Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Okay, I have been called out on the floor, I have put my plan to the test, some weak points were discovered and corrected in later games.  I will summarize them here:

    1)  England should not make a move on Japan until Round 4.  Neither should America.  This gives England time to get the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean “fleets” combined and off the coast of Argentina as well as giving America time to get a “fleet” and sail back into the Pacific.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia should be 100% focused on keeping Germany down.  Germany cannot be allowed to earn 50+ IPC.  And, there are tactics (I won’t get into them in detail, because I want them available next year) to actually do this if you are careful.  If needed, America can help in North Africa for a couple rounds as long as their ships are not in too much danger because it is not too far away from the Pacific.

    A major benefit to waiting four rounds is that Japan thinks you are going for KGF.  Everything you are doing screams Kill Germany First.  You are bringing the English fleet together in the Atlantic.  You are fighting for Africa.  You are sinking the German fleets.  You are trying to establish permanent holds on Belorussia and Ukraine so you can trade E. Europe and Balkans with the Russians and the Americans are building armies and navies in North America/SZ 10.

    When you do go into KJF mode, it happens suddenly and without warning.  Best is if the Japanese fleet is over in SZ 34 since now it is MULTIPLE turns away allowing you to get into a forward position.  Unfortunately, in every game I told the opponent ahead of time was KJF, Japan not ONCE, moved out of SZs 60, 52, 45, etc.  In games where my opponent thought it was a “normal” game, this worked a LOT better.

    2)  The Indian Industrial Complex.  If England puts this up, Japan should do everything possible to take it down.  Even if they lose their islands and have to pull their fleets back.  So, since that is known, I do not advocate an industrial with England there.  Actually, I like Australia and S. Africa now.  Produce less units, but they are in areas that actually help you. (Australia can fall easily too, but if you wait until Round 4 and Australia has not YET fallen, then odds are it won’t.)  S. Africa is nice, a lot easier to defend Africa, only done that thrice, no one has taken the IC yet.

    I came up with some defensive maneuvers, but I’m going to horde them.  No offense, I love you all, but I plan to put the screws to some of you next year with KJF, and I don’t need you knowing how to make it harder! hehe.

    Anyway, to date, between AA.org and AAMC my KJF is:

    9 Wins
    4 Losses

    1 Game where my opponent fell off the face of the Earth.



  • You know, if you actually played a KJF instead of a KGF in your test games, you might get better data…

    Just a thought from a gamer who got fed up with you offering one type of game for a test, and got something completely different…  TWICE.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    You know, if you actually played a KJF instead of a KGF in your test games, you might get better data…

    Just a thought from a gamer who got fed up with you offering one type of game for a test, and got something completely different…  TWICE.

    Our game was a true KJF starting in UK 2. (Map attached.)

    Now, admittedly, your decisions allowed Russia to invade deep into Europe and ended up with 5 Infantry, 3 Armor cut off with no possible escape in Archangelsk.  Honestly, why you made the moves you did I have no idea.  I always stated that a good KJF would require the allies to keep Germany bottled up, and you got a lot farther then I wanted.

    For instance, you have most of Africa in the game. And your SZ 5 fleet was never sunk (Neither was your SZ 14 fleet.)

    As for Japan, would you please notice you have a British IC in India (classic KJF) as well as the British fleet in the compass sea zones as well as a MAJOR American fleet off the coast of Los Angeles (both classic KJF moves?)

    Honestly, just because you are losing a game doesn’t mean I misrepresented anything.  Just means that the strategy is sounder then you originally thought.  And, I think you will now admit, that Russia and England are perfectly capable of keeping Germany from becoming a monster, since I just had them do that in the game you lost.

    I was able to keep Japan down to Buryatia with the Russians there and out of India and the Chinas.  That’s pretty KJFish.  In fact, I don’t know how to do a KJF more KJFish, except maybe take the entire Russian army off of Germany and send them against Japan for some silly reason.  Why would I do that?

    So enough of that.  If you want to keep accusing me of stuff, make a new thread and don’t get this one off topic so you can lock it later. 😛  If you want to talk specific points of the game we played, what were good moves, what were bad, how to improve the KJF tactic, by all means do.  That’s what the thread is for, especially now that I’ve proven that KJF is not always a losing gambit by the Allies as some made it sound they were saying. (No one actually said it, but the arguments were basically conveying the message that only newbs and idiots attempted KJF.)



  • I have ended that game as a remiss (a non-game since it was supposed to be a test game anyway) for several reasons…
    1.  It was a KGF not a KJF.
    2.  You misrepresented the game when you offered it based on the subject thread from which it derived (you did not do ANY of the early moves that you had stated where “game winners” in the topic thread that led to the game).
    3.  This was one of 2 games that you and I have participated in in recent months where YOU chose to alter the parameters of the test to make the game something other than what was offered.

    Sorry Jen, your integrity quotient is lacking with me the past couple of months when it comes to your game offers to “test” various concepts.  When you say you want to test KJF and instead go pure KGF… or when you mutate a FFA game into a 4-on-1 by creating alliances which is contrary to the premise of a FFA… well sorry Jen, but I take exception to your falseness in those game offerings.

    I am a pretty simple guy, with pretty simple ethics.  If you offer a KJF game after an extensive thread of discussion about how effective KJF is, then your probably should do at least SOME of the moves that you said were game winners, not switch to a KGF strat.  And if you are playing a FFA game, then the fact that you had alliances with 3 other players (that is a known fact) means that it was not an FFA, but a 4-on-1… and thus certainly NOT the game you agreed to play.

    I guess I am just to simplistic that way…  I expect a player to actually TEST the matter they requested to test…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Sorry, I promised to upload the map of the game Switch is referencing.

    Now, looking at the map, specifically (this is just after Russia’s last turn, before Germany’s next turn) you will see how the UK 2 implementation of KJF has opened up.

    Things to note:

    1)  The German fleet can escape from the Med and sink the British Carrier off the coast of Africa, but this would mean no reinforcements for that round and a possibility of being locked out for a while.

    This is intentional.  A) I needed the fighter for something and B) I am hoping to get two or three hits if he does attack.  Odds are good given that the battle at least will take two rounds to complete. (3, 4 on defense round 1, 4 on defense round 2)

    2)  Russia and England have forced Germany back into a corner.  Building the carrier in SZ 5 - as predicted, has done almost nothing for Germany other then pull fighters away from European lands and put them in the sea.

    Some will note the pressence of American assets here.  It should be mentioned that America has dedicated 2 infantry, artillery, aa gun, 2 transports and a destroyer.  This isn’t even all the assets they start with in E. USA/SZ 10.  Hardly a very significant investment after three full rounds of game play + 1 Russian round.

    3)  America has a SIGNIFICANT Navy in SZ 55 form which to start island hopping.  Notice, this game only really finished 3 full rounds (+ 1 russian round) so America really did not have a chance to sink the Japanese fleet or start taking island groups yet.  However, they are set up to do so, especially with the British pressence to heckle the Japanese from the rear and later, hopefully, to team with the Americans for added defense.

    4)  America has been able to hold the Chinas.  Not exactly sure how THAT worked out anymore, but it’s an unexpected outcome and should be mentioned.

    5)  Russia’s earning almost as much as Germany. (34 IPC this round but Germany will retake E. Europe and Balkans, maybe Karelia and be up to 39/42 IPC this round and thus be higher then Russia.)

    This is exactly as I said could happen in KJF.  Without the Japanese focusing on Russia’s flanks, hounding them like a hunting dog so they cannot rest, they can bring the full force of the Russian army to bear on Germany.  Coupled with the British (who’s only job is to liberate Karelia each round so Russia doesn’t need to build a 3rd fighter and to slow the Germans in Africa) this is not too strange.

    6)  Now yes, I did bring in the Americans.  I said I would.  I always said that America’s 2 transports and destroyer would remain in the Atlantic, if for no other reason then to provide fodder for the British navy.  But also so I could trickle in ground units as needed from North America.

    I fully understand that in an ADS game, even in KJF, America may be called upon to bring in a couple infantry here and there to flex out the defense of allied forces to prevent Germany from rolling over the Russians.

    However, I also fully expect Germany to be extremely hard to take.  It’s much easier, in my mind, to reduce Berlin to it’s innermost territories then turn on Japan reducing it to an island.

    And that, in a nutshell, is exactly the KJF I have always described.  This game was never a KGF.  It was a SGF followed up by KJF.  Honestly, I think I started KJF too early, but in this game, it worked out okay.

    KJF Switch v Jen.AAM


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    I have ended that game as a remiss (a non-game since it was supposed to be a test game anyway) for several reasons…
    1.  It was a KGF not a KJF.
    2.  You misrepresented the game when you offered it based on the subject thread from which it derived (you did not do ANY of the early moves that you had stated where “game winners” in the topic thread that led to the game).
    3.  This was one of 2 games that you and I have participated in in recent months where YOU chose to alter the parameters of the test to make the game something other than what was offered.

    Sorry Jen, your integrity quotient is lacking with me the past couple of months when it comes to your game offers to “test” various concepts.  When you say you want to test KJF and instead go pure KGF… or when you mutate a FFA game into a 4-on-1 by creating alliances which is contrary to the premise of a FFA… well sorry Jen, but I take exception to your falseness in those game offerings.

    I am a pretty simple guy, with pretty simple ethics.  If you offer a KJF game after an extensive thread of discussion about how effective KJF is, then your probably should do at least SOME of the moves that you said were game winners, not switch to a KGF strat.  And if you are playing a FFA game, then the fact that you had alliances with 3 other players (that is a known fact) means that it was not an FFA, but a 4-on-1… and thus certainly NOT the game you agreed to play.

    I guess I am just to simplistic that way…  I expect a player to actually TEST the matter they requested to test…

    A)  If the FFA was 4 on 1, why are there no Americans in the entire game shooting at Germans?  Why did America end up with the Pacific, not Europe?

    B)  Look below your post.  You will see almost every move after England 2 is designed for KJF.  Your bad strategy in Europe is not my fault.  If you tailored your responses for KJF and misjudged what I was going to do, then that’s a tactical error on your part, not me changing the parameters.

    I always said that KJF starts out by restricting Germany and lulling the Japanese into a false sense of security thinking it was KGF.  That’s why you wait until Round 2 (now changed to Round 4) to put up the Industrial Complex in India (Now not built, don’t need it, and it is only a liability there.)

    Likewise, almost every American is in the Pacific, as promised, as is the entire British starting fleet that starts in the Indian Ocean/Pacific Ocean.  If it was KGF, then those boats would be in SZ 4 with the rest of the British fleet.



  • Jennifer, would you at least agree to the fact that KJF does not work with Low Luck?

    I still hope that you will play test KJF game against me, with triplea.



  • How does DELAYING until round 4 any allied moves on Japan constitue a Kill Japan FIRST strategy?

    That’s non sequitur!

    The WHOLE point of KJF (IMHO) is to get after Japan with as much as possible as soon as possible so Japan never gets started.  If Japan stumbles, they are a lot easier to contain/conquer than waiting 4 rounds!  What kind of logic is that?

    Summarizing:  with as much as the allies can muster while still containing the German advances, the allies must attack Japan forcing them into taking many high risk battles or playing very conservatively… either way they will remain with low income levels (and subsequent higher allies incomes).  Japan never threatens Russia allowing the Russians with UK help to keep Germany from overrunning them while USA builds up enough forces as quickly as possible to get Japan down to their mainland (essentially taking them out of the game).



  • @axis_roll:

    How does DELAYING until round 4 any allied moves on Japan constitue a Kill Japan FIRST strategy?

    Thank you Axis.  I am glad I am not the only one who thinks that way.

    What was described is still a KGF, except that you stop short of the final meat grinder of Berlin before switching over to work on Japan; the point still being to kill (i.e. remove all offensive power from and contain to a small number of territories) Germany FIRST, then go after Japan.

    And that is not a KJF strat.  It it is viable game strat, but it is not KJF.

    BTW:  That version of “kill” is the same definition Jen used when talking about KJF… reduce Japan to Tokyo so that they are a non-threat and they are “killed,” no reason to waste units taking the capital, just contain them there.  So by Jen’s own definition of terms, this was a KILL Germany First game she was playing

    It also bears no resemblance to any of the “automatic game winner” moves that Jen was advocating that led to the test game in the first place.  I took the game to prove some of Jen’s theory posts in an earlier KJF discussion thread wrong.  And for whatever reason, Jen chose to play a completely different type of game… a non-KJF game.

    With the reason for the test no longer applicable, I chose to end the test.



  • The problem with KJF, which I said many times before, is that it’s fully possible even if the KJF strat generally is a really bad strat,
    the reason it does not work as good as KGF is because your opponent won’t let you win the game with a KJF.
    What can make KJF work?

    1. Bad dice for Jap player J1-J2.
    2. Jap player makes stupid moves.
    3. Germany have really bad dice and/or make stupid moves G1-G2, which means that the axis threat to the eastern front is much
    less than usual.
    4. NA’s. I never played with NA’s, but I would not be surprised if KJF works with NA’s since I never tried it myself.
    5. Fill in plz.

    Jennifer you should really start naming strats for what they are, and not something else. If G is held, with or without help
    from UK+US, then Allies can start pressuring Jap if that is possible. If you use one UK strat (which Larry Harris dislikes)
    the UK shuck-shuck to Arch or Kalia. If G is held then those units will move to Moscow –> Novo/Kazakh, and maybe Evenki or Sink.
    Same with US landings in Cauc from med. I’m happy to trade Jap units with US in Kazakh, Persia or even AE.
    A&A is about winning the game. KJF will not help you.
    Those strats that works are KGF/SGF (slow Germany first)  and KJS (kill Japan second).


  • 2007 AAR League

    If you wait until J4 to attack japan they will have 50+ IPC.  It will not work against competent competition.



  • Waiting until round 4 is more like contain Germany first, not slow Germany first. That’s no different than Darth’s mid pac fleet move or any decent KGF where they contain Germany then throw the units to push Japan back.

    I really do not believe in trying to outgun the Japanese navy. All that winds up happening is that Japan gets all of Asia while the US is on the islands with nowhere to land and tons of useless naval units, like what happened in our game.


  • Moderator

    I haven’t looked into these games, but I think a problem is trying to fit everything into some sort of category like KGF, KJF, SGF, SJF, etc.

    As Bean pointed out, I would classify my mid-game switch as a KJF, but I don’t think others would.  I also don’t think it is a good idea to say “I’m going after Germany (or Japan) first no matter what” before you even see a round or two of action, which makes test games almost impossible to play and get some realible conclusion.

    Regardless of whether you go KGF or KJF, there are certain factors the Allies need to do in both cases:
    #1 - do something about Afr
    #2 - do something about the Ger navy
    #3 - set up some type of Atlantic shuck.

    How you accomplish these can vary, but just b/c the Allies go after these hard early does not mean they don’t intend to go After Japan first.
    That is why I tend to buy lots of air with UK and US it allows me the flexibility I need to help in Afr and sinking ships but can also help should I decide to go after Japan hard.

    Even in a KGF, the Allies still have to push back on Japan either from Novo/Kaz or Mos so I’m not sure why it would be out of bounds for Russia to push back against Germany in a KJF.

    Again, this has nothing to do with the games in question since I haven’t read or followed them, but I don’t see why the Allies can’t land in Afr (rds 1-3) with UK and US (starting units - maybe a rd 1 or 2 buy as well), sink the German fleets (rds 2-4), and then go after Japan hard yet have the game NOT CLASSIFIED as a KJF but as some sort of Slow Germany then KJF, yet it is perfectly okay for the UK to attack several Japanese ships in the Pac, counter India for a turn or two yet the game can be CLASSIFIED as a KGF??  :?

    I also don’t see why a KJF can’t start in Rd 3-5.

    My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power.  KJF does not mean ignore Germany.  And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.

    With my style I try and play a pretty generic rds 1-3 so that when it hits mid-game I can pick my target either Germany or Japan OR go after both.

    And it is possible for the US to deal with Japan all alone with a Pac strat, which I think is another problem.  How do you classify a game where the US goes hard after Japan, but Russia-UK go hard after Germany?  Which seems to be where most of my games may fall.  But is this a “true” KJF just b/c the US puts ships in the Pac?  Or is it a “true” KGF b/c Rus-UK go after Germany with 1-2 trns from the US?

    Again, I think the problem may be in trying to use too many labels or breaking down the moves in rds 1-3 when they should really be pretty much the same regardless of which capital you want.  You have to land in Afr fairly early and you’re going to have to deal with the German ships.  Just like in a KGF you have to potentially deal with a Japanese fleet off of Egy.



  • I have a suggestion for definition of KJF:

    Conquering all of Japan TT’s which have production values (except Tokyo) before containing Germany with any more resources 
    than UK+Russia can produce.

    If Tokyo fall after Berlin surely is no problem for naming a strat.
    This is my overall impression of KJF strat talks. This also means that the US build all in sz55 and spend all new
    units in pac. Units in NY can go to Europe or Afr, but all spending must be used against Jap from LA.
    How a player choose to move the starting units is not so important for definition of KJF/KGF strat.
    The only country who can do something useful against Jap in the beginning is US. It’s a long way from London to India, but
    if UK builds IC in India or SA and spend units against Jap this is also KJF.

    The strat Jennifer is advocating to be teh killer strat is CGF, contain Germany first  :roll:


  • Moderator

    @Lucifer:

    I have a suggestion for definition of KJF:

    Conquering all of Japan TT’s which have production values (except Tokyo) before containing Germany with any more resources 
    than UK+Russia can produce.

    That is an unfair definition, b/c that would mean in order for a strategy to be defined as a KGF, you would have to conquer all of Germany (except Berlin) before containing Japan with any additional Allied support then what the Allies already start with in Asia.  That means no more Russian inf (not even 1or 2 from Mos), no Allied air support to help defend Kaz/Novo/Sin, or even no Allied support to Trj or Per once Japan lands inf there.  And if Japan takes Egy, then I guess the Allies can’t counter that as well.

    That just doesn’t happen, and if it were to happen I think Japan becomes a monster well before Berlin comes close to falling meaning Japan is probably going to be in position to claim Europe for itself once Ger falls or they’ll take Mos before Berlin. 
    At some point in every game the Russians shift some units East or the UK/US move through Afr to the middle east, or go thru Wrus/Cauc on their way to Per well before Germany is reduced only to Berlin.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Remember, my ORIGINAL premise is that KJF is a valid attack and KJF is defined as reducing Japan to only a capitol and/or taking said capitol BEFORE taking Berlin.

    I also stipulated that you would HAVE to limit Germany.  I was told that England and Russia couldn’t do this without America, so in Switch’s game with me, I proved that not only COULD I do it without American help (America was in Norway, hardly in the firing range if you look at the map) but could do so to an extreme position by forcing Germany back to S. Europe and Germany as their FRONT lines.

    Add to that the drain of 15 IPC + 9 IPC a round for an IC in India + 100% American investment of new assets to fleet in the Pacific AND the British fleet NEVER leaving the Indian Ocean and I fail to see how this could be classified as anything BUT KJF tactics.

    Obviously, Switch surrendered at the start of Round 4, so I was unable to demonstrate the island hoping or direct Asian invasion through Canada to SFE/Buryatia.

    What I think did Switch in is that he PLAYED like it was KJF thinking I was going to totally ignore awesome attack opportunities or retreat Russia and turtle up (hence the reason he went SUPER heavy into Karelia and then Archangelsk, to cut England’s reinforcements off and segregate Russia, which failed because I circumvented and cut off his army with British and Russian forces.)

    He faced no resistance in Africa, a problem I have since remedied in later implementations of the game.

    However, the fact stands, KJF does work, it’s proven to work against even some of the BEST players.

    However, if you want to list KJF as something that has to start in Round 1, then it’s no wonder you can never win a KJF game with the allies.  You have to slow Germany then kill Japan.  Just like to kill Germany you have to slow Japan and bring them to a stop, then push on Germany to take Berlin.  In neither game do you let one nation just run rampant building up to 50+ IPC income!

    And, most certainly, I never misrepresented the game or the tactics.  Looking into my old threads you can see I did everything I said I would do ORIGINALLY in a KJF. (Later I decided it best to delay to Round 4. But in this game, I started in Round 2!)

    1)  I built the Industrial Complex on England 2, as I said originally should be done
    2)  I had almost ONLY English and Russians attacking Germany to keep them slowed.
    3)  On England 1 I consolidated the fleet in SZ 30

    Now, Switch, in fact, did MISREPRESENT his anti-KJF tactics.  He called in numerous times to hit the Unified British fleet in SZ 30 with everything Japan brought to bear and hit SZ 52 with the rest.  In fact, he took Hawaii (which gave the Americans a short term setback which, in turn, prevented America from taking Solomons on USA 3.)  It was a lucky attack, Hawaii defending against Inf, Arm, Fig isn’t the best odds, but he did it instead.

    Despite the set back, the Allies had Germany boxed up in Europe and Japan’s only conquest was Australia and Buryatia, not a stellar start for Japan in ROUND 4!  3 Rounds of action and the BEST he could do against KJF was Buryatia and Australia.  Not a single British ship was lost.  Outside of Pearl, America’s ships were also immune to attacks by Japan.  Germany, on the other side of the planet, couldn’t even get and hold Ukraine against British and Russian forces.

    Now, compare that to KGF:

    Germany is in a better position, being able to trade Ukraine, W. Russia and Karelia and Japan’s MUCH better off owning Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, India, Persia, China, Sinkiang, Buryatia, SFE and Yakut at least.

    That’s a MAJOR dynamic shift for the allies!  And the reason Germany is better off is BECAUSE the allies are down so much land to Japan.  We’re talking 15 IPC to Japan from England/America.  That’s 5 infantry down for the allies and 5 infantry up for the axis.  A swing of 10 infantry total, if you don’t think that’s significant, then I don’t think you’ve played this game!

    Anyway, DM’s right, the allies don’t have to make a permanent decision until about Rounds 3 to 5.  Which is why I had to move the KJF start from UK 2 to UK 4. (Russia is anti-Germany no matter what, it’s the only way to keep Russia alive.)  And, honestly, England’s only real job in KJF is to be a threat, not to actually take any thing or kill anything, just be present and opportunistic.  I’ve even climbed down and taken the IC out of India in later renditions because it is a liability, and not much of an asset. (Though in more recent games I’ve put the IC in S. Africa, makes Africa easier to keep.)

    Unless someone knows of a strategy that trumps KJF as a way to defeat the Axis (through denied income primarily, later through military dominance due to denied income) I’m all ears.  But as it stands now, I’m actually finding KJF to be easier then KGF.  Of course, now that I’ve been very vociferous about my favor of KJF over KGF, I’ll have to play some KGF games, just to be unpredictable. (I do it to Bean all the time, he hates it.  I’ll argue not to do something, he’ll think I won’t do it, then I’ll do it anyway. 😛  )



  • @DarthMaximus:

    I also don’t see why a KJF can’t start in Rd 3-5.

    My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power.  KJF does not mean ignore Germany.  And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.

    OK, so we’re into semantics now.

    Yes, FIRST can imply who you decide to go after ……whenever… could be round 30.   😛 😛 😛

    Yes tongue firmly planted in cheek.

    Obviously in any strategy, you don’t TOTALLY ignore one side.  I mean, you mention pushing back on Japan from MOSCOW.

    Crimeny!  That’s practically ignoring  them until they got the door open and they’re trying to step throught the threshold.  Are you channelling Jennifer-logic Darth?

    You’re mid game logic could semantically be called KJF first, but I am sorry, it’s not! (IMHO)

    You are playing a balanced game and then deciding where to put a little more emphasis on one of the two axis powers.  A KGF or KJF implies that ALL available units are targetting on one of the two axis powers as quickly and efficiently as early as possible.

    Any other implemented Strategy is NOT a K_whatever_F strategy.

    Besides……
    Does it REALLY matter what we call it anyways?



  • Point taken, DM, but my argument is that if US builds everything in sz55 and go after Jap, that is KJF imo, even if it fails.
    I have never lost a game (as axis) in which most production were not spend against G, and that is from rnd 1 to rnd 10 +.
    Starting units are different from buying. Moving startup units is tactics, buying is strategy.
    Jennifer have also argued that Jap would be deprived of mainland TT’s, and  pac islands.
    She also claimed to be able to reduce Jap from 30 to 8, and win games with average dice.
    I have said many times that almost all games I lost with axis Jap had 40-45. I can hardly recall decent players lose with axis
    to a KJF strat, that is Jap is severely reduced more than Germany.
    In games (as allies) I’m leading I also shift from combat mostly against G units to Jap units, once the yellow ones are closing in on Moscow.
    Have to stop them somewhere, or else axis wins.

    My argument is that it’s a bad strat to contain Jap from sz55. This way will make it harder to win.

    Jennifer,
    I will even try a KJF game as axis with no bid!!
    Premise is that 100% of all US buying is placed in LA and moved west, used against Jap.
    Whatever US buys cannot be used against G until Jap is reduced to 8 ipc.
    What else happens is up to the KJF player.
    Beat me with it. If you do then it might work. If not then the KJF strat is certainly inferior.
    If you can’t beat a newb with a strat you will not beat decent players either.
    We use triplea. No tech. LL. TTL. “always on AA…”  😄 :lol:



  • so your saying they can’t use a stratagy of building in China, Alaska, or Hawii as a KJF strat? not saying Alaska or Hawii are good ideas, but they still are viable.
    also by your logic, knowing your going against a KJF play, you could move a vast navy close to LA and when ever they drop ships you strike.
    i think allowing more flex of build (like China) and also allowing them to build in the Caribian sea for safty if need be should be allowed.
    but China is a must to be allowed. (or any other complex’s the US builds on it’s way to Japan for that matter).


  • Moderator

    @axis_roll:

    @DarthMaximus:

    I also don’t see why a KJF can’t start in Rd 3-5.

    My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power.  KJF does not mean ignore Germany.  And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.

    OK, so we’re into semantics now.

    Yes, FIRST can imply who you decide to go after ……whenever… could be round 30.   😛 😛 😛

    Yes tongue firmly planted in cheek.

    Obviously in any strategy, you don’t TOTALLY ignore one side.

    Exactly!  
    Just b/c the US drops some ships into Sz 55, but then uses some trns to go to Afr or has some planes/inf in Europe doesn’t mean the Allies aren’t using a KJF.

    @axis_roll:

    I mean, you mention pushing back on Japan from MOSCOW.

    Crimeny!  That’s practically ignoring  them until they got the door open and they’re trying to step throught the threshold.  Are you channelling Jennifer-logic Darth?

    I find it very common to be able to hammer Japan with Russia in KGF strats.  Early tactical retreat is a beautiful thing.  Rds 1-4 Japan steamrolls in without a care in the world, extends its supply lines, and thins itself out, then once the full on shuck-shuck is going and in place with UK-US and Russia turns its might against Japan and hammers them out of Asia (with Allied support of course).
    I love it when a plan comes together.   😉

    @axis_roll:

    You’re mid game logic could semantically be called KJF first, but I am sorry, it’s not! (IMHO)

    You are playing a balanced game and then deciding where to put a little more emphasis on one of the two axis powers.  A KGF or KJF implies that ALL available units are targetting on one of the two axis powers as quickly and efficiently as early as possible.

    Any other implemented Strategy is NOT a K_whatever_F strategy.

    Besides……
    Does it REALLY matter what we call it anyways?

    Everyone should use whatever is at their disposal to win.  I just thought it is a bit unfair to apply different standards to KJF or KGF.
    It is okay for the UK to attack Japan in rd 1 and not jeopardize KGF status, but oh my gosh if the US sends a couple planes or troops to Afr that is a slow Germany move and doesn’t count as going after Japan.
    shrugs
    No it doesn’t matter at all.   😄

    @Lucifer:

    My argument is that it’s a bad strat to contain Jap from sz55. This way will make it harder to win.

    Fair enough.



  • @Pervavita:

    so your saying they can’t use a stratagy of building in China, Alaska, or Hawii as a KJF strat? not saying Alaska or Hawii are good ideas, but they still are viable.
    also by your logic, knowing your going against a KJF play, you could move a vast navy close to LA and when ever they drop ships you strike.
    i think allowing more flex of build (like China) and also allowing them to build in the Caribian sea for safty if need be should be allowed.
    but China is a must to be allowed. (or any other complex’s the US builds on it’s way to Japan for that matter).

    If US builds in China or Sink or any US TT its ok. If US will build in NY and move units to pac is also KJF, but not smart since
    units must be used against Jap. US (built) units cannot be used in any TT that is threatened from German attacks.
    Also any TT that is conquered from Jap. It still is KJF.

    I will not move my Jap fleet to sz55.



  • In most games I watched, with decent players, 100% of US spendings go to either Afr, Norway or directly to WE/SE.
    As for UK strat it’s quite obvious. It’s not so obvious how, where, and when, but UK is surely Russians closest allie in A&A.

    Funny enough, the later arguments from Jennifer is pretty much the way many LL players play allies, when allies have advantage.
    It’s a balanced strat. Contain Jap from med –-> Cauc, or from Moscow --> south Asia, US stops the Jap invasion in Persia or AE.
    It’s a Fabian strategy. Attrition warfare. It’s not uncommon in ADS games.
    This has nothing to do with KJF.

    I’m looking forward to the upcoming big budget Hollywood movie about Hannibal, a genie who was contained by the very same strats
    that most LL players also use. Except when Berlin is 100% with “4 units left for attacker”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Lucifer, you have to get off TripleA.  It’s a malfunctioning program on some computers (like mine.  I can NEVER get it to connect, and it crashes in most solo play games.)

    And why is it you can attack Japan with Russians, British and American forces but still be in a KJF game, but I cannot box Germany into a corner before sending all my forces after Japan?

    And, for the record, my Americans (except in one game) have not built a single unit to go after Germany.  I do use 2 infantry, armor and AA Gun from E. USA and 2 Transports, Destroyer from SZ 10 to help contain Germany.  That is HARDLY KGF tactics!  Likewise, Russians running from Japan for a few rounds is also not KGF tactics, it’s strategy.

    As America builds up (I like building in SZ 10, it gives the impression you are just trying to defend against the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe not take on the Imperial Japanese Navy - then after a couple of rounds I move them into SZ 20, build fighters on round 3 and then carriers on round 4 unifying the fleet.) Japan has to eventually divert funds to navy.

    Then, once Germany is contained (Round 4ish) the allies can work on building the walls to keep them contained and let Russia turn on Japan’s army (hardly massive after 4 rounds - usually equivalent to Russia’s available forces not used in containing the Germans) and America’s Navy can acquire land or attack the Japanese fleet.

    That is what makes it KJF.  Japan suddenly goes from uncontested to on the ropes almost over night.  Leaving the British fleet in the Indian Ocean also adds a little flair.  From there England can use the fleet to help hold Africa or snipe Japanese islands if Japan doesn’t stay in range to stop them.

    I guess what is tripping people like Switch up is the definition.

    Definition of KJF:  England and Russia first move to stop Germany’s forward momentum in Europe and Africa.  America builds (primarily in SZ 10, 45 or 55 depending on safety) fleet, maybe some air force as well.  Then, around round 5, America should be strong enough to single handedly defend against Japan’s fleet, Germany should be contained - but not killed! - and Russia’s troops (Round 5 or 6) should be present in Europe only for defense until England doesn’t need them anymore, the rest moving towards Japan to liberate lands and force Japan into choices between replacing ground unit losses or replacing naval unit losses.  American investment in Europe contained to a max of about 30 IPC in units built over 4 or 5 rounds. (Generally, I use 0 IPC in purchased units with America, but if the dice arn’t so hot, America should be able to afford a few more ground units to bring over.  5 Inf/5 Arm being the most drastic, but hardly needed in most cases, in MOST cases 0 IPC needed with +/-12 IPC (4 inf).)

    Definition of KGF: Allies all but ignore Japan and put 80% or more of their money into attacking and taking Berlin in the hopes Berlin falls before Moscow.  This is a lot riskier, IMHO then KJF.  In KJF, at least, you are containing Germany then moving against Japan.  In KGF you are slowing Japan down with pickets and slight resistance in the form of counter attacks, but generally speaking you are sending two island nations to try to take out Germany.

    Notice, BOTH require some action against the other nation.  Likewise BOTH can start at any point up to round 5ish.



  • @Cmdr:

    Remember, my ORIGINAL premise is that KJF is a valid attack and KJF is defined as reducing Japan to only a capitol and/or taking said capitol BEFORE taking Berlin.

    This definition is somewhat flexible, but understandable enough.
    Try it against me, 7 bid to Germany. TripleA, LL, TTL, no tech.
    I believe that this premise will hurt more than it helps.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Problems I’ve seen (primarily on this board!)

    In KJF tests the axis player makes silly moves with Germany to thwart the KJF.  Things like sending 3 fighters to their doom with Germany just to kill a Russian submarine which is no threat would qualify here.

    Japan hits SZ 52 with Carrier, Battleship, 3 Fighters, Bomber, Destroyer, Submarine and then moves a Battleship and Carrier to SZ 45 along iwth a 4th fighter, builds a carrier for SZ 60 and has all 6 fighters, 2 battleships, 2 carriers, destroyer (submarine?) ready to hit SZ 55 on Round 1.  NO ONE, and I mean not even NEWBS!, runs Japan like that on Round 1!  This is OBVIOUSLY using the fore-knowledge of a KJF test to set up a counter to KJF.

    Germany buys a carrier in SZ 5 and in SZ 14.  Okay, other then a couple of people, who does this in NORMAL games?  The point, honestly, is to protect the south from Russian/British planes so that Africa can be exploited knowing that America’s not coming to help the allies.

    Germany moves the Battleship to SZ 13.  This is alright, it’s not using knowledge of allied tactics overtly, but it’s also not really a standard move anymore.  It does force the allies to counter it, but it doesn’t END KJF, just makes it much harder to deal with.

    Japan stacks 13 infantry, artillery, armor in FIC on Japan 1, even though England has NOT built an Industrial Complex in India nor has Russia advanced units to help defend India.  Again, this is an OBVIOUS case where Japan’s using knowledge of allied tactics to counter KJF before KJF is evident.


    Honestly, not ALL of those were on this board, but some where and you, who did it, know who you are.

    I find it rather sad that some of you have made some really bone headed moves with Germany in high risk gambles, complain when they don’t pay off saying “misrepresentation” or other such.  If you put fighters or armor where the allies can kill them for low cost, then why in the world would the allies NOT KILL THEM?  I don’t care if I am planing to hit Japan or Germany, if I can kill either sides fighters or tanks without risk to my own tanks or planes, I’m killing them, so is everyone else on this board.

    Likewise, if it’s possible for Russia to collect for Balkans, E. Europe, Ukraine, Norway, W. Russia and Belorussia before turning back on Japan, how is it KGF for them to do it?  It’s only KGF if I reduce Germany to a capitol or take Berlin.  Anything else is Slow Germany then Kill Japan First.  Just like a raiding party with America in the Pacific taking islands while the Japanese fleet is locked in the Med is not Kill Japan First when you are obviously hitting Germany.  It just slows down Japan a little.  Just like if Japan leaves Manchuria undefended to take China heavier, or moves all his troops to FIC against India if there is, or they think there will be, an Industrial Complex there and Russia takes Manchuria and Kwangtung before getting attacked is also NOT KJF necessarily.


    I’ve purposely extended the time frame because there is NO REASON to attack in Round 2 when Attacking in Round 4 is just plain easier and allows you to recover from bad attacks or exploit your enemy’s bad moves.  Furthermore it only makes sense that if you think Germany’s going to be an easier target because they’re attacking useless submarines with fighters and leaving the fighters where they can be destroyed, then why initiate KJF?

    As all of you have seen, I have been a LONG TIME advocate of allied flexibility.  I don’t like to commit to any strategy until I see an opportunity.  Instead, I do things like buy fighters with England and leave the fleet in the Indian Ocean.  I buy fighters with America to threaten Germany’s fleets, but leave them in areas where they can easily run back to North America and move into the Pacific if I go there.  I build submarines with England so that England can take the Carrier fleet in SZ 5 down if America cannot come help (Submarines can be used later as fodder to prevent German Air Force strafes or to send down to Africa to prevent Brazil from falling.)  Russia goes almost completely infantry/artillery for a couple of rounds to maximize out put, but large armies stand in both Russia and Caucasus (and W. Russia potentially.)  Pretty centralized so I can hit either Japan or Germany if the opportunity arises.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 48
  • 49
  • 33
  • 24
  • 65
  • 9
  • 150
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

32
Online

13.6k
Users

33.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts