That’s a great way of putting it.
Japan Naval Defense (WARNING: LONG)
-
Thanks for the comments everyone!
DM: I forgot all about the articles section–I rarely even think to look there. I agree, that’d probably be a better home for this.
Zhukov: I’m getting to like air more and more as compared to subs, but the one thing that makes me wary about going entirely air-based is that if I have to switch to defense then I want some boats in the water…ideally you can stay on the offensive (or the buffer-method-defensive) but subs give you some flexibility in case you need defense in the water too. But I always feel a little reluctant buying them, I’m always happier getting fighters. I didn’t go into this in much depth in the article, but I also love how fighters are dual-use land/air units…at the right time you can suddenly move them all onto the mainland and have a huge threat to Moscow, or possibly even go rescue Berlin.
Jen: It’s probably possible to go KJF without any help from the dice, but I’m not good enough to do it. Like you, I only go KJF if I’ve gotten an invitation to do so in one way or another. One extreme example was my game against Switch where Japan got murdered in J1 not only in Pearl, but also in Borneo where the British fleet was…he came out of that turn with 1 out of his 4 capital ships left, and I think only 2 or 3 planes too. KJF was a no brainer at that point!
-
Uffish:
Yea, it generally takes too long to do a KJF if your opponent knows what s/he is doing in naval warfare and you did not get lucky with the dice round 1 (or Japan did something exceptionally stupid.)
However, Switch was always extremely bad at defending Japan with his navy. And I mean he was REALLY bad. Switch’s game was always playing the Axis against a Kill Germany First game. He excelled there because he only practiced it. His actions were very machine like. First this, then that, then that. He could recover from really bad dice because he had a list of steps to follow to do so. What he could not handle was a unique method of playing the Allies, such as KJF.
I don’t think Switch ever won a game against a KJF strategy. Could be wrong, he played about half as many games as I did here, so it’s very hard to know 100% of all the game resolutions of his games. But generally speaking, he always relied on his battleships and carriers and augmented them periodically with submarines. He was very uninformed about how to use destroyers effectively to slow down the Americans and save cash buy needing less ships. My personal assessment of his game play. (You’ll note, he absolutely refused to play with me anymore once I completely crippled his Japan and had Russians in E. Europe in our last game together. Very sore looser, IMHO.)
-
@Cmdr:
Why don’t you need them?
1 Transport and 1 Infantry is usually enough to take every island in the Pacific. Even if your BBs miss their bombardments, and the enemy scores a hit (both happening is slim) you can always take a fighter as a loss. Fighters from W. USA can get almost anywhere you would put your fleet anyway, and hell, 7 defending fighters is usually plenty to keep Japan away until you can fly the 8th out to meet you.
I can see the logic but I would think that a 2nd tranny is useful as a way to grab another money island if Japan fails to block you.
-
I could abide a second transport.
What I see, most of the time, is an America with 5 or 6 loaded transports and, to me, that seems like a lot of wasted resources. 1 transport would serve equally as effectively as 5 or 6 and would allow you to spend the other 40-48 IPC on warships and planes to sink the enemy fleet.
There’s really no point in a bunch of transports as long as the enemy has a large fleet to fight you with.
-
I scanned the article and I’d like to post it to the main site. From what I gather this article is referencing the A&A Revised game, yes?
-
I’d be honored! And yes, this is about Revised.
Let me know if you want me to edit or rewrite any sections before posting on the main site.
-
(2) I’m not trying to say that KJF is bad in general. What I am trying to say is that if you want to go KJF, go all the way. Use all three Allies and hold nothing back. If you go half against Germany and half against Japan, it’s not enough, unless the dice are very kind to you.
I was thinking about this statement in the context of a few games I’ve had where either 1) Japan had bad dice or went with insufficient force to Pearl or 2) Japan skipped Pearl, prompting me to pursue a strategy where USA goes after Japan while Russia and UK go after Germany.
In a friendly game, I enjoy this turn, as its a fun change of pace from the normal KGF game. But more and more I’m questioning whether this is a legitimate strategy in a tourney or league game against an elite opponent. The problem is Germany tends to get strong, while Japan gets strong on Asia IPCs while holding off the USA with reasonable air and sub purchases. Even if UK can succeed in 1) taking Africa 2)killing the German fleet and 3) assisting Russia in Europe, Germany tends to build so many infantry that unless the USA offensive succeeds, Axis will eventually have way more units on the ground in Eurasia.
You say only go for Japan if you are going with all 3 allies…but how does this work against a strong German player? Ok maybe if Germany gets diced bad on G1…but I find that even under the best circumstances if the Allies are concentrating on Japan then Russia will lose Cauc. Once Cauc falls, the UK can no longer support Russia from India, and India itself is in serious trouble. And if the Germans have the Africa ipcs then they will eventually overwelm Moscow as well.
So what can we conclude? Is Revised hopelessly biased towards the KGF tactic?
-
There are two kinds of KJF’s in the world: those that start that way, and those that switch to it. I was referring to the first. If you decide at the beginning of the game “hey, I want to go KJF this game,” then it’s very, very difficult to make it work unless you go all in. This means things like stacking Buryatia with 6 inf on R1, moving 2 inf into Sinkiang, and basing fighters in Kazakh to up the threat to Manchuria; building an India complex UK1; consolidating UK fleet in SZ 30, or taking Borneo, on UK 1; and either building a Sinkiang IC and spending the rest of America’s paycheck in the Pacific, or skipping Sin and going full bore on the boats. If you only do one or two of these, Japan can easily squash them, but with all together it can be too much for them to handle.
I should add the disclaimer that I’ve never successfully won a game this way, nor has anyone beaten me with this tactic. I know some players have been able to make it work, but it’s awfully difficult. You can contain Japan’s Asia expansion, but sinking their navy tends to take a while (unless they defend poorly), and Russia just can’t hold out long enough against a good German player without American assistance (and with only half-hearted UK assistance if they build the India factory).
The second kind of KJF is the only one I use myself. Sometimes Japan gets hosed by the dice on J1; this often happens, for example, if they try to take on too many naval battles at once (e.g. retaking Borneo while still going after Pearl). Sometimes they go Pearl heavy and don’t come out with a strong enough fleet to survive counterattack. Etc. When the dice or opponents’ mistakes give you an opening, you can go KJF to exploit it.
In this aspect I think it’s similar (though in a less extreme way) to KAF. I used to think KAF was completely impossible, but two of my league losses last year were to KAF strategies! (Funcioneta and U-505 both beat me this way.) The thing about KAF is that you can’t do it right away, but if you build up enough transports, have some ground troops in or near Bry, and the USA doesn’t have a lot of ground forces in North America, then you can suddenly switch to KAF and take them by surprise.
In short, my opinion is that you pretty much do have to start every game KGF, and keep your eyes open for the possibility of switching. This might seem like a bummer, but I think it’s actually kind of fun; learning to recognize what combinations of circumstances provide openings for things like KJF, KAF, or other “non-standard” tactics is an important part of advanced play.
-
Well I certainly follow and agree with your reasoning, but as a gentle criticism, I wouldn’t recommend (or seem to recommend) a strategy that you would never use yourself :).
But what I’m finding is that when I go KJF in response to a mistake or bad dice on J1, I often find I regret it as it sometimes makes the game harder for the Allies in general. It always depends on circumstance…but I find that some players actually want you to come for Japan (eg they skip Pearl and hit Bury instead, hoping the USA will go 100% to Pacific and this will give Germany an opening).
-
Yeah, that may not have come out very clearly in the article; I wasn’t trying to recommend type 1 KJF; I was trying not to comment on it one way or the other (because I feel I have insufficient data). A more complete breakdown of the different types of KJF I’ve seen would be as follows:
(1) Go whole hog against Japan, from the start, with everybody.
(2) Go against Japan from the start, but only with the US Navy.
(3) Go against Japan (either US Navy only, or with other assistance) in response to dice and/or opponent mistakes.The purpose of the article was to make the case that (2) is a bad idea. In my mind the jury is still out on (1); at best it’s very difficult, but it’s possible I just haven’t honed it enough. I think (3) can be usable. Although, as you say, I’ve been suckered into (3) when I shouldn’t have. I wouldn’t do (3) just because Japan skipped Pearl; in that case they still have all 4 capital ships and all or most of their air, i.e. they’re still an absolute beast. I might go for it if they went to Pearl and left the BB and CV open to counterattack, although even then I’d be reluctant if there weren’t other things going my way too.
-
Ok I can pretty much agree with that.
I’m playing a game on Facebook right now…where Japan lost
- 1 fig to India aa
- destroyer, sub, and 1 fig in Pearl light attk (all US units destroyed)
Since it’s a non-tourney game, I decided to go after Japan with USA, against my better judgment perhaps. On USA1, I had the opportunity to destroy a Japanese carrier plus a transport in SZ 60 with a fighter and bomber (which I lost in the fight and after landing in Japan’s next turn). So now the Japs are down a destroyer, transport, sub, 2 figs, and a carrier, while I lost the Pearl fleet plus my bomber and fighter.
The Japs had bought a factory and two transports, so they still have 2 trannies in sz 61.
What do you think? Would you go after Japan in this context?
-
The thing about KAF is that you can’t do it right away, but if you build up enough transports, have some ground troops in or near Bry, and the USA doesn’t have a lot of ground forces in North America, then you can suddenly switch to KAF and take them by surprise.
Yea, true. It’s even better: the default building for Japan, based in buys like 3 tra, 2 inf J1 works well both for JTDTM and KAF, so you can start wanting to do KAF but switching to JTDTM if you think you must (usually round 2 or 3, while KJF must be decided USA1 as latter)
The point here is that USA has no clues about if Japan goes against them or against soviets: bur stack, massing trannies and taking Australia, Hawaii and NZel -> all fit well both in KAF and JTDTM. You really have a option of shifting until you build ala IC or you ferry the 1st big stack of 8 guys to FIC
I really like your in-dept analisys, Uffish :-)
-
Func I would love to see your Polar Express in action–though I understand it is a situational move.
Lately I’ve been playing Revised on the GTO Facebook version. No time commitments, and the interface is a piece of cake. If you’re interested in playing sometime message me and we can set it up. Same offer goes out to you Uffish.
-
Well, I cannot play until mid june, but you can check those links:
My game against Jen, Polar Express fails to dice but still I manage win (that was a crazy game with crazy rolls, but you can get a idea of what can happen if Polar Express fails)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13392.new#new
This one is against JWW. This game I had way better dice than against Jen. It’s interesting because I finally managed take Whashington
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14269.new#new
This one is against Uffish. He surrendered when he noticed I had economic advantage and it was no way of taking Berlin. I like this one because it was the first time I tried Polar Express, and Uffish is a great player to play against
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12513.300
So, you have 3 possible results: win after shifting KAF to KRF, win taking USA’s capital and win by economic superiority
And now one when I lost. It’s a multi-player one. Jen had too many bombers and too few infs, and I made a really bad roll in Wcan
-
I like to try and deter the potential of a KAF as early as possible. I like to set up an immediate heavy shuck in Wus on US 1 if possible. This obviously depends on the Atlantic and Europe situation but if I can have roughly 6 units in Wus at the end of US 1 I start to feel a little better. Then build from there. It may mean only 4 unts to Afr on US 2 (units that started the game in Eus) and maybe on 4 more on US 3 (required heavy inf buy on US 1) but helps me feel at ease b/c I’m covering my back. I think by US 3 you can pretty much have 8 units from Wus to Wcan so now it is just a matter of dropping another trn in the Atlantic and filling out the 8-10 unit shuck.
I’m just always worried about the direct drop into Wcan, it can be such a deadly move if the US is light on North American troops.
-
There are two kinds of KJF’s in the world: those that start that way, and those that switch to it. I was referring to the first. If you decide at the beginning of the game “hey, I want to go KJF this game,” then it’s very, very difficult to make it work unless you go all in. This means things like stacking Buryatia with 6 inf on R1, moving 2 inf into Sinkiang, and basing fighters in Kazakh to up the threat to Manchuria; building an India complex UK1; consolidating UK fleet in SZ 30, or taking Borneo, on UK 1; and either building a Sinkiang IC and spending the rest of America’s paycheck in the Pacific, or skipping Sin and going full bore on the boats. If you only do one or two of these, Japan can easily squash them, but with all together it can be too much for them to handle.
I should add the disclaimer that I’ve never successfully won a game this way, nor has anyone beaten me with this tactic. I know some players have been able to make it work, but it’s awfully difficult. You can contain Japan’s Asia expansion, but sinking their navy tends to take a while (unless they defend poorly), and Russia just can’t hold out long enough against a good German player without American assistance (and with only half-hearted UK assistance if they build the India factory).
Being that I won with KJF alot, I’ll comment.
My version does indeed start with USSR invading manchuria. adding troops in India, and massing the UK/USA fleet at Solomons.
It is difficult for the USA, by itself, to handle the Japanese fleet quickly enough. Which is why you move the UK fleet south, then towards NZ. The USA fleet moves to solomons USA2, followed by the UK fleet on UK3.
The additional sub, transports DD, and carrier (which can be filled with 1 or 2 USA fighters) allows for the defensive power to defend against a J3 attack. (even if it didnt, a screen works).
The dual fleets allow for faster taking of islands (and India protection).
The UK must still send troops towards Norway (along with USA) so what you are giving up (for the forseeable future) is Africa. After Borneo/DEI is taken, and India preserved, the UK can go to africa while the USA continues to punish Japan.
Is it exactly easy? No.
But it does work.
-
Squire,
Do you take Norway immediately with UK, or would you try for a USA factory there?
Agree with your contention UK’s priority (besides India) should be propping up Moscow as long as possible rather than taking Africa. USA/UK can always go after Africa in force starting Turn 3.
-
Squire,
Do you take Norway immediately with UK, or would you try for a USA factory there?
Agree with your contention UK’s priority (besides India) should be propping up Moscow as long as possible rather than taking Africa. USA/UK can always go after Africa in force starting Turn 3.
That depends on how much pressure Germany is getting. Immediate pressure means that you land with UK. Preferrably I’d like Russia to take Norway.
Since they are 1v1 vs Germany (mostly) I want them to have every dollar they can get. UK takes Karelia, and USSR drives a tank through and gets the 3 IPC.
However, when you cant afford to wait, take it with whatever country can.
-
We are drifting way off topic here, but I have another KJF related problem. So lets say I built India and decided to combine the UK fleet at SZ 30…. I tried this the other day…and was surprised when my opponent brought 4 fighters there by moving the 2nd carrier to SZ 38. In all liklihood the Japs will then destroy the UK fleet (unless u land the India fighter there, but that would mean omitting the Jap tranny at 59 and thus forsaking India or Bury!)
So what do you do to prevent this? Is this an acceptable sacrifice since it brings the Jap fleet so far off course?
I’m a little fuzzy on the rules on a related question…if you attacked New Guinea with the Aussie tranny…would this block the carrier (and hence the 2 extra figs) or can the Japs snipe the fighter and then friendly move the carrier to 38?
-
We are drifting way off topic here, but I have another KJF related problem. So lets say I built India and decided to combine the UK fleet at SZ 30…. I tried this the other day…and was surprised when my opponent brought 4 fighters there by moving the 2nd carrier to SZ 38. In all liklihood the Japs will then destroy the UK fleet (unless u land the India fighter there, but that would mean omitting the Jap tranny at 59 and thus forsaking India or Bury!)
So what do you do to prevent this? Is this an acceptable sacrifice since it brings the Jap fleet so far off course?
I’m a little fuzzy on the rules on a related question…if you attacked New Guinea with the Aussie tranny…would this block the carrier (and hence the 2 extra figs) or can the Japs snipe the fighter and then friendly move the carrier to 38?
Attacking the fleet in SZ 30 will bring the Japanese way off course.
Did they still attack China? Pearl?They should be pretty weak then. If they allow the USA fleet to live, you get a better head start.
Suggested Topics
