Open Ended KJF challenge


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    ADS can give you fracked results.

    Just had a Japan player in a tournament quit a game against me when I moved KJF in Round 1.  He lost Japan’s entire air force (save the bomber) and all surface warships except a destroyer and a transport. (He built a destroyer and forgot to move the transport in SZ 59.)

    SZ 30 was left with Carrier, Fighter - British
    SZ 52 was left with damaged American Battleship
    SZ 59 was cleared by Chinese Fighter (He consolidated in Manchuria instead of attacking.)

    America had 1 Battleship, 2 Carriers, 2 Fighters, Destroyer in SZ 55 / SZ 52.

    I would hardly call that bad strategy or a good reflection on a KJF strategy.  It didn’t even finish round 1!



  • If you play with tech or NA’s, it’s a completely different game.
    Imo it’s not an overall “big” difference between LL and reg dice, but the mindset might be.
    It still is revised 4th. ed. right?
    The Ukr attack R1 is a good example. This battle is just a minor detail, if you do it the right way, but the mindset and
    thinking/philosophy during a game and throughout several games can be very different if you’re using reg dice or LL.

    I agree with Switch who stated that he thinks 10%-20% of all games are decided by dice rolls.
    I think it’s more like 15%-30% in reg dice games, but we all agree with that GENERALLY it is not luck that decides the
    outcome of games in more than 50% of all games. It’s well below 50%, and even with reg dice, tech and NA’s, if
    players play enough games (100 + ?) then the best player will be known by his stats.

    Jennifer, you cannot do a test KJF game with tech and claim it’s not easy to win as axis if allies try a KJF.
    With tech, one diceroll (one dice, 5 ipc!) may change the outcome of the whole game.
    Not so with reg dice, generally🙂
    Jen, you might wanna tell us why and how allies can win a KJF with tech, cause I don’t play tech, but if you do then
    all discussions of tactics, opening moves, KJF, KGF is worthless.
    I have bashed you in KJF threads, but I cannot know if a KJF could be a good overall strat as KGF with tech, and I don’t  wanna know either. With tech or NA’s you could be right, without tech and without NA’s, I know for sure that KJF is not as good as
    KGF.
    I have challenged you earlier Jennifer, if you wanna play with triplea, LL, no tech, axis bid 8, all ipc to G, one unit pr. TT.
    All of my G bid goes to Afr.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    With tech you can spend 100’s of IPC and not get any technologies either.

    Besides, there is no one tech in LHTR 1.3 that is a game winner.  Classic was the last time there was a game winner technology.

    However,there’s also no wasted techs where you get something you didn’t want.  If you get something, it’s what you wanted.

    Japan and America, in KJF want Super Submarines
    Germany and England and Russia want Rockets
    Germany, Russia, and England want Jet Fighters

    etc.

    No matter what tech you get, it can help either side.  But it IS part of the core game.  So it SHOULD be included in any test game, even if it is not used by either side, it should be available.

    It’s my biggest beef with tournaments and leagues on this site.  Other sites that run/ran leagues and tournaments allowed technologies because its part of the core of the game.  It’s not an optional rule.



  • I knew that most players who post in this forum uses reg dice, and than some ppl also uses na’s and tech.
    But it’s new to me if most players also play with na’s and tech.
    Then it’s another game.
    I’m always going back to the ukr R1 attack.
    If I use this in reg dice, I would use 3 tanks instead of 2, I think…?
    Or maybe don’t do it at all, or just strafing.
    An experienced reg dice player know what’s best. With LL the 2 tanks seems the most obvious option, and in a game there will be
    lot’s of similiar battles, in which the thinking/judging during the decision making process probably is quite different from
    what it is with pure LL players.
    In the lobby there are hardly anyone who plays with tech.
    Although most players in the triplea warclub ladder, and also regular lobby players use LL, it’s not uncommon to use reg dice.
    But tech…! Thats a different story…and a different game in a different world imo…



  • What I’m trying to say is that, I have had some interesting inputs from this board,
    and that there’s a difference from LL to reg dice if someone asks: what to do if….UK puts a ftr in…?
    If it’s a specific battle one might do different if it’s LL, the top players here use reg dice. But overall strats are the same, regardless
    of LL or reg dice.
    Allies securing afr is crucial regardless of anything but bad luck.
    I have beeen playing revised for many months, but not many years, as some of u have, and thus u also have more experience.
    But I’m learning…
    Now it seems I’m getting more confused by involving my self in this, and the KJF seems like a virus in my mind…
    It is as simple as if u play in the lobby with no tech u will get PWNED if u try to do a KJF against the best players.
    It will not help if it’s reg dice game. Dice might help u, but the KJF strat will let u down.
    Pure and simple…



  • @Nix:

    low luck sux…

    Concur.



  • @ncscswitch:

    Another member of the “general public” chiming in with the fact that I frequently give $1 or $2 to Japan from the Bid.

    $1 being the most common when I am planning a 2 TRN, 1 IC build on J1.
    $2 when I want to make the Allies think I am building 4 TRN (or when I actually DO build 4 TRN)

    Just figured I would throw that out there…

    Yeah, well, I think Jen wants to play her version.

    :lol:



  • @U-505:

    Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

    You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

    If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

    Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    No, Jen just wants all the NORMAL rules of the game to be applied.  National Advantages are not NORMAL rules, thus, they are not applied.  With National Advantages going KGF is just plain stupid!  Enigma + Colonial Garrison + Wartime Economy + Marines + Russian Rail + Siberian Winter = one very dead, very fast Japan.

    That’s why I’m not testing this with National Advantages, despite your continual attempts to claim I am.  I’m just testing this for mainstream cases to prove it is a viable strategy.  Low Luck gives the best chance to test a strategy for the majority of cases.

    However, ADS is how you would normally play it in a for credit game.  Of course, I’ve just witnessed Japan hit the SZ 30 fleet and the Pearl fleet and get trounced resulting in no warships left except a solitary destroyer that it had just built that round.

    So, should I use that ADS and say it’s true all the time?  Or would the LL results of Carrier/Battleship in SZ 30 and Battleship, Carrier, 2 Fighters, Destroyer in SZ 52 have been a better result for a base line?



  • Jen should use LL, but not tech.
    So the initial suggestion is all fine.

    But if u would use triplea Jen, I’m sure it would be easier to put your KJF theory to test.

    It’s not impossible that she is right, but I don’t believe it until i see the prove.
    She might have discovered a KJF strat that is slightly better than the ones who have been tried before and have
    failed against decent players.
    This is ofc fully possible even if I don’t believe it for a second 🙂

    One single game will not prove that KJF is better, but it will be an indication, presumed that Jennifer plays against a player who is equally skilled at A&A revised.
    What I do believe may work good or decent, is that allies use little or a great amount of ipc to contain Jap, or slow Jap down.
    I don’t believe that a 50/50 production split of US units used both in pac and in Europe will be any better than a straight KJF,
    but if u help Russia enough against G, afr is safe ipc’s for UK, then the rest may go against Jap, and this might be smarter
    than pouring everything against G. But then again, Jap will not be reduced below 30, it will be held at +/- 40 ipc…:)
    I keep repeating myself, but to reduce Jap to 20 or below, and win games with this strat, no way.
    Not if this means G have over 50 ipc, and closing on 60…  :roll:
    If allies used this strat during the historical WW2 then none of us would ever heard about holocaust…
    It would simply never happen  :evil:



  • @Cmdr:

    For all of you who think you can stop a KJF easily I make this challenge:
    Note:  Definition of KJF is the reduction of Japan to the Japan Territory ONLY or the conquering of the Japan territory.  Either effectively ends Japan as a treat for the duration of the game, in most circumstances.

    If this is your only goal then it’s “easy”.
    If u use enough ipc’s against Jap, Jap will be reduced, eod.

    But do u really believe that u can win more games with this strat than KGF?
    Why isn’t KJF more common than KGF, is it because ppl lack creativity?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but Lucifer, i am currently engaged in KJF against two of the best players on the site.  At least they both have better track records then I, and technology has not yet come into play in either game.  But using technology does not negate the validity nor does it create the validity of a straight game.  However, as Allies, I do have more financial assets to exploit technology in early stages of the game which may or may not speed up the process.  Later, the Axis will have more assets to exploit technology which may or many not speed up their own process.

    Further, I don’t see why TripleA would be all that much better then the in house dicey.  Rather, the in house dicey displays the results right there on your screen when you look at the thread for all to see.  That, I think, would make it much easier for non-players to follow the thread and see if they can guess the next step.

    As for a “better” KJF strat then before.  I cannot attest to that.  I was being shot at when Revised was coming into it’s own.  When I got back, everyone was on KGF and that’s how I learned the game.  Only recently have I begun to see various moves in different games that, when tried together, would be devastating to Japan’s war making ability, and really, that’s all you need.  Without Japan England is +9, America is +4 and Russia is +8 income.  That’s not including what was taken by whom or when.  That’s just in territory that you don’t lose as the allies!

    BTW, thats:

    Russia: Soviet Far East, Yakut, Buryatia, Evenki, Novosibirsk and Kazakh
    England: India, Persia, Trans-Jordan, Madagascar, New Zealand and Australia
    USA: China, Sinkiang

    Of course, Germany might get some of that.  But odds are it isn’t getting a lot of it.  Germany has it’s own problems with England collecting 25-35 IPC a round and Russia earning in the upper twenties to lower thirties as well.



  • Jen, I moved our game thread to the Games area instead of in the Revised Topic area.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @newpaintbrush:

    @U-505:

    Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

    You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

    If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

    Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.

    All I’m saying is that you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to justify your dislike for LL to me.



  • @U-505:

    @newpaintbrush:

    @U-505:

    Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

    You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

    If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

    Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.

    All I’m saying is that you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to justify your dislike for LL to me.

    My bad.  😉


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 15
  • 22
  • 5
  • 11
  • 33
  • 17
  • 39
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

56
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts