Forbidding ICs…?

I’m not sure if I agree that CJF fails 99%, but even with it fails 60% it’s still not as good as KGF. I think KJF fails well over 90%. I mentioned this before a few months back, my first true 1vs1 game victory in the lobby was a game where the opponent went for KJF, at least with US. He had 40% to take tokyo (my  bad, should stack it more solid) but he lost, and so he lost his fleet and surrendered soon afterwards.

I seen the KJF once, possible a few times, but I watched lot’s of games played by the best and played by players who are not at the highest level, conclusions have been made by AAR communites and different playgroups, either you need luck, or the axis players is unexeprienced if KJF is gonna succed.

In any game Japan shouldnt be left alone 100%, but Germany is far more dangerous and important until rnd 4-5. To stop Japan in persia by US forces, or Novo by help of UK is a much safer strategy.

I disagree. KJF works well. You just have to know what to do. And KGF is not a garanted victory, you have traditional ways of beating it with Axis and some wicked strat that very few try. Anyway, days of KGF are ended with Anniversary edition. There is no way USA can defend America against a 60+ ipcs Japan if allies try ignore Japan.

Ya kgf is done no more ignoring japan but even still usa v japan navy even turn 2-4 that measn japan loses asia most likely

Thank you for clarifying, 03321.

KGF, in my most humble and sometimes wrong, opinion, is actually the harder of the two games to play.  This is mainly due to a few easily recited reasons:

1)  With no restraint on Japan, the allies can easily find themselves in a situation where Japan is just too entrenched to beat off.  Even if Berlin falls, I’ve found it difficult - at times - to repel Japan.

2)  An ignored Japan could wind up sinking the Allied fleets.  It would not take much.  Just move your fleet around, entice the allies to attack or ignore it, meanwhile, get some extra build fighters to Berlin to add to the attack.  More than once this has resulted in the downfall of the allies. (If you ignore the Japanese fleet, what is Japan to do with those warships?  Why not add a carrier and maybe a couple of submarines and send them out?  Even if the allies attack and sink it, you’re not really out much, you’re still pushing on Russia!)

3)  England + Russia earns as much or more than Germany.  Japan earns less than or equal to America.  It almost seems designed for the allies to break up after the axis, using the resources available where they are and the rest going to their respective theaters.

4)  With proper planning and execution, you can easily take out Japan’s major islands without risking the combined allied fleet.  This alone should be able to turn the tide of battle. (ie: use the british and american submarines as blockers and slide in while Japan builds defensively in SZ 60/61.)

5)  No plan is foolproof.  I’ve been working long and hard on methods to counter KJF without castrating my army going after Russia.  And if America goes on the right building strategy with average dice, it’s getting to be darn near impossible.  Especially if England goes postal in the Pacific on round 1 (Borneo taken, New Guinea taken, SZ 45 submarine sunk and SZ 59 transport sunk with the British fighter in SZ 52.)  Risky, but happens more often than one might think.

@Cmdr:

Thank you for clarifying, 03321.

Well, between defending you and making fun of Switch I seem to have become one of the less popular people around if the karma’s to be trusted.  Works for me :P

I am curious, though.  Do you still prefer KJF if Japan gets a solid opening?  I don’t know how you move pre-J1 (such as the Russian inf that I personally like to stack on Bury), but say Japan takes China with a good number of inf, you don’t manage to kill the sz 45 sub, and then that sub ends up as his only Pearl casualty (+maybe a fighter).  Say you didn’t take Borneo either, maybe you took New Guinea although that’s obviously not as important.  Do you still prefer KJF in that situation?  I would be worried about going KJF there, but as I said I don’t have much confidence in my KJF game.  And do you ever go with an India or Australia IC?

It doesnt seem like we have an agreement on a CJF/KJF definition, so I try to define KGF.

UK+RUS goes all out against Germany first rnds, UK naval units outside Europe is irrelevant for KGF strat.
UK1 may land in Afr (or Nor), this is also KGF.
US moves all units to Afr or UK–>Nor, regardless if Jap skips Pearl. All of US building and movement goes to Afr, or Nor, eventually Kalia or EE.

Simply speaken, this is KGF.

I never purchase destroyers in Revised regardless of which team I’m playing, or what kind of strategy it is. If you’re going to spend money on anything other than transports, it should be carriers and fighters. The DD is a busted unit in Revised, too expensive for its value. I never see anyone buy them, just like I never see anyone buy a new battleship. Its too bad really, but hopefully this will be fixed in AA50.

Also for a stall/kill Japan strategy, I will always send the British fighter with the destroyer against the Kwangtung transport and land in Bury, over the sub-attack/land on US carrier move. Pearl is almost always a lost cause if the Japs really want it, but Bury combined with a successfull Borneo attack and carrier block at Philippines will force a much tougher decision on the Japanese player. Especially if you land your British bomber in the right place, and properly back India with the Russians (eg 3 tanks place in Caucasus). In some cases you can save the US carrier anyway, because the Japs have too much else to worry about.

:)

DD are OK in Revised. If they were 10 ipcs, it would be a no brainer choice for fleets. Even without shore bombard tech.

Ok! forbidding ics is nice because that way the axis have a chance and territories are unlimited!!! when they ar ein hands of rightful owner but for the conquerer they do not get the unlimited a know nice tactic!!