What should Japan do in a KJF game?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Magister:

    Often US starts KJF after seeing Japan build 2 factories instead of transports (if UK ‘exploded’ and threatens all seas early). Japan should NOT spend on factories after seeing a clear KJF (big US naval build), but the one in Indochina is still nice to have. Can retreat the fleet in front of it and keep it growing, while threatening any landings on richest islands.

    To expand on this thought:

    KJF can be EXTREMELY deadly to the Axis.  Who cares if Germany gets Russia if England still has Africa (easy to do) and America has taken out Japan (not easy, but can be done without too much effort if you know what you are doing.)

    Because Japan faces a triple threat at the start of the game and a double threat from then on, I often times find KJF the easier path for the allies.  As such, I generally play Japan “conservatively” on Japan 1.

    I like to hit Pearl either EXTREMELY hard or not at all. (If England has their ships massed in SZ 59 or something, and I can destroy them and a fighter of theirs, then I go there instead of pearl, otherwise, anything that can get to Pearl goes to Pearl in an effort to win without a single loss.)

    This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

    But, this almost requires Japan to not build any industries on Japan 1.  And why should you?  Until you have 33 IPC and 5 Transports a round, there is no point in getting that complex, in my opinion. (11 Units - Japan 8, Manch/Kwang/FIC 3 cost a minimum of 33 IPC.)  However, 32 IPC can easily go to 4 Infantry, 4 Armor filling up Japan itself and using 4 transports while you clear islands with the others.

    Just my opinion anyway.

    BTW, if England and Russia move like KJF is happening, I like to build two bombers with Japan.  This gives me an incredibly powerful attack force to hit SZ 55. (You have to attack Hawaii with Inf, Arm, Fig on Japan 1 to get it to work though.)


  • Moderator

    @Cmdr:

    This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

    Not necessarly. 
    US Buys 2 AC, 1 ftr.
    Japan’s Pearl fleet won’t attack 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

    Or US buys 1 ac, 1 bb and Japan faces
    1 trn, 1 dd, 1 ac, 2 ftrs, 2 bb

    The US can afford to trade fleets early, they earn 40 Japan earns 30.  Not too mention ftrs and ACs are better on defense.

    Unless you actually took HI on J1 as well, but that is seriously stretching considered the likely UK1 moves.

    And if Japan loses its sub either on UK 1 or the Pearl attack, there is pretty much nothing they can do to prevent the US from going after them.  I’m not saying they (the US) should go KJF or that the US will win, just that Japan can’t prevent the US naval buy if they choose to go that route.

    IMO, it is one of the strengths of the Allies.  You don’t really have to show your cards to the Axis until after US1/R2, but by that time (hopefully) the Axis have spent a 1 turn build and NCM preparing for KGF only to see a KJF come at them.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    @Cmdr:

    This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

    Not necessarly. 
    US Buys 2 AC, 1 ftr.
    Japan’s Pearl fleet won’t attack 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

    I would with 6 Fighters, 3 Bombers, 2 Battleships, Destroyer, Submarine and 2 Carriers, DM.

    That’s why I mentioned you may want to hit Hawaii so you could have the LZ for the fighters and bombers. ^_^



  • 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.


  • Moderator

    @Cmdr:

    @DarthMaximus:

    @Cmdr:

    This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

    Not necessarly. 
    US Buys 2 AC, 1 ftr.
    Japan’s Pearl fleet won’t attack 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

    I would with 6 Fighters, 3 Bombers, 2 Battleships, Destroyer, Submarine and 2 Carriers, DM.

    That’s why I mentioned you may want to hit Hawaii so you could have the LZ for the fighters and bombers. ^_^

    In a KJF there is no way Japan has that or I should say there is no way they have the ability to attack Sz 55 with that.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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.


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

  • 49
  • 8
  • 4
  • 26
  • 9
  • 6
  • 9
  • 13
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

82
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts