Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

@Lucifer:

Some tactics and strats work both in LL and ADS. I didn’t say that absolutely all strats which works in LL also must work in ADS.

While I agree that there are some minor tactical differences between Low Luck and ADS (mainly involving strafing) I actually think any strategies that work well in Low Luck will work well in ADS, just not with the same reliability.  Hence I think Low Luck is great tool for testing strats, even if I don’t prefer playing real games that way.

I can summarize my opinion on Low Luck and ADS as follows:

Any GOOD strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky bad dice causing the strat to fail.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a good strat should succeed more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

Any BAD strategy will fail more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky good dice causing the strat to succeed.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a bad strat should fail more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

• By “over the long term” I mean over the course of many games.  Though it should take fewer Low Luck games than ADS games to determine if a strat is good or bad.

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

Amen brother, amen.

@JamesG:

@Lucifer:

Some tactics and strats work both in LL and ADS. I didn’t say that absolutely all strats which works in LL also must work in ADS.

While I agree that there are some minor tactical differences between Low Luck and ADS (mainly involving strafing) I actually think any strategies that work well in Low Luck will work well in ADS, just not with the same reliability.  Hence I think Low Luck is great tool for testing strats, even if I don’t prefer playing real games that way.

NO WAI.  Let me propose a simple game.  You take ten coins and flip them.  Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails.  (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).

Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.

See how long your game REALLY lasts.  Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game.  Yeah, see what I mean?

OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!

I can summarize my opinion on Low Luck and ADS as follows:

Any GOOD strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky bad dice causing the strat to fail.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a good strat should succeed more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

No no!  Any GOOD LOW LUCK Strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS because you’re playing a LOW LUCK STRATEGY!  By the gods, you can’t equate the two!  Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its ASS handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!  (And vice versa; an incredibly good ADS strategy will get its ass reamed in a low luck game against a good low luck player!)  It’s apples and oranges, good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!

Any BAD strategy will fail more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky good dice causing the strat to succeed.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a bad strat should fail more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

A BAD strategy will get its ass handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS, unless that strategy depends on a single long-odds battle, which I must emphasize most games do not come down to!  Most games come down to a struggle over position and territory that culminate in the eventual collapse of the positionally or economically weaker side!  I’d say a bad TACTIC could succeed more often in ADS than Low Luck, but bad STRATEGIES almost definitionally fail (unless faced with an even worse strategy).

• By “over the long term” I mean over the course of many games.  Though it should take fewer Low Luck games than ADS games to determine if a strat is good or bad.

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

Amen brother, amen.

Silence, fool, or I shall unleash my Cat of Mass Destruction.  There you’ll be, thinking you’re about to crush Germany, when suddenly cats shall rain from the sky like missiles from the heart of hell.  We’re talking teeth the size of fighter planes, paws the size of entire countries, and a tail that is longer than the entire length of the Mediterranean.  With a fierce swipe of its paws, Russia’s mighty forces shall be wiped from the board, along with any incriminating catnip.

Teh JENFORCES are invincible . . . as you will come to realize in the end, poor fool.

@newpaintbrush:

NO WAI.  Let me propose a simple game.  You take ten coins and flip them.  Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails.  (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).

Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.

See how long your game REALLY lasts.  Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game.  Yeah, see what I mean?

OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!

I don’t find this a compelling argument at all.  Comparing A&A and your theoretical coin game really is apples to oranges.  The rules between the two are so completely different that noting how one reacts to LL as compared to other is basically worthless.

Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its a** handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!

I don’t know, I think KGF is a pretty great strategy in both LL and ADS.

good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!

Here I agree with you, completely.  A player can be a great long term planner and odds calculator but be sucky at adapting to unlikely events that occur.  Such a player would be good at LL but not good at ADS, except in those ADS games where the MAJOR battles do not skew far from average.  Likewise a player could be average at best at long term planning but be great at recognizing and taking advantage of sudden changes in board conditions when a big battle goes much worse than average for their opponent.  Such a player would be good at ADS but not so good at LL.

A BAD strategy will get its a** handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS,

No, sometimes even a bad strategy will succeed in ADS because of crazy good dice on the part of player using the bad strategy (and/or crazy bad dice for his opponent).  This is MUCH less likely in LL since LL greatly minimizes the effects of crazy dice.  This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.

@Cmdr:

Is it good strategy in ADS to send 1 infantry, 2 fighters after 3 defending infantry to “strafe”?  No.  Why?  Because in ADS there’s a chance the defender will get three hits.  In LL, he cannot possibly score more then 1 hit, period, and he’s guaranteed that one hit. So it’s a BAD strategy, but it works in LL.

that is still a bad strategy. it is just trading an inf for and inf in which the plans would probably be better spent. you would have to send atleast an extra artillery.

@JamesG:

I don’t know, I think KGF is a pretty great strategy in both LL and ADS.

True. Overall goals like KGF are probably similar overall.

On a lower level things might be different.
I think of it like this. A good low luck strat would exploit low luck certainty. When used in ADS you won’t have enough infantry fodder.

This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.

That would depends on what we call a good strategy.
Actually, I think a good strategy is limited to the game one is referring to, ADS or LL or other house rules etc…

@JamesG:

@newpaintbrush:

NO WAI.  Let me propose a simple game.  You take ten coins and flip them.  Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails.  (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).

Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.

See how long your game REALLY lasts.  Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game.  Yeah, see what I mean?

OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!

I don’t find this a compelling argument at all.  Comparing A&A and your theoretical coin game really is apples to oranges.  The rules between the two are so completely different that noting how one reacts to LL as compared to other is basically worthless.

Don’t call my argument worthless.  It has feelings, you know.  :cry:  See what you did . . .

Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its a** handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!

I don’t know, I think KGF is a pretty great strategy in both LL and ADS.

I do not think of “Score lots and stop them from scoring” as a strategy for football, and I do not think of “KGF” as a strategy for Axis and Allies.  That is to say, I think a real strategy demands a plan of action, with contingencies in case the plan breaks down (i.e. bad dice) or is countered (i.e. the opponent makes a countermove to force a change in your plan).

To be more specific, I think of a strategy as “Ferry maximum tanks from Eastern Canada to Algeria each turn ASAP with US to retake Africa quickly and to reinforce Persia before the Japanese can move in in force, while taking attacks of opportunity on the German Baltic and/or Mediterranean navy as position allows; use UK and Russia combined to stall out Germany’s navy in the Atlantic and Germany’s army in Europe; if needed, transpose E. Canada-Algeria transport route into E.Canada-UK / UK - Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe/Archangel, or W. Canada invasion.”  Or “Build a gigantic UK air force to smash the German navy quickly, while the U.S. builds carriers to compensate for the lack of UK fodder in its attack on Algeria”, or some such.

Now, if you accept that strategy requires those sorts of specifics, I am sure you will agree that with Low Luck, you have much more control over the outcomes of battles, so the field of possible outcomes is vastly - almost ridiculously - reduced.  With that degree of added control, you can now run attacks that would be entirely too risky in ADS.

It is clear then, that under LL, the OPTIMAL strategy is going to be MUCH DIFFERENT than the optimal ADS strategy.  This, without resort to theoretical coin-flipping games (although I still think my example was a good one.  :lol:)

good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!

Here I agree with you, completely.  A player can be a great long term planner and odds calculator but be sucky at adapting to unlikely events that occur.  Such a player would be good at LL but not good at ADS, except in those ADS games where the MAJOR battles do not skew far from average.  Likewise a player could be average at best at long term planning but be great at recognizing and taking advantage of sudden changes in board conditions when a big battle goes much worse than average for their opponent.  Such a player would be good at ADS but not so good at LL.

Your understanding of Low Luck and ADS is different to mine.  I think LL actually rewards players that are good SHORT term planners (because of the immediacy of attack outcome calculation, counterattack force distribution and counterattack outcome calculation, and counter-counterattack force distribution (based on existing forces and newly bought forces), while I think ADS rewards long-term players that are not caught up in the immediacy of whether one battle fails or not, but keep an eye on the long-term goals that are to be attained.

A BAD strategy will get its a** handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS,

No, sometimes even a bad strategy will succeed in ADS because of crazy good dice on the part of player using the bad strategy (and/or crazy bad dice for his opponent).  This is MUCH less likely in LL since LL greatly minimizes the effects of crazy dice.  This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.

That is just not true.  A bad “strategy” fails almost by definition.  Even if the strategy succeeds at one point, if the strategy is fundamentally unsound, it WILL fail, dice results notwithstanding.  And if the strategy SUCCEEDS, and if it CONTINUES to succeed, then perhaps the strategy is not bad after all.

OK, let me be clear about my feelings on this matter.

An attack that is good in ADS is bad for LL.  An attack that is good in LL is bad in ADS.  Therefore, and with no disrespect intended to anyone on these forums, my personal opinion - and let me stress, my PERSONAL opinion - is that trying to say that what is good for one is good for the other is like chaining a flaming baboon onto a tiger and throwing the result into a grove of banana trees that has recently been doused in chocolate syrup and saturation bombing that whole mess with Islamic militants from the thirty-third century that were flung back through time by a mis-wired DVD player that was set to show the fifth season of the original Star Trek (which never existed, but let’s not get into that).  In other words, my head explodes.

EXPLODES!  :-D

An attack that is good in ADS is bad for LL.  An attack that is good in LL is bad in ADS.  Therefore, and with no disrespect intended to anyone on these forums, my personal opinion - and let me stress, my PERSONAL opinion - is that trying to say that what is good for one is good for the other is like chaining a flaming baboon onto a tiger and throwing the result into a grove of banana trees that has recently been doused in chocolate syrup and saturation bombing that whole mess with Islamic militants from the thirty-third century that were flung back through time by a mis-wired DVD player that was set to show the fifth season of the original Star Trek (which never existed, but let’s not get into that).  In other words, my head explodes.

I approve of this post. I guess you are colonel in teh J3nf0rces for a reason!

Okay, so there I was, thinking “Yeah, they all know what a Geniius I am, so they will of course accept my word Without Question.”  Then after I finished laffing, I thought I should write some more stuff down, seeing as how it’s fun for me to write these kinds of posts.

Also, you know how this whole academic thing turns the ladies on.  Ooo ya.  :lol:  Call me.

Quick recap:  ADS means regular dice.  LL means Low Luck.  Low Luck battle results are determined by adding the attack value of all attackers, then dividing by 6 to get total number of CERTAIN hits; any left over number is rolled randomly to see if a hit is obtained or not.

That is, under LL if you are attacking with 5 infantry 1 tank, your total attack value is 8.  (1 for each infantry and 3 for the tank, so 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 = 8).  So you will get ONE automatic hit, and you will have 2 left over.  So you will roll one dice; if you roll a 2 or less, you get a hit; if you roll more than a 2, you miss.  (So you have ONE automatic hit, and a second POSSIBLE hit under Low Luck)

–

R1:  (Russian attackers listed first followed by German defenders)
I used frood.net to calculate odds (I like giving text walls and full analyses, but somehow I get the feeling that people fall asleep before I make my point - so, short version.  Used 10,000 times.  Or did I?  :wink:)

3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway.  Attacker retreats if only 1 fighter left. 
3 inf 1 art 2 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter at Ukraine
6 inf 1 art 1 tank vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank at West Russia

LL results (Norway): Attacker fails 20% of the time, leaving 1 fig or 1 fig 1 inf.
LL results (Ukraine):  Attacker fails 14.3% of the time, leaving 1 fig or 1 fig 1 tank.
LL results (West Russia): Attacker fails 0% of the time.

ADS results (Norway):  Attacker fails 33.8% of time.
ADS results (Ukraine):  Attacker fails 31.7% of time.
ADS results (West Russia):  Attacker fails 8.6% of time.

Now, those percentages have some give or take to them, a few tenths of a percent here or there.  And some situations aren’t covered; a single Russian fighter attacking a single German fighter at Norway may result in the Russian fighter retreating.  But really, what it comes down to is, if any of those battles fails for Russia, it sucks for Russia.  ALL the battles have to succeed for Russia to be put in a tenable position.

Under LL, the odds of ALL battles succeeding is about 68%, and even if a battle is to fail, the LL attacker has far more control over the battle outcome as a great deal of dice outcomes can be ignored.  In other words, under Low Luck, this listed Norway-Ukraine-West Russia attack on Russia’s first turn is WELL WORTH CONSIDERING especially as it chops Germany’s airforce by 2 fighters and even the bad outcomes can be controlled to some degree.

Under ADS, the odds of ALL battles succeeding is about 40%.  Because of the vagaries of dice, an even greater portion of those attacks must be considered untenable, particularly the attack on Norway and Ukraine, where a few more lucky defender attacks can easily kill the Russian fighter; although Russia may press on to attempt to destroy two German fighters early, it could well cost Russian fighters in exchange, which is really bad for the Russians.In other words, under ADS, this listed Norway-Ukraine-West Russia attack on Russia’s first turn is a CRAPPY IDEA, you just shot yourself in the ass 60% of the time.  Right, not in the foot, but actually in the ass.

Disclaimer - note that I refer to “this listed Norway-Ukraine-West Russia attack” as a bad idea.  I think there are actually some cases in which a three-territory Russia attack is workable.  But more on that in my ULTIMATE STRATEGY GUIDE!  Coming soon . . . ???  :lol:

Just b/c LL may give you a better chance to win a series of battles does not make the strategy sound.  For example If Germany has troops in Wrus and Japan has troops in Novo, and in LL Russia can attack the stack in Wrus with 90% success (say only 60% in ADS) that doesn’t make it a good attack since Japan will walk into Moscow on their next turn.

Likewise, I’m not convinced (even with a 60% chance to succeed on R1) that that triple attack (nor, wrus, ukr) is a good idea.  Yes you may kill two fighters but you leave Russia incredibly thin.  I think Germany can counter both Ukr and Wrus in that case and after Rd 1, Russia will only be left with the units that start out in Asia and its rd 1 buy.  Considering Germany will still be out earning Russia by 12-15 ipc for the first few turns this isn’t necessarily a good strat for Russia.

And if you continue the LL playout you may see that the Axis will end up winning a greater % of these games b/c Russia hamstrung herself too early and didn’t have the units to counter a tank dash or German/Japan full court press.

In this case the LL (entire playout) may confirm what ADS would have told you right away (with the 40% success rate), don’t risk this early battle on R1.

I think the focus on individual battles or what happens in one round or turn isn’t as beneficial as being able to look long term in LL and being able to judge based on a move you do how much time you have should your opponent do this or that.

The best and most relevant example I can give is a G1 Naval buy.  This is perfect for a LL test since you can easily test if Russia then goes hard for Germany you can accurately predict when Germany starts to miss those ground units that were spent on Navy.  So at that point if you know you only have 4 rds you now know how much time you have as Japan to get your Asian war machine going (4 turns!).
Now while adapting this to ADS you know if Russia sends stuff to Asia you will have more than 4 turns or if you get good dice you’ll have more time, but if you get bad dice you better be johnny on the spot with Japan or else Berlin will fall.

LL is an extremely valuable tool for testing any strat and is very helpful in developing strats that work in well ADS, if for no other reason than it saves you tons of game time and playing excess games since you can get right down to a median result and then adjust from there.

True, there are plenty of other things to consider, but my main point was just because you have one battle (or one turn) with overwhelming odds (in either LL or ADS) it does not mean your overall game strategy is good.

A more extreme example would be if Japan spent the first two turns building trns and inf to attack Alaska.  So on J3 they attack with LL odds of 100% (ADS with 70%) and they win.  That does not mean the strategy of going after ALA or the US is good.  It may not mean it is bad, but you shouldn’t be judging a strategy on one turn or battle, you have to look long term.

And I think LL provides a way to do this.

And in the Ala attack move if that means Russia runs wild and kicks Japan out of Asia it is irrelevant that in LL you had a 100% chance to take Ala, you end up losing the game.  Just like possible Russian, German, etc. turns, it is irrelevant if LL gives you 100% chance (vs. 60, 70, 80) to take certain things in one particular rd if the consequences of those actions (given avg or LL dice) mean you end up losing the game.

DarthMaximus, neither of us is attempting to argue that a single good-odds battle is the penultimate goal of a LL or ADS strategy.  The question is whether or not LL and ADS employ different strategies, and my answer to that is no.  Your answer is yes (I believe).

Your stance, if I understand correctly, is that with LL, you employ the odds-on line, and with ADS, there’s some give and take, but the optimal strategy line still holds.

My stance, though, is that since LL allows you to employ the odds-on line, LL allows you to carry out attacks that would be ridiculous under ADS, and that therefore strategies that are ridiculous under ADS are viable under LL.

Allow me to refer to my earlier Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack description.  To wit, with ADS, the attacker has little control over bad outcomes, and probability distribution plays some role, so the strategy has a 60% chance of failure, of which a fair proportion is considered “disasteriffic” to use Rikku (Final Fantasy X) terminology.  So the attack is simply unsound from the outset under ADS, this is obvious.

Under LL, however, the attacker has moderate control over bad outcomes, so has a 32% chance of moderate failure, but a 68% chance of outright success.  So under LL, although this strategy MAY be countered in the long-term by Germany, it is NOT necessarily simply unsound as the ADS attack is.

So under ADS, you shoot yourself in the butt RIGHT AWAY, but under LL, who knows?  I will say, though, that to say that Germany will in time find an efficient counter for this LL strategy simply because the strategy is immediately unviable in ADS is logically unsound!

If you can explain how it is INEVITABLE that the Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack will inevitably fail under Low-Luck, and tie that to the fact that the Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack is a bad-odds attack under ADS, then I feel that the position that LL and ADS strategies are analogous is sound.

However, my little brain cannot right now comprehend how that would be possible, so I will leave it to wiser minds to explain.  (Platonic gloating ensues  :-D)

@Cmdr:

NPB:

He said the tri-lateral attack (the Hat Trick) with Russia is much better in LL then in ADS, so much better, it’s actually a viable move for Russia in LL while it’s utter suicide in (edit)ADS(/edit).

I thought that’s what I said . . .  :wink: