Another KJF topic..

Yea, KAF is the sole reason people started building infantry in W. USA and walking to E. Canada.  Slower assault into Europe, but Japan has no real ability to do anything to N. America.

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

I will just say that there can be no Bombers or Aircraft Carriers with out advanced flight.

And I prefer to use “boat anchor” place of “cat”

Honestly, I believe it is best to play ultra conservatively with Russia and England and see how the dice line up.  If one Axis power ends up in an exceptionally poor position after their first round, America can then make the choice between KJF or KGF.

However, here is a run down for you:

Kill Germany First:

Easiest strategy.  Everyone is clustered around Germany so coordination is easier.  This is also much more fault tolerant then going after Japan.  However, Germany also has the most assets and the best capability of getting assets, not to mention all of their territories are land locked (comparatively speaking of course) resulting in much easier defense of those territories.  Exceptions are Norway, Algeria and Libya, but those 5 IPC can be made up for in other places if needed (and if not, 35 IPC is still a lot of money.)

Kill Japan First:

Japan’s by far the weakest power on the board.  Their territories are scattered all over the ocean and they start the game facing two moderately powerful fleets.  (UK: 2 Transports, Submarine, Fighter, Carrier, Destroyer in SZ 30 and America’s Battleship, Transport, Destroyer, Submarine, 3 Fighters and Carrier in the Pacific (SZ 52, 55, 20, Hawaii and W. USA.))  However, they also have the benefit of being scattered all over the place making it harder to take their territories (but easier to hold once they are taken.)

If facing a large build up of forces in Buryatia, Sinkiang + Industrial Complex and India + Complex, Japan can find them selves in serious trouble fast; but Germany will have much free’er reign in Europe and Africa.

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

I think we need to look at the England complex in a different light.

If England gets a FREE complex, where should they put it? (Prior to Russia 1.)

Why?  Because that’s the majority of complexes England gets.  Not many people are buying Complexes for England until much later in the game when they can put them up in W. Europe or Norway. :P

So, to me the choices are:

And that’s pretty much the order i would put them in.  Unless there are some neat things going on with America and Russia that can help reinforce India faster.  Then it might change.

I like E. Canada over Australia because you can invest in a 5th & 6th Transport (something some of you want to do ANYWAY) with England and be landing 10 troops a round in Asia. 2 From E. Canada to England. 10 From England to North Europe.

I like Hawaii/Australia on Round 2
New Zealand/Madagascar on Round 3

I can go back to Hawaii if America’s a nuisance or I can pick up islanders on the way to Buryatia.

It seems that you aren´t doing so well back in Europe.
In a KJF game Germany normally can take Egypt on G1 and then whole Africa and Tr.J. and Persia in the next 2 rounds without the use of big armies.
Meanwhile you can also threaten Caucasus and later on Moscow and don´t forget about London, because Uk sometimes forgets itself,
In many games you can also easily outbuild the UK navy if Uk isn´t putting much into Eu. waters and threaten London, Brazil or force the US to protect Eastern US with more soldiers, pulling pressure of Japan.