe they can fudge things, get a little lucky, maybe small things won’t make a difference. Then it’s all about the romance and movie hero escapades, except now there’s a Scientist (fancy) that says Dramatic Things and is a Genius that Figures A Way Out. There’s always a Contingency Plan.

But really? What if your opponent is just better at running the numbers? And/or what if your opponent just got lucky?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRCTeQtNdU

So the first thing to remember about contingencies is you won’t always have them.

The second to remember about contingencies is sometimes you SHOULD NOT have them.

Wait, what? How can NOT having a backup plan be a good idea?

“Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket” - Andrew Carnegie

If the Axis stack Karelia, what does that really mean? The strength is, UK/US ground reinforcements are cut off at Finland (there’s some Allied outs but they’re not great), Japan and Germany both have air that “locks down” UK and US fleets. (If UK and US fleets are together, maybe Axis don’t want to take the combined defense down. But the moment UK moves off, Japan can hit UK and/or US before US can move to reinforce UK. If US moves off first, Germany can hit UK and/or US before UK can move to reinforce. Even if Germany doesn’t have a huge air force, if Germany kept just five fighters that can be pretty nice if there’s a big transport payoff.)

Say the plan is Germany tries to force an Axis-favored battle against the USSR/Allied combined stack near Russia, while Japan pressures trades and grabs Africa income.

Suppose Japan tries to have a “backup plan” of pushing mass units through Asia to challenge Russia.

Then what happens? Probably Japan still doesn’t have the unit count to challenge USSR head-on. It’s still absolutely necessary that Germany get an Axis-favored battle against the USSR / Allied combined stack.

But how will Germany do that, when Japan has less units at Karelia, so Germany needs to commit more units there to defend? Japan also has less air near Atlantic, so UK/US don’t need as much naval escorts and can just keep building then dumping ground which in turn pressures Germany.

That doesn’t mean Japan building mass units is categorically wrong. Maybe dice and player action make it clear it’s unlikely Germany will ever be able to get any sort of decent battle against the USSR/Allied combined stack near Russia. Then the Axis need to try something else, if the current plan is unlikely to have any success.

But for this example the point is building a backup plan can cut the chances on the primary plan.

Watch out for whenever a “backup plan” requires significantly different buys and/or moves to a “primary plan”. When that happens, only switch plans if the primary plan has already succeeded or if the primary plan is unlikely to succeed. (If the primary plan already succeeded, mission accomplished and time to set new objectives and means of accomplishing those objectives. If the primary plan will probably fail, better not throw good money after bad and adapt a new plan.)

Do contingencies exist, are they of practical use? Sure. If Germany wants to choke off USSR income at Ukraine, if USSR has a bit too much at West Russia and Caucasus (which could hit any German push to Ukraine), USSR can deny income to USSR at Belorussia instead. The USSR infantry/artillery at Caucasus can’t reach, probably anything Germany could have pushed to Ukraine can reach Belorussia instead.

Yes, if Germany can’t capture and hold Ukraine that won’t push USSR into having to decide between defending West Russia and Caucasus. But Germany can still try to force a major stack battle favoring Axis at West Russia, perhaps by building air. In turn that could mean Germany’s defense of France collapses, but if the Axis can still get a tolerable position out of it, that may be what has to be done. (Though there’s no guarantee even allowing France’s defense to collapse would give the Axis a decent position, depending on the position.)

Third thing to remember about contingencies is you can’t do them if you don’t have what you need. When you leave a resource where it can be destroyed, whether it’s an expensive bomber or an inexpensive infantry, that means you won’t have it later.

Consider if the Allies try to pressure Japan. If Japan tries to pressure Asia and Africa (which I’d say usually it should despite the oncoming USA navy), US can advance in the Pacific, threaten any new builds in Japan sea zones, and push Japan’s navy away. Then US can start grabbing high value islands and set up industrial complexes and the Axis game can get pretty awkward.

But there’s a difference between “awkward” and “deadly”. If Japan loses control of the entire Pacific coast, if US is taking high value islands and setting up ICs, that’s tough for Axis. But if simultaneously Germany is about to crush Russia and UK has nothing happening in Europe, then Japan can wait for Germany.

But then what happens? Suppose Germany has a small fleet, moves it into position, then Japan uses its fleet to reinforce. The further US pushes into Pacific / Indian Oceans, the harder it is for US to protect its lines of reinforcement. So it’s possible that even if US had good odds against a Japanese fleet, just a few German naval units could tip the scales. And it’s very easy for Germany to, say, produce two carriers and a destroyer at Italy, then move through the Suez if Axis have control. Then Germany can land four fighters on, and that’s pretty hefty defense, especially if Japan still has a good-sized fleet.

But if Japan has no fleet left to reinforce, if Japan tried some (unnecessary) losing-odds battle for nonessential territory that it couldn’t hope to hole for long anyways, then Germany has no backup. And if Japan took a bad-odds battle then US won’t even have been severely weakened.

That doesn’t mean Japan shouldn’t try to fight in the Pacific even without German reinforcements, it doesn’t even mean Japan shouldn’t try some bad-odds desperation moves. It depends on the position. But if Japan loses a chunk of navy and air force for no good reason, that navy and air force won’t be around later to make a difference.

So to recap, for this section on contingencies. Rather than trying to have some complicated clever plan with a lot of parts moving in different conflicting directions, stick to the basics. Consider the numbers, consider your strategy, know when something’s not working as well as it needs to so you know to switch to something else. If you must spend units don’t hold back, but think about whether you really need to spend resources. You may, but you may not. Also remember even if your opponent plays completely correctly mathematically (they may not, I don’t), there is still dice variance so there may be an opening.

Subs are by far the most cost efficient naval attack purchase. Surprisingly, they do okay in defense as well since hit points are so important. Japan should only buy subs if usa purchases pacific naval units round one. Since subs have more attack than defense, the usual dynamic is that two fleets are 3 spaces apart. The stronger navy will try to move to two spaces, either through enough defensive strength or with destroyer blockers. The other side has the choice of building up defense, countering similarly with blockers, or retreating.

3 transports, 3 infantry is an all around flexible and powerful round 1 purchase. If UK attacks japan sz37, this strongly suggests KJF and a buy of 1 trans, 3 sub 1 inf might be more appropriate.

Forming 1942 Second Edition and 1942 Online research/testing group for strategy/tactics. Writeups to be published as guides in time. Games will be played on TripleA v5 and 1942 Online and TripleA v5 (Larry Harris Tournament Setup) without bids.

Applicants must be comfortable with discussion of mathematics and exact details and are expected to contribute meaningfully. This is not a group for casual players, nor is it a group for players that want to develop “secret” lines of play.

@Brian-Cannon The Japanese basically need to hang out in SZ 61 with all of their navy and air force. If the starting US forces in SZ 53 are killed J1 then there won’t be any credible US forces at the Solomons until US3. By that point Japan should have enough parked in SZ 61 that it would be suicide for the US to move in. The magic of SZ 61 is that it threatens both India and the money islands and allows you to shuck in troops from Japan right into Yunnan so you can choose to either march for India or Russia from there. The US player is very limited in how fast they can attack since they have to start by replacing expensive capital ships and then moving them into position. Japan mostly just needs to buy fodder. J1’s first buy should probably be enough transports to get 3 total and then subs. J2 buy a carrier. After that you make sure your transports are always full dropping off troops for Japan while buying more naval fodder or an air unit as the need arises. You may have to buy more carriers later on to keep parity with the US but with massed subs on your side 3 carriers total may suffice and it may be more cost-effective to build bombers to base in Yunnan as they can support Japanese pushes for a long time from that area. All purchases of capital ships by the US make them stronger at the cost of slowing down when they can make their big move.

Speaking of which, a lot of players promote massed subs + air for the naval game, and this is a good combination but one that only works for attack, not defense (the same IPC spent on destroyers or subs always has a higher chance to defeat the equivalent number of subs). Luckily this works out for Japan since you want the US to be so desperate to save Russia or India they attack Borneo at bad odds, so you’re almost always going to be guaranteed a first strike. In this light you have to be careful since something the US can do is send in just enough to take Borneo while still leaving their main navy camped at the Solomons. Now you may be forced to send in capital ships to retake Borneo since you can’t send in air power to get the island back without giving them carriers to land on and you may be very weak to counterattack if you did nothing but sub buys. If you don’t fall for this trick then you’re sacrificing transports, but that still works out. If you do a big dump of 6 units on Borneo (only if you’re forced to take it back, mind, not until then) then the US player will not take it back again without either taking time to buy a bunch more transports + ground (ok for you, any navy they don’t buy delays the big showdown) or having to move in their navy so they can use air power to get it (same choice Japan needs to make on retaking it).

Very long-term though (like turn 10+) the UK and US will of course defeat Japan if they refuse to take needless losses since they outnumber Japan in income. So the wiseguy answer to How do you beat KJF? is really win with Germany. Given that it is so easy for Japan to at least tread water in the Pacific even if they can’t expand, Germany should be close to taking out Moscow. If Germany can reliably hold Caucasus then the UK can be forced into doing trades for both Persia and Burma that is not sustainable given the 3 unit production limit, or they have to let Axis units pile up there and let themselves be bottled in. With Japan in SZ 61 and pipe-lining troops into Yunnan every turn it takes a major effort from the UK to keep India in the game- they will be forced to fly in fighters which means their European spending won’t be anything more than an annoyance. Consider making sure the Med transport doesn’t die so that Egypt goes under by turn 2 at the latest and you keep pumping 2 units every turn into Africa to capture it and add more pressure to India. Take Gibraltar so that there is no place for Allied air to land if they try to get air units into the Med to sink your navy. Possibly also start a very slow build-up of men in Morocco so you have a small stack there mid-to late game to discourage the Allies from landing there and taking back North Africa or encourage them to waste a turn cleaning it out. I’ve never tried that personally but it might have a little more value in a pure KJF setup since it might discourage the Allies from switching their strategy or make it far more difficult to pull off if they do switch. Either way make sure that over half your income as Germany goes into infantry every turn and you only add to your supply of tanks and air power very slowly. Based on Russia’s opening moves minimally you would have 9 tanks in Europe which is already a good stack after you consolidate it. I would probably not even buy any tanks at all and just build up the air force which will likely need a few replacements anyway after the G1 naval attacks against the Allies. A stack of German fighters in Caucasus will be able to threaten Moscow and India. Germany has such an income advantage over Russia there is no way they can hold out that long if the Allies literally do nothing in Europe. The most likely players would probably do 2 turns of US buildup unless Japan was so misplayed that they went in immediately. In this kind of a case the US would not have a navy at Borneo until US4 meaning Japan attacks on J5. With 4 turns of buildup I don’t know how Japan wouldn’t devastate any fleet the US could possibly get to Borneo. And after that comes G6, by which point Russia should be doing well just doing exchanges over Archangel and Kazakh. Honestly I think it is so easy for Japan to delay the Allies (notice I said delay, not defeat) KJF seems like an nonviable strategy in this version of A&A between skilled players.

Side note- with Caucasus in German hands, you could also even consider shucking German fighters onto Japanese carriers in SZ 61 to help shore up the defensive power of the Japanese navy, but from what I understand A&AO doesn’t implement this capability which violates the board game rules.

Well about 3-4 posts are gone already. I just want to play a game with the other guy so we can see which ideas work better. I offered him $10 so he could send that to you as a patron on the condition that he provide his steam number and make friends and win prizes. I already did this but he declines which is his choice, but it will allow anybody else to see if his record matches the rhetoric and play a game with him. Isn’t this 1942 Online? The topic isn’t UK Factory in Egypt either. I posted about that and the Russian strategy under KJF but was criticized for being incomplete or too basic.

Ok a few things…

Elk and Baron what are your steam Id’s so i can friend you?

My approach with Japan is to build 1 fighter, 2 transports and 2 infantry ( for the most part). If the toss up at the Indian Ocean results in lost Carrier and/or Battleship, i might build 1 carrier.

I always attack all expensive naval targets and this means Hawaii. I use the Japanese Fighter ( using 4 spaces) plus the usual units ( 2 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 sub, 1 cruiser)

I take the Japan fighter as the loss if it gets to that. That “teaser” saves the Cruiser. If i get lucky enough and can keep both, i bring the carrier to Hawaii and plop 2 fighters on it with Cruiser, and move both battleships and Destroyers within 2 spaces of Hawaii, so if he attacks i finish off US fleet sake her builds.

In Asia i perform the usual, and If USSR backs off i bring Manchurian units into Russia.

The transports i have i use one to shuck 2 men to Borneo, and the second to assist vs Russia ( tank and Infantry) or somewhere on the coast.

If UK does little to nothing, i might kill the US fighter and 2 infantry with 2 fighters and 1 Inf/1 art combo…it works

My plan is to stifle KJF by loading up the money islands with infantry quickly and not lose many Asian land units and building more ships to match any American contingency. My goal is to push the Allies to go KGF, and we want to ping pong the Allies back and forth.

I am keenly aware to defeat the island march and Allied factories. I stay near India to destroy any UK naval builds. If i see that stupid Egypt factory and 2 tanks/and 3 tanks in India showing up i have plans for that too.

I go after Hawaii only when the entire Pacific is kinda quiet and my focus is to deny USSR any money. I don’t do Alaska, its a panty waste and does very little.

In Afrika, my goal might be to take Egypt if i can, but once Germany breaks in, i will take Madagascar and whatever is possible.

@Brian-Cannon don’t be -too- scared of fighters. For the 10 IPC cost of the fighter you can buy 2 INF + ART which will defeat the fighter at 98% odds while the fighter has 2% of winning an attack. If you push fodder units while your opponent pushes high-quality units too early you should win. Any player spending all their income on high-end units is disadvantaged against one buying mostly or all fodder.

Honestly if I saw an Allied first-turn purchase like this I would probably immediately assume I would win as the Axis (maybe making me cocky enough to make a mistake, which could happen). The only thing Russia will do with the fighters is trade territory with Germany but they will quickly run out of fodder. Maybe the extra defense will help them hold Moscow a few turns longer- so what? Just take everything else and start doing SBR on Moscow when Russia is down to 8 income.

Something that might make this buy useful for the Allies is if the point of these fighters is to be placed on carriers purchased round 2. It might be a viable strategy to place 4 fighters E USA to have them land on UK carriers dropped in SZ 7 turn 2 but as I understand it A&AO doesn’t correctly implement this rule. In this case these fighters would either have to start a shuck going through Greenland->London or the US would build carriers for SZ 11 so that newly made fighters can get to London in 1 move after being directly produced in SZ 11. With US fighters building up in London the Germans won’t be able to maintain a fleet in the Baltic for long if they are trying, and the US planes can land to defend any territory taken by the UK in Europe on their turn. Keeping behind enough units to recapture territories held by air -might- be enough to save Russia, but what is Japan doing all this time? This sounds like a plan designed for a very fast KGF so India should fall by J3/4. If Japan has been sending units to Yunnan every turn it will be able to take India with a combined attack of land units by sea + walk from Burma and its carrier-based air which will crush any defense of India that is just mostly air. Plus if Japan is willing to sacrifice its transports you can leave its navy in SZ 61 to keep having a standoff with any US forces camped at the Solomons, but even if the whole navy goes in to India you can still counterattack any US invasion of Borneo.