Wrote a document a while ago regarding changes between 1942 Online and board game. 41 pages long, though I ended up cutting it short.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

The development team needs to go in and test rulebook implementation line by line. There are just loads and loads of little things all over the place that I didn’t even get to in that document.

My impression is there’s a real possibility 1942 Online is only ever going to be a compromised version of the board game.

==

On another note, I started writing an AI for Axis and Allies. Which is fun for me, so there’s that at least.

@djensen said in Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy:

It definitely speeds up the game. I feel like timed tournaments should move to this as well.

Can’t agree - whether this is regarding getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy, or whether this is regarding buying and deploying at end of round.

The speeding up, sure. Personally I’d favor allowing purchase phase after combat movement.

But purchasing after combat means a player knows outcomes of battles. The game then becomes less about risk management and more a simple optimization exercise.

As to getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy - I can’t really favor it. Had a game in which UK player ideally would wipe out a German fleet by buying a carrier to create a legal landing zone for additional fighters. By board game rules, the UK player would have to have placed the carrier, then the carrier could easily be wiped on the German player’s turn (they had plenty of air force). But by 1942 Online rules, the UK player didn’t even have to place the carrier; they could buy the carrier to create a potential landing zone, then not place the carrier, never giving Germany an odds-on attack against a poorly defended 14 IPC unit.

1942 Online has a load of changes to the board game - non-use of allied transports and carriers, floating fighters when defending carriers destroyed, submarines can’t be ignored, blitzes are automated and can’t be opted out from, sea unit movement, just this big list. I wish I could say I thought the changes improvements, but I confess to being disappointed.

Discussing moderation of Steam forums is against Steam forum guidelines. But I do want to point out when I wrote recently that the 1942 Online developers need to read up on certain issues, that’s not a “personal attack”. If a teacher tells a student they haven’t done the homework when the student hasn’t done the homework it’s not a personal attack.

Especially when it’s been a few months and the student still doesn’t know what the assignment is.

Literally, how can the developers address an issue if they don’t understand the issue, if they don’t acknowledge the issue, and if they give every sign they don’t even know the issue exists, despite it being written out time and again in short and long versions by different posters over and over again for months at a time?

I’m just saying right? I’m sure some people feel they’re trying very hard, but it’s at the point they need to either acknowledge they’re in over their heads on some matters (which happens, it’s not their fault if they don’t have a huge budget) OR they need to seriously get some work done.

I mean hey. I’ve always said on Steam forums things happen, limited budgets, sure. But the developers never acknowledge there’s even any possibility of there being limited functionality or limited budget or anything. They just ignore issues or play them off as being non-issues or whatever.

Like lack of simultaneous defender decisions, casualty assignation after like-valued dice instead of end of subphase - these are changes to the game.

And even for use of allied carriers, it was played off as a total non-issue “it’s the same for both sides” until I wrote this

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

It’s NOT the same for both sides. But I don’t expect that I need to write fifty pages of documentation to back up each and EVERY point I make (though God knows, I’ve written a LOT on Steam forums)

Anyways players should know - if you don’t care about a load of gameplay compromises and the developers trying to play things off with total denial games, then yeah, go ahead and get 1942 Online.

But otherwise? TripleA has a game state editor, chat, undo, and better UI in terms of presenting information to the user in terms of how many of what are on the board. AND TripleA doesn’t have developers characterizing LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS as “personal attacks”.

Board gaming and miniature wargaming aren’t really two distinct categories. You could have a board game with loads of expansions, added rules, and supplementary miniatures. Or you could have a miniature game with collectible factory-painted miniatures with one simple ruleset.

Cost and equipment vary per game, as does ease of finding players. It’s not like if it’s generally popular nationwide you’ll be able to find a game. It tends to work in clusters - in one area one particular game will be all over the place and in the surrounding towns too, but you drive a few hours in any direction and that particular game’s nowhere to be seen.

I don’t know that I would say there’s really differences. You get together, you do the thing, players tend not to be really strategic or tactical, it’s a casual thing. Maybe ordering takeout or watching a sports game on TV or talking or whatever.

I’m interested in the full records. Particularly the W Rus strafe reasoning and aftermath. Was it a retreat into Karelia? If yes, no need for further explanation on that count, though I’m still curious about the exact distributions, attack roll results, and defender decisions, esp. as 42.3 is Larry Harris setup right? and Germany took the bomber as an early casualty at Ukraine it seems?

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’d hardly call Russia buying INF all game and turtling in Moscow “correct play” in 1942.3, but to each his own. I have no tournament experience in this version but I imagine a marginally more aggressive Russia build (at least 1 Tank bought every few rounds) would yield better results.

Well I mean three Russian fighters seems like a super luxury to me, but as far as 8 infantry goes at least on the first turn, I’m not sure I’d really say that’s passive. The way I figure it, Russia needs casualty count and infantry are what you put out. Germany has this big logistics problem getting stuff to the front. So you build more infantry, you trade with fighters and artillery, you keep building infantry, you do strafes and stuff, more infantry keeps your unit count healthy while Germany feeds into it.

But infantry ALL game, I don’t know. Like, I think I would stick some artillery in there if I had infantry stacks, maybe not R1 or R2 or even R3 but . . . all game, all infantry? I mean, I could see it in some games but I’d want to see a game record to see how that all played out.

Isn’t that an exaggeration after all? I mean if you had three Russian fighters, didn’t you have to buy one? Or does patch 42.3 change that up or something? I don’t know.

“The UK traded a stack of tanks to fend off the german ones coming out of africa” - really, German had a stack of tanks in Africa? Is that normal? I don’t think I would expect it.

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’m interested in seeing one of your replay files if Germany is killing your USSR by only building Tanks and Strat Bombers in 42.3. Doesn’t seem like very cost-efficient trading to me.

Well German tanks repositioning can be really nasty. But still.

Also I’m thinking about the effects of tournament rules, what with timers and things. So if the Axis just contain 7 VCs then they win? How do games usually go on time? To the end with 9 Axis or 10 Allied VCs?

Because the tournament thing is pretty big imo. It’s like okay if Moscow is threatened normally maybe you pull out of India but if it’s a battle for 7 VCs before time’s called that’s less an option.

(edit - After having played more and read some old posts by Hobbes, I agree 8 inf is not the way to go in the now-implemented LHTR setup. If you have a good successful Ukraine strafe and retreat to Caucasus and everything goes right, then 8 inf can work. But if Ukraine doesn’t go well or if Russia captures Ukraine, then Russia loses a chunk of its attack power on R1 or G1 respectively. Then Russia can’t really punish German incursion especially with Japanese fighter reinforcement.)

@Panther: That’s very interesting. I’d been using the FAQ dated September 3, 2014 at

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA1942_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf

but apparently there’s a more recent version dated November 24, 2014 at

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

You are, of course, quite correct. The software should prevent overbuying, and players should have to mobilize all units purchased.

My statement, based on the old FAQ, was incorrect.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog Players are not supposed to be able to voluntarily not place units then get a refund for any non-placed units.

@SniperSquad said in Have you ever done miniature wargaming?:

Thanks for the both of you.

That’s what I was thinking. Miniatures games are mostly tactical and board games mostly operational or strategical. I have more experience in strategic games but I am also interested to learn the tactical ones.

Do you know if one of those types of games can be played more often as solo games?

You can always play both sides or make custom scenarios. But I think you knew that.

The real question is, what do you want from your game experience, specifically? You don’t have to answer that question to me or anyone else. But in your mind, you’re playing a game solo. Where are you? Do you have reliable, sporadic, or nonexistent internet connectivity? Why are you playing a physical boardgame rather than a computer game (say, Hearts of Iron IV against the AI, available on Steam?) Is the physical representation of the model important to you? If weighting historical accuracy of a model against its breaking, which do you emphasize? Are you interested in painting your own pieces? Is it the historical aspect of World War 2 you’re interested in, or miniatures? What about fantasy miniature wargames like Warmachine or Warhammer? (I don’t recommend the latter’s rules or paints but their miniatures are nice).

@Witt said in 1 fighter vs 1 AAA - what happens?:

@aardvarkpepper the AAA fires first . If it hits , it survives. If it fails to roll a 1, then Combat begins and the Ft kills it automatically, as the AAA has no defence roll.

That’s what I thought up until about a week ago when a question came up in another forum and I looked it up. A literal reading of the rules is the AAA and fighter CAN destroy each other because of the “automatically destroyed” special rule.

What I’m asking is if anyone knows of a specific official rules reference that I missed.

This is a 1942 2nd edition question - but the RESOLUTION affects 1942 Online, which is why I want the literal and correct rule. Julius Borosov recently wrote that the AAA gets destroyed and never even fires on the fighter.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/2845669419715663297/

Well, even if we do get a pretty strong consensus on how the 1942.2 board game works, the developers of 1942 Online may still well not change anything, but I still want to know for my own reference for when I play on TripleA or IRL or whatever.

@djensen said in Feature suggestion: dice rage quit prevention:

Or a calming quote might work too.

==

I find that quote very calming.

VERY CALMING.

==

No, the quote was more a joke on how after the computer screws you with bad dice, it asks you condescendingly if you’re sure you want to quit.

Yes I want to quit you **** computer, why do you think I am pressing this button with a mad gleam in my eye?

==

But jokes aside - I think saying directly to the player that the program is sorry for bad dice is counter-intuitive, because it’s the program that gave the bad dice in the first place. If the program were REALLY sorry it would give better dice, or maybe have a Low-Luck option or something right?

Maybe some quotes from history would prove apt.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/luck

“I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it”
― Thomas Jefferson

“You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don’t help.”
― Bill Watterson

“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
― Terry Pratchett, Mort

“Oh, I am fortune’s fool!”
― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

etc. etc.

Nice video. Had the piece and type counts for each nation, a United States of America dime to show scale on pieces on the piece closeups, edited so the presentation’s pretty sharp, doesn’t waste any viewer time.

Few comments:

1. There’s errata and clarifications at

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

2. The rulebook looks nice but is terribly organized. (The .pdf I’m looking at anyways).

3. Four Russian battleships is probably way more than anyone ever needs, and two German and two UK carriers could be on the light side in some games. Same can be said for a lot of other pieces, too much or too little. Time was when I’d buy two sets of any Axis and Allies release to make sure I had enough pieces. Usually ran short on Japanese infantry; I think this version requires 15 of 20 for initial setup, then once you start pushing Asia and/or splitting to Africa, Australia, Alaska, well. I suppose I’d feel weird if I didn’t run short on Japanese infantry in an Axis and Allies game though, so eh.

These days I guess historicalboardgaming.com has official pieces so I don’t even have to buy two board game sets. Also has paper money which is nice. Haven’t ordered from them personally though.

4. Plastic bags and a single box of the small dice as shown are really the minimum, good thing you mentioned picking those up. No way do you want a bunch of loose pieces banging around in the box, that’s just a nightmare to sort through, and trying to roll for a hundred unit battle with just six dice, ugh.

Other useful things - separate chips (often the board game runs short), different colored dice (so you can roll attacking carriers, subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers all at the same time, say), and cheap fishing tackle boxes - wee cheap ones with removable inserts (so you can fit the larger miniatures).

I expect probably you know all that and didn’t want the video to be overcomplicated. Still thought I’d mention 'em just in case.

Remove rolls and make game 100% deterministic, but randomize board setups.

The complaint then becomes that randomized board setup was unfair. So something would have to be implemented to handle that.

Some players will object to randomized setup on grounds of historical accuracy, but I figure A&A is already demonstrably not historically accurate (if it were, Allies would always win) so eh.

As to bombing / AA guns, if value >=1 then hit; fractions are saved between combats. Can save fractions of other combats too, naval bombardments, submarine surprise attacks all separate.

Last post for reals? For this subject for a while anyways? Hm . . . I’ll see how I feel at the end of this post.

USSR. Stack building/bleeding is fundamental. You can do multinational defense, but only one nation can attack at a time. What does that mean in practical terms? If Germany walks up to USSR and USSR wants to push Germany off, USSR needs a lot of power to do it, especially if Japanese fighters reinforced, which they can and really often should do even against KJF.

So what happens if USSR is sending a chunk of its power to east Asia? Those units are way out of position to push off any German pressure, and even if they turn around and head home immediately, they still used valuable turns just moving around. Some players like to claim you can “feint” or other clever-sounding phrases, but the fact is, out of position means out of position; your opponent can clearly see when you’re out of position and should play appropriately.

So when USSR sends stuff at Japan, it should be with the realization that it’s a big commitment, it’s a big problem for USSR. It might not SEEM like four or five infantry is a big deal, but think about what happens if you position seven infantry in the north and one or two infantry in China. That’s nine infantry, that’s 27 IPCs. If you lost all of northeast Asia, it’ll take how long for that to add up to 27 IPCs? A long time.

And if you put up a “token resistance” that’s often just silly. Japan wants to trample USSR anyways, all you do is stick a valuable 3-IPC unit where Japan probably has an odds-on attack to destroy it with no losses and take control of the territory anyways. Japan doesn’t even need to go out of its way, it just grabs the unexpected bonus and rolls on.

But then you look at all the problems KJF faces, especially in the 1942 Online implementation, and think “I need something extra”.

But remember again - the more USSR sends east, the less it has west, the earlier USSR in Europe collapses. It’s not enough that USSR units can race home and reach Russia right before Germany hits. If USSR units were pushed west instead of east, they could deter Germany from even advancing in the first place, without that deterrent Germany can come on fast and hard.

The takeaway here is - if USSR is bleeding out its Europe stack to push Asia, there had better be a real nice reward in there, and regardless USSR’s push can only be temporary - USSR just doesn’t have the time to use a chunk of its forces to mess about unless the Axis are wildly incompetent. Which I suppose you could say usually they are in the 1942 Online meta but still.

By extension, if you’re using just slow infantry then you’re not going to be able to redirect at speed at all. Your infantry will be trudging home after having trudged deep into east Asia and will be totally too late to do anything useful in all likelihood.

So if you want to push KJF, there’s two things to remember for USSR that you don’t need so much in KGF - tanks and bombers.

Yes, USSR tanks, you can use against Karelia, it’s a whole thing. But you need infantry/artillery for unit count and to threaten the big strafe - you hit a German territory, deplete its infantry, move your infantry up. Germany lost infantry, you lost infantry, but Germany can’t really just pull more infantry out of its pocket, it takes a long time to march up. Your infantry, on the other hand, basically just rolled out of bed into action. So then when Germany hits, its infantry shield is a lot weaker, it can’t shield its tanks, it gets messy. If you do USSR tanks, you have much better flexibility but you lose out on raw hitting power for the strafe, and that’s why if you’re greedy and think you can get away with it, you push USSR infantry/artillery as a rule and tanks only situationally.

But USSR tanks in KJF are much different. The application probably isn’t just that you’re trying some sort of counterthreat against Karelia and/or Ukraine. Centrally located tanks along with a small infantry contingent and a bit of air coverage can be a big headache for Axis to deal with.

Imagine you have two tanks on a West Russia stack. You defend West Russia - but you also also threaten Kazakh if Japan tries to push and hold. Imagine now you have six infantry on Russia that can hit Kazakh. Say you can use those six infantry and two tanks to hit and weather any Japanese counter. But then, you need six infantry ready at Russia, which means they’re not at West Russia, which means USSR is splitting its forces.

But now imagine you have four tanks on West Russia and two infantry on Russia. Your defense on West Russia is stronger, as are your potential attacks against nearby European territories. Your ability to hit and hold against Kazakh is reduced. And you might think that’s a tradeoff that means it isn’t so great. But not quite.

If you correctly understand and apply stack building and bleeding you’ll remember - you can only use one nation to attack at a time, but multiple nations can defend. So what seems to be a worse position at Kazakh isn’t necessarily so, as UK can reinforce USSR’s position.

I think even newer players should understand that Germany’s tanks are valuable to Germany, especially against KGF. But in KJF, USSR tanks assume similar importance. They are very very good for threatening multiple theaters while also defending and it’s that threat range along with allied reinforcements that make USSR tanks really very good.

So does that mean you should hit West Russia/Ukraine sending only 2 USSR tanks to Ukraine? Or that you should retreat from Ukraine under some conditions?

I could run some numbers and projections but eh, I’m taking a break. But remember, USSR being able to reposition quickly is worth a lot in KJF.

OK so, broad strokes now.

The big problem with KJF, which 1942 Online’s altered gameplay made a lot worse, is it’s slow. I pointed out in the other thread there’s a lot of issues, UK fighters not being able to use US carriers is pretty obvious but there’s other differences like inability to use allied transports, no live defender decisions, and even improper casualty assignation (not to mention bugs) that make KJF really very ugly in 1942 Online.

But if you’re determined to KJF, so be it. But then you have to realize if you can’t use the normal UK ways to speed US’s progress, what can UK do? Some of those things I mentioned, like UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet with double safeties. But basically - you have to leverage UK’s income to hitting Japan, whatever you do you want to use fighters as you can use fighters to defend Russia in a pinch, or if you manage to chase off Japan’s navy and start taking money islands and things and don’t need fighters in the area.

So that’s one big piece of the puzzle - getting UK being able to pressure Japan effectively. It is not enough that UK just throw income into the area, the income has to be applied in an effective way that improves US’s timings and doesn’t really sacrifice USSR’s defense, and as you might imagine that’s not going to be so easy. USSR can maybe fill in for a pinch, but a lot of it’s up to UK. It’s not that you’re limited to trying to build an India fleet or attack Japan’s East Indies fleet, for example Imperious Leader is a fan of the UK Egypt IC (I am not) but regardless if you want to KJF you need some way to make UK effective instead of just being herded around by Japan.

The other big piece of the puzzle is US action. Either you try to push in from Alaska or Solomons.

Whichever you do, you have to walk into the teeth of any Japan potential attack. They can possibly have a lot of very nasty stuff if they built subs in advance. So your defense will have to be very strong. Again, you’ll need destroyers to hunt subs and for fodder, carriers and fighters for defense (and also because fighters are flexible), and you have to be very very aware of what the Axis can do, not just in Pacific but also in Europe. If you dump a load into defensive fleet and try to play things safe for a while by staying out of Japan’s reach, Japan can dump a load of reactive subs (you weren’t in range so couldn’t punish the build), then while you’re trying to build your Fleet O’ Doom, Japan just continues beating down Asia, Germany beats down Europe, then the Axis win. Sometimes you may have to take a less than 50% chance, but if you don’t take the chance when you can, the odds will just get worse.

Lost games are usually not a matter of “there was nothing (I) could do”. It’s usually there was something you could do, but it carried some obvious risks that you wanted to avoid, so you didn’t do those things, the situation deteriorated, then you really lost.

Alaska - the “theoretical” advantage is you need only one transport fleet. With KGF you need two transport fleets; full transports go from East Canada to France, NW Europe, Finland, or Norway, empty transports return. With KJF, you can offload from Alaska to northeast Asia every turn. But the problem is northeast Asia is far from Russia, far from the action, and you have to fight Japan off.

So you try to chase Japan’s fleet away from being able to threaten US’s fleet, then you dump infantry and tanks that walked up from West US to Alaska into Asia. I’m well aware tanks are horribly expensive. But even a very bad Japan player should be able to stall you out for a long time, and you will need tanks to emergency-reinforce Russia. You might get away with infantry and a few artillery, but if the situation looks close, you have to think about tanks; cheaper than fighters and a bit slower but they do still cover a good bit of ground.

The nice thing about pushing from Alaska is sure, Japan can deal with the push, but Japan can’t really deal with the Alaska push while also attending to India too well. It’s taken for granted that you’re interdicting the sea zones around Japan, also it’s taken for granted that you can really push the issue. If Japan wants to build navy it has to abandon its Yunnan drops which gives India some breathing room. It’s not like the Allies found this big vulnerability though; Japan can put a big defense on Yunnan’s sea zone, shift off Yunnan to capture India, then return to try to push US off northeast Asia - assuming Japan even bothers, which it might not, as Japan will be grabbing Africa income, trying to beat down Russia, and Japan’s well aware that it can let US press; if the Axis crack Moscow then the Axis can likely push US off any gains it managed to get.

For Solomon Islands, then you threaten Philippine Islands and Borneo. Problem there is you’re stuck out in the middle of nowhere, Japan sees you coming a long ways off, builds some subs, moves subs into position, then you have to walk into the face of Japan’s awesome firepower. You don’t really interdict Japan’s sea zones, Japan has loads of time to prepare. Once you get going, you can build an industrial complex so you can dump navy/air right on the spot, that improves your timing, but two US island ICs is usually kind of pointless while the game’s still contested. If you’re clearly winning then okay, you use multiple US ICs to dump mass ground to Asia, sure. But if the game’s outcome still isn’t clear, you use one IC to dump 3-4 air/navy, and that’s all US’s money anyways. If you want to leverage quick gains, you need UK to apply its income.

Anyways with Solomon Islands, US has multiple threats, and there’s different ways it can play out. Ideally US just walks up to a high-IPC island, captures it, Japan can’t do anything, then US builds an IC, Japan still can’t do anything, then US drops production on the spot and just rampages. But that’s the dream world scenario.

Some differences to Alaska. US doesn’t interdict Japan’s sea zones for a long time, if ever. If the board situation’s okay you can do Iwo Jima push then transpose to Solomon Islands or something like that, but the issue just isn’t forced the same way it is with Alaska. Also where Alaska pulls Japan from India, pushing through Solomons doesn’t really impede Japan at all. Japan still whacks northeast Asia then consolidates and starts dropping to Yunnan then pushes India. If you get close, Japan beats you off then continues what you’re doing, if you wait for lots of backup, you might “chase” Japan off but if Japan captured India in the process Japan has a springboard to Africa income, can still pressure USSR, and probably held US off for quite a long time in Pacific. Japan might not even care if US starts grabbing high IPC islands and the coast; so long as Japan doesn’t fight a losing stack battle and has some income and India, it can come back whenever it wants - it just might not want to bother because if Germany grabs Russia then the Axis have a really good looking game.

Again, you need something “extra” more than what US can provide, and it really comes down to UK.

So this post covered US’s moves (broadly). Some of UK’s options I got into in previous posts in this thread; basically UK has to look for opportunities to stick a wedge in and start prying - and sometimes you just have to take a chance that the Axis player is going to miss the best response.

I mentioned USSR briefly mentioning bomber and tank usage. I suppose as long as I covered other stuff, might as well go on with USSR a bit more too. Sooo one more post.

OK last post in this series. I wrote a lot, but I want to be very clear I’m not even trying to do some sort of comprehensive post. I’m just sketching out some of the details, there’s a lot of stuff I’m not getting into. (Like what? Like R1 W Rus attack into retreat into Karelia combined with R1 Baltic sea attack. Detailed use of R1 bomber builds. Probably other stuff.)

I intend only to give a few examples of some of the major concepts, not just here, but any time I post. I provide a few examples, a few details, but leave it at that. Anyone that wants to inquire further can ask - though I won’t just run projections for someone that doesn’t want to be bothered to do the work for themselves.

Anyways, there’s a bunch of flavors of KJF, and you can combine different flavors to get funny little animals. First I’ll write about some of the general stuff, then I’ll get into some of the flavors, then you can build your own funny little animal and see how it acts.

General pointers

1. “Core” US fleet is at least two destroyers, two carriers, four fighters. Why? Even if Japan’s East Indies fleet is blown up, you still have to fight battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, cruiser, four fighters, bomber, and that’s if Japan builds absolutely nothing even after seeing a US1 Pacific fleet drop.

Expanding on that core, probably you want to position a carrier off West US permanently - why? Because if you put fighters on West US, they have very limited range to anywhere useful. But compare if you put fighters on the sea zone adjacent to West US. It’s just one sea zone but you get loads and loads more range. It costs you 14 IPCs to park a carrier, but the benefits on timing are VERY big.

You also probably want more destroyers. You have to push into the Pacific, Japan can run circles around your fleet if you don’t have destroyers to hunt submarines, and destroyers are also the cheapest surface warship (so can be used to block enemy fleet movement). If Germany screws up and doesn’t send a bomber to Asia to blow up blockers you can pick up a lot of nice options with fleet blocking. But even if Germany doesn’t screw up, you still want destroyers, and a good chunk of them.

Finally, you may want some submarines. Understand, it’s very different when Japan builds submarines and US builds submarines. Superficially, some players think “oh, if Japan builds submarines and they’re amazing, then it’s about naval warfare and US should build submarines”. but actually subs are good for Japan because Japan plays defense, while subs are bad for US because Japan plays offense.

What? Subs are offensive! Yeah I know, just follow along. Japan doesn’t have to move its fleet towards US; Japan’s navy can just sit off Yunnan, wait for US to walk up, then Japan can hit with submarines and whatever else. It’s because Japan can sit and wait that Japan gets the first hit.

But US can’t wait for Japan to walk up to US’s fleet, because Japan just doesn’t have to. Japan can just sit and keep dumping units to Asia while USSR gets overrun. US has to force the issue. So US has to send its fleet into the teeth of Japan’s navy, which means though US is pressing inwards “offensively”, actually US needs a very robust defense.

There’s still something to be said for US subs. They’re cheap, they can sometimes pressure Japan, but your core is destroyers and carriers, because those are the cheapest way to stop most of the fun games Japan can run on you. Just as Japan’s core is subs and air, because those are the cheapest way for it to do what it wants.

OK, so why carriers? Why not battleships or cruisers? Battleships increase the risk profile on naval engagements, but do not perform well for cost and are not tactically flexible. Cruisers the same. Both do have the unique advantage of being able to coastal bombard, which is useful for stack reduction, but you only need that after you’ve essentially won anyways. While the game is still contested, you want destroyers (for reasons already mentioned), perhaps a couple subs, and a carriers/fighters.

Especially for carriers it’s not just a matter of raw defensive strength, you can do a lot of stuff that improves US timings, and further, fighters can fly onto land territories to help defend. Cruisers and battleships cannot.

Example? Say you have fighters on West US sea zone. More fighters on carriers in Pacific. You can fly the Pacific fighters to Asia to reinforce, you can fly the fighters on West US sea zone to the carriers, then your carriers are still defended and you have fighters in Asia. If you have a load of battleships/cruisers instead, any new fighters have to go island hopping and that really takes forever.

Anyways remember the core US fleet - two destroyers, two carriers, two fighters. You can have more, but if you don’t have at least that much, Japan can mess you up with minimal investment. You can get away with less if Japan is bad but you can’t count on it.

2. You’ll likely want UK fighters and a UK bomber. If Germany hit Trans-Jordan then probably your UK bomber dies when you hit the battleship/transport (if not immediately, then on Germany’s counter as UK bomber has to land on Egypt which Germany should be able to smash).

UK fighters can threaten Japan then fly to Russia to defend. A UK bomber can even hit targets in Africa while not needing to spend valuable time repositioning. Especially for a UK bomber, you have to figure US will have all it can handle trying to build a defensive Pacific fleet. US starts with a bomber, but if there’s ever going to be any serious bomber threat, it won’t be US that should build it.

1942 Online’s rules changes mean KJF UK air is really crippled in comparison to the board game, but that’s just how it is. If you try to push UK navy in Atlantic, you’re betting the Axis won’t respond properly in Atlantic at all. It’s a gamble if you can get KJF to work, but UK air/ground won’t just leave you stranded the way UK Atlantic navy will if the Axis play properly, you’ll always have some sort of counterplay.

You can gamble on Axis screwing up their response, you can be greedy and build an Atlantic navy, if the Axis screw up badly then awesome, you get cost-effective UK ground into Europe. But it is a gamble.

3. USSR bomber. This has specific applications in KJF that simply don’t apply in KGF at all. In KGF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack to fend off Germany’s main stack, you know UK and US will pile in, you want to build on the advantages you have. In KJF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack in Europe again, and it’s counterintuitive that you want to cut unit count in Europe to build a bomber, which is lousy on defense, costs as much as four infantry, and bleah.

But the difference is in KGF, USSR building only ground plays to USSR’s strengths and against Germany’s weakness (such as it is). But in KJF, USSR building only ground means USSR just can’t threaten Japan at all. Even USSR fighters are very awkward; they can hit Japan ground units that pressed in towards USSR, but they can’t push outwards against Asia without USSR giving up position in Europe. Only a USSR bomber has the range to threaten targets in Europe and Asia, which turns USSR’s infantry that are retreating in northeast Asia into units that can actually turn around and maybe fight as they now have air coverage. Then too, as with if UK sent a bomber to Asia, Japan’s options are more restricted as it can’t just leave lightly defended or undefended ships - it has to think about its fleets being picked off, and it’s likely a USSR bomber can get into good position much faster than UK or US.

The point I’m making is NOT that you should build a USSR bomber (you really don’t have to). The point is plays that aren’t even worth considering in KGF can work in KJF. Brute force is always a consideration, but flexibility and playing properly are much more factors. Particularly, USSR may want to deliberately build tanks and use them quite differently than if it were doing KGF.

End of general pointers.

Now some “flavors”. You might see some of these, or none of these, or something. Not trying to be comprehensive, just trying to give you some idea of what can happen.

USSR does W Rus only. This frees up USSR fighters to threaten Asia, or even to fortify Buryatia. Be warned this is HORRIBLE for USSR in a lot of ways as it means they just don’t have the power to threaten any early German push, and USSR can’t just recover as USSR committing its units east is not something that can just be changed; it takes a long time for USSR to retreat. Worst case scenario, Japan puts in a couple units and chases USSR’s stack all the way back to Russia; if USSR stays then Japan crushes USSR’s small stack with its ground and massive air; if USSR runs then Japan eats territory, if USSR fights then Japan shrugs then dumps another small ground force, meanwhile Germany rampages in the east. But if you DO want to do a heavy commit to KJF, this is how you do it, and you frankly can’t do with less if you want to fortify Buryatia as if you don’t have 5 infantry 3 fighters and the Kwangtung transport dead then Japan can just blow Buryatia up. (3 fighters = 2 USSR fighters and 1 UK fighter; this means a lot of other issues - you really won’t have odds to hit Japan’s East Indies fleet and hitting Germany’s Med battleship transport if they hit Trans-Jordan is risky with 1 fighter 1 bomber but that’s just how it is. You compensate by playing differently, or you take risks, things go as they go. You can use UK fighters to reinforce West Russia, you can use US to dump to French West Africa, there are options. Anyways, this is the line you use if you want to try something that maybe your opponent hasn’t seen, if they panic and mess up a bit then you’re okay. If your opponent calmly just presses with Germany and defends with Japan it can be very bad, but that’s the chance you take.

Another W Rus only open has USSR fighter reinforcing Egypt. If you do W Rus only then German bomber survives, then G1 against Egypt with the German bomber is one of those high-risk battles; if Germany wins then great for Germany but if not then possibly very bad for Germany, and there’s not really an in-between. But if you want to make Egypt “safe”, parking a USSR fighter on really makes Egypt an unappealing target, just way too risky.

W Rus / Ukr, you try to whack the German bomber. The bomber is the prize. Bomber bomber bomber. Depending on how things go, you may want to retreat from Ukraine, not because you’re losing, but surprisingly when you’re winning. Whatever you claim Ukraine with will be wiped out on Germany’s turn if the Axis player is worth anything and has normal-ish dice. So if you have a load of USSR ground units, especially if you’re going in with 3 tanks, and there’s just a single German fighter, then you have to think about retreating. A German bomber can really be a problem, but a fighter not so much - and if you’re worried about UK Atlantic navy remember Japan can smash UK’s Atlantic navy regardless. If you’re worried about Germany fortifying Ukraine early, let them, you have a load of tanks and a West Russia stack that can hit at either Karelia or Ukraine; likely Germany can’t defend both. It’s not GREAT if Germany locks USSR out of Ukraine income early, but USSR tanks are really tremendously useful in KJF, you really do NOT want to give up their flexibility unless there’s a nice fat prize (coughGermanbomber)

UK East Indies IC. UK rolls the dice, tries to whack the Japanese East Indies fleet AND claim East Indies. The greed is enormous, the odds are not great for UK winning both, but if it happens Japan’s in a tough spot. If UK captures East Indies Japan may not be in a position to recapture immediately with odds; if Japan doesn’t recapture immediately UK can build an IC, Allies can land a fighter on, then UK has another spot besides India to produce units on that’s a forward position for US to land air on, opens up a load of possibilities.

UK East Indies, safety retreat option variation with India navy. UK takes a whack at Japan’s East Indies fleet; if lucky wipes Japan’s fleet and pops (additional) navy at India, if a bit unlucky retreats to India, if a lot unlucky then just too bad for Allies. What makes it even feasible is UK can pad its losses with its Australia units and UK’s main target is just the carrier. If the Japan carrier sinks, Japan can line up much less of a counter to India’s sea zone, then there’s a chance UK actually has a surface India fleet. If the dice REALLY suck for UK the second fallback is UK pops a fleet in at Atlantic and takes the chance that Japan won’t just send its air towards Europe to interdict UK’s navy. But if Germany has a load of units threatening Atlantic sea zones too, then maybe the Allies shouldn’t even try this.

UK East Indies suicide variation (just trying to wreck the Japan fleet) I covered in that other thread.

Iwo Jima already mentioned. Sometimes Japan just doesn’t play properly; not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet isn’t such an issue for Japan with 1942 Online’s alterations, but if Japan then also does not set up to counter any US push to Iwo Jima, then, uh, too bad for Japan. This especially can get interesting if Japan’s East Indies fleet died and/or UK has a surface fleet at India, it’s still awkward for Allies because of 1942 Online’s altered play but eh.

So I wrote a chunk then I realized hey, I didn’t even cover the basics, I just jumped straight to detail. So next post, (maybe that’ll be the last post) I’ll get into some of the basic theory and major lines.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

There’s a lot of things that should happen at a particular time that may not happen. Following is a list of what your opponent may be doing and why, and what you can do if they don’t do it.

The recommendations are not precise. There’s any number of things an opponent can do badly, so instead of trying to come up with loads and loads of scenarios I’m just briefly explaining what should happen with anti-KJF and why. From there, you can figure out what you might be able to do if your opponent botches their anti-KJF.

1. Depending on USSR moves and dice, sometimes the mathematics does support an Axis tank dash, and when properly executed under the correct conditions - typically with Germany capturing or severely weakening West Russia - you have to play accurately - probably meaning KGF - or you’ll probably lose.

If Germany scores loads of hits more than normal, you may be looking at an Axis tank dash game. In that case you had best not KJF, as you want the Atlantic supply chain, whether flying in fighters for quick reinforcement or using transports for slower but more cost-efficient land units.

Even if you planned to do a KJF when starting USSR’s turn, if the dice are bad you’d best change plans as much as you can.

2. Germany starts with infantry then switches to tanks. Watch German and Japanese air movement.

So there you are, USSR’s opening dice didn’t turn out horribly, you’re doing KJF. Nothing looks like it’ll be a problem, but then Axis start doing things with air that you didn’t expect, then you realize you’re losing.

A. Japanese air reinforcement of Europe. This is something you should see as a matter of routine in KGF, but it can happen even in KJF, and when it does, it can be a big problem.

Japan has a logistics/production issue in that its production at Tokyo is separated from the mainland and is limited to eight units. Also, Japan’s starting forces in Asia are severely lacking; Japan won’t be able to seriously challenge USSR’s stacks for quite a while (assuming USSR is at all competent).

Japan has two solutions to its issues. It can go air with excess income; late air builds catch up with earlier ground builds and can be used to fight in the Pacific against KJF or move to Europe to reinforce and threaten against KGF. OR Japan can build ICs and increase its production capacity to build stacks faster. Japan can also mix the solutions up a bit, moving from one to another as appropriate.

If you’re pushing KJF, especially if Japan built a Manchuria IC, Japanese air may be less an issue in Europe because Japan’s forces often get tied down defending Manchuria. If Japan’s fighters are in range of Manchuria, they can’t also be taking up position in Europe. But Japan can reverse its flow of land units out of Asia back towards the Asian coast, so any temporary Allied gains can be reversed. This is particularly the case if Japan invested in a Manchuria IC; if Japan had gone with transports then Japan will likely have pushed India (which has its share of issues for both sides). But if there’s a Manchuria IC, Japan will have ground units near Manchuria especially against KJF unless the Japan player is wholly incompetent.

Right, so what’s the issue? The issue is if UK tries to build an Atlantic fleet. If Japan builds a Manchuria IC, you might think Japan’s air is tied down to defense. But that’s not really the case. Japan can push its air to Europe, allow US to take control of Manchuria and push Japan’s fleet off. Any UK push to Europe is wholly stopped, whether because UK transports and escorts retreat temporarily from Japan’s air threat, or because UK persists and is likely destroyed by Germany and Japan’s air. Then Japan pulls its fighters back east and reverses its ground units out of Asia and reclaims its lost IC.

If your opponent is competent there isn’t anything you can do about it. If you bulk US’s naval and air power, then US’s will have less ground to try to sustain any hold in Manchuria; US can use fighters to defend but bulked Japanese ground plus massed Japanese air means US probably can’t hold (considering, again, that US built a load of fleet). If US does not bulk fleet, Japan keeps fighters in range of Pacific for a while and US can’t make any progress - then Japan can shift to Europe, then if UK bulked naval escorts then UK’s ground game is weak, if UK bulked transports then UK’s navy can be pushed off for a while, then Japan’s air can return to position. The problem is the Allies have to commit to builds and moves, and Japan can just do whatever reactively exploiting any openings, and there will be openings because Japan’s air can hit both naval and ground targets - and Japan has a logistic edge compared to the US when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Asia, and Germany has a logistic edge compared to UK when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Europe.

If your play is very sharp, and if your opponent is careless and/or bad, then you can exploit the situation by pressuring Manchuria with US while also using a UK navy to drop cost-efficient ground to Europe. If your opponent goes to pieces and basically loses their head (or if they didn’t know how to play efficiently in the first place) then they won’t defend either well, then you’ll win.

Note: Japan fighters reinforcing German ground pushes means Germany can push safely faster. Yes, if Japanese fighters go to Europe they won’t be around in the Pacific, but you always have to deal with the possibility that Japan reverses its flow of ground units after having helped Germany secure objectives. After Germany holds a territory for a turn, Germany can land its own fighters to reinforce.

B. German air reinforcement of Asia. As with Japanese air reinforcement of Europe, two purposes are served - helping Japan secure a territory after which Japan can land fighters to reinforce, and helping fend off Allied navy.

German fighters don’t have much range; pushing them to Asia leaves them out of threat range against targets in Europe for a couple turns and out of threat range against targets in Atlantic for much longer. German fighters also don’t have good range to hit targets in Pacific and can easily be avoided, especially as German fighters can’t land on German carriers.

German bombers are much better in a lot of ways - they can reposition quickly, can threaten multiple theaters, and have range to pick off targets in Pacific.

Unlike with Japan, Germany’s natural logistics do not support heavy air investment, it’s typically just more efficient for Germany to add to its existing cost-efficient ground stacks, starting with infantry, transitioning to tanks (rather than more costly fighters), and only at the very end transitioning to bombers immediately before a major stack battle. Germany producing air early goes against all that. But the benefits mean it is something you may well see, especially against KJF.

What you’ll have to watch out for is German fighters lurking near southeast Europe and possibly around Africa. Japan moves into Burma in force, Germany flies in fighters to reinforce, UK can’t push Japan off Burma, then Japan has secured Burma. Then Japan can land its own fighters on Burma, and securing Burma also gives bombers built on Tokyo range to India (as they can land on Burma).

You’ll also need to watch out for a German bomber in the area that can pick off any US destroyer blockers. If there’s no German air coverage, US can often hold off Japan’s entire fleet by parking a destroyer (or whatever surface warship) that blocks Japan’s movement. But German air coverage stops that.

If Germany doesn’t send air coverage in range of Asia against the KJF, then you can get away with trading Burma a lot and maybe something nice develops out of all the stuff the Axis can’t do anything about.

Returning to the beginning of this point, I mentioned Germany leads with infantry then transitions to tanks after, then I mentioned air. Why emphasize German ground? Germany’s starting stacks, logistics, and production all favor ground push. If Germany builds air, that can be an issue, and Germany can reasonably build one bomber as early as G1 and G2 with some advantages I won’t get into here. But if Germany builds early fighters and/or navy, Germany’s ground game just won’t be as strong (though note a Mediterranean carrier can result in positions in which Germany’s ground game is even superior, though again I won’t get into that here.) If Germany leads with infantry then pushes tanks, if Germany doesn’t screw up elsewhere, you could be in for big problems.

3. Germany in Africa.

Ideally Germany tries to rob UK’s IPCs in Africa and gain IPCs of its own. This cuts down on UK’s options, and increased German income feeds into its starting stack / production / logistics, which means problems for the Allies.

UK has some counterplay. The infantry at Union of South Africa can be used with air to try to destroy any early unsupported German tank push (which is particularly problematic). The map itself was changed from earlier editions so there’s a dead zone worth no IPCs south of Egypt, which slows Germany being able to pull income.

Then too there’s US counterplay. If US kept its East US transports (and there is reason to believe it may, I won’t get into that here, as always, ask if curious), then US can possibly drop units to French West Africa (not guaranteed to be safe, but it can happen), especially the early US tank again can help push off any early German push into Africa, then the slower-moving US ground can interfere with any later German ground push.

If Germany wants to deal with all that, it has options. It can move air to Africa (which especially with fighters means they need turns to move back and forth and won’t be able to help in Europe at all). Or Germany can dump a chunk of ground to Africa, in which case Germany’s pulling units out of Europe. So you can see how Germany pushing for Africa income actually makes Germany weaker in Europe for a while. It does take a while for Germany to push for income, then it takes a while for Germany’s opportunity costs in Europe to be offset, and that’s not necessarily easy for Germany. (I mentioned earlier Germany might build a bomber as early as G1 - simultaneous threats to Germany, Africa, undefended Allied transports off East Canada, and ability to transition to Asia to blow up destroyer blockers are just some of the benefits of an early German bomber, though there’s reasons not to build an early German bomber too.)

So what should you do, what should you watch out for? Make sure you move the Union of South Africa infantry north, try to have some UK airpower in the area to threaten any early German tank push, if it looks like Germany’s going to make some sort of commit to Africa, be aware of your options with US. If Germany didn’t blow up Egypt and dropped to Trans-Jordan, UK has decent odds to hit the German battleship with the bomber from London, the fighter from Egypt, and the fighter from the India fleet (this precludes attacking Japan’s East Indies fleet and reduces your odds on attacking Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer/transport but that can’t be helped).

The stuff you can exploit - if Germany pushes a load to Africa, you can sometimes cut that German mini-stack off. If it pushes to Persia, you can hit it with your UK stack on India or USSR units from Caucasus. Also, German units stranded in Africa can’t contribute to Germany’s key timings in Europe. You’ll still have to watch out, though, if you let Germany run around too long and you’re also bleeding out UK’s India stack trading with Japan, you can get situations in which Germany has a fat Africa stack that pushes Persia and the Allies just can’t do anything about it, then the Africa stack unites with Germany’s Europe stack and Germany sacks Russia.

BUT if Germany just drops a load to Africa for no good reason, remember to watch your UK stack at India. If you can strand the German Africa stack that’ll help.

4. Japan threatening Iwo Jima’s sea zone at end of J1

Well, really, “threatening the sea zone around Iwo Jima”. If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, that can’t normally be punished, especially against a competent player because they make sure they have units in range of Iwo Jima’s sea zone. But if Japan screws up and does not put a good chunk of units in range of Iwo Jima, and if Japan didn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, then you can possibly move US’s existing fleet to Iwo Jima’s sea zone. Possibly you build a carrier on US’s West Coast; using a carrier to “extend” the threat range of US’s fighters in the Pacific should be pretty bog-standard but I guess it’s a novelty to a lot of players in 1942 Online’s meta but whatever.

US carrier (and friends) to Iwo Jima’s sea zone - if safe - immediately interdicts the sea zones around Japan with destroyer and air units. This means Japan cannot just drop multiple submarines with impunity, nor can Japan skimp much on defense. If Japan wants to do stuff, it probably needs to keep its main fleet in the sea zone west of Japan. This means in turn that Japan will not be able to do J2-J3 drops to Yunnan, which in turn means pressure on India is relieved.

If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian fleet and doesn’t threaten Iwo Jima’s sea zone, it’s like a gift for KJF, but even then it’s not that you can “punish” Japan, it’s just that Japan has less good options and Allies can maybe snowball a bit. Especially if Japan’s East Indies fleet was destroyed.

5. Japan NOT going heavy subs

Japan should NOT go heavy on subs. Yes, if Japan sees a US1 Pacific fleet, Japan can build two submarines a turn then transition to bombers (which it wants to do for the India push anyways). But this is not the same as trying to build four plus subs a turn and, I don’t know, digging itself a grave.

Suppose Japan builds a load of subs. Then what? If Japan wants to take the battle to US in the Pacific, Japan has to move its air out of Asia (never mind Europe) into the Pacific. But key, if Japan wants to press the attack, Japan has to move into range of US’s fleet. Then US can smash Japan because subs aren’t great on defense at all. Yes, it’s not quite like that because Japan has a gigantic starting navy and air force, but mass submarines and trying to force the offensive in the Pacific just work against Japan’s natural interests; it shortens US’s logistics by walking right up to US’s doorstep, Japan can’t help in Europe, even if Japan wants to help in Europe later submarines aren’t multipurpose - it’s very bad.

So what happens if you try to use Japanese submarines defensively? US gets into range, then you whack 'em? The problem there is you just don’t need a load of defensive submarines especially with 1942 Online’s altered mechanics that cripple UK’s ability to contribute properly to a KJF. If Japan is careful, it only needs enough submarines to kick US in the face if US charges in, Japan’s submarines all die, US dies, then Japan takes its fighters and pushes Europe while US uselessly rebuilds.

If Japan builds mass submarines, okay, US charges in, Japan kicks it in the face even harder, then . . . the extra submarines do what? Nothing. And those extra submarines came at a cost. Less ground in Asia.

And what happens when you have less Japanese ground in Asia? Early on, USSR should be moving its units towards Europe, and UK should be preparing to defend India. But if Japan’s going nuts on submarines, USSR and UK don’t have to stay where they are (and really, they’d have to be rather silly to do that). Instead, USSR can think about greedily snatching Asian coast income which is normally out of the question, but if it can be secured is really nasty as it fuels USSR’s production in Europe and is a thorn Japan needs to deal with. Meanwhile UK can press in southeast Asia for income. And any Allied ground units that aren’t needed (and with Allied air, the Allies won’t necessarily need to commit a load of ground units) - anyways, any ground units not really needed to press Asia can push Europe.

6. Japan NOT going heavy ground

Japan shouldn’t go heavy ground either (at least, in terms of building NO navy/air), and why? If US drops a Pacific fleet, Japan wants enough to be able to punish any early US push, and how is it going to do that exactly? Odds are decent that Japan will have one destroyer, one cruiser, and one submarine; Japan must have destroyers against US submarines, which leaves only one cruiser and one submarine as fodder against any naval engagement, after which Japan has to lose expensive air or carriers/battleships. And that is just not good. So Japan builds some submarines. US pushes in, interdicts Japan’s sea zones, then Japan can switch to fighters and/or bombers while Japan captures India (which then acts as a reserve place for Japan to build up its navy if Japan even wants to which it may not).

But what happens if Japan JUST tries to push nothing but ground, in spite of US1 dropping a Pacific fleet? US moves into position and Japan can’t push US off. Even if Japan tries to do a late naval/air build, it still has to move into position to hit any US push to Borneo and/or East Indies, and if US goes the Alaska route instead a late build means US can hit Japan before Japan can hit US. And when Japan’s forced on the defensive a lot, then Japan can’t drop to Yunnan and basically it gets messy.

So if Japan goes pure navy, Allies throttle Japan on the ground; if Japan goes pure ground, Allies push Japan out of position early in the sea which disrupts Japan’s ground logistics from Tokyo to Asia.

Generally, there’s the stuff Axis should do, and if they don’t do it, that usually doesn’t mean you can get a decisive advantage. Only if your opponent sucks and withdraws for no reason and/or fights losing stack battles do you get these big “punishment” plays. Otherwise it’s just you look at your opponent’s play, if there’s a wee gap, you shove in a little wedge and start patiently hammering away, then eventually your advantages pile up and you win.

But if your opponent is sharp, then sometimes spots that looked like a good spot to stick a wedge in turn out to be traps.

Next post, the general KJF variations.

Okay, so you know about that other thread where I wrote out how 1942 Online makes KJF bad, numbers, timings, details, nice stuff. Then in this thread my last post I made the point you can’t “punish” a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet.

Well that just isn’t a lot of fun is it, you want to try KJF, then someone comes along and dumps a bucket of numbers on you . . .

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

But before that - understand why J1 Manchuria IC and Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet are NOT things Allies can just beat Japan up for, and why even trying can be dangerous.

First, J1 Manchuria IC. When does it go up, properly? R1 has sucky dice and/or bad moves, Germany smashes West Russia and does a mass tank build. The board situation is such that Germany intends to literally overrun Russia before UK/US can do anything about it. Then Germany reverses out of Russia to clean up its coast if necessary. Meanwhile, Japan builds an industrial complex on Manchuria why? Because that gets Japan one more tank in on a key timing. And you had better believe the Axis game develops real fast. When this goes off, Japan knows it is paying 15 IPCs for just one more tank for the timing, and it makes that decision because the calculations indicate it’s likely to be worth it.

Imagine what happens if US tries to push KJF in this situation. US has to fight off Japan’s huge starting navy and air and build a credible invasion threat against Manchuria. But if US pushes too hard and fast, Japan can punish any overextension. Yet if US does not push hard and fast, the Axis overrun Russia. What are US’s options with KJF? US won’t even be able to reliably move fighters to reinforce Russia from the Pacific as there just won’t be any safe eligible landing spaces. With KGF, though, Allied fighters flying off carriers into Russia in the Atlantic is difficult for Axis to stop.

As to Hawaiian Islands - well, I can see a case for the Hawaiian Islands attack in the board game. But because KJF execution is 1942 Online is so bad thanks to rules changes, I think a meta has developed where Japan really doesn’t have to bother with the Hawaiian Islands fleet. Like, what is it going to do (lol)? Bleed on Japan? Sure, it’s a chunk of IPCs, but just see US try to make something of it. There’s really not a lot it can do unless Japan messes up.

J1 industrial complex and Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet are not things you can punish. Trying to “punish” either can even get you in a lot of trouble if your opponent is playing accurately.

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

When you look at a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet, ask yourself - does either result in a situation that forces Japan to fight a losing stack battle? No. So does either contribute to a situation in which you’re able to bleed/build stacks, control income, or that sort of thing? The answer again is no. Especially in 1942 Online because of its rules changes.

So you’re probably saying to yourself - Japan pays for an immobile thing that can’t fight, that needs to be defended, that if captured and held by an opponent gives an opponent a big boost in logistics. There’s got to be something there, right? Or if Japan just leaves the Hawaiian Islands fleet alone, that’s a chunk of IPCs, again, that’s got to be good, right?

But it’s not enough.

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

@aardvarkpepper said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

. PNRG is a valid approximation of randomness, that has also been proven repeatedly.

hasn’t.

Is your GPS working? Then PNRG is working.

if you want to use that as part of your argument, explain how implementations should be and are the same

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

. PNRG is a valid approximation of randomness, that has also been proven repeatedly.

hasn’t.

1. I think transports used to cost 8, but now cost 7

2. Two rules are a little odd; I noticed they weren’t mentioned in the carrier / transport videos, figured they might have been saved for later but mentioning them just in case.

A) A fighter cannot use a planned retreat of a carrier when declaring plans to land the fighter. However, a fighter can assume a carrier can move to pick it up in noncombat phase even if a clearing attack would obviously fail. (e.g. single submarine attacks twenty battleships to “attempt” to clear a sea zone so a carrier may move through that sea zone during noncombat to land a fighter. The submarine won’t win (probably) but it’s an eligible move.)

I think that was in an errata or clarification.

B) Transports can’t enter hostile sea zones, but sea zones occupied by enemy submarines are not “hostile”. Only surface enemy ships create a “hostile” sea zone. An enemy submarine prevents a transport from - was it picking up? or dropping off? or both? and the transport can’t “ignore” the enemy submarine unless a friendly warship accompanies the transport.