Conditions for a KJF

[Hobbes77]

Here's the list of conditions for KJF in a poll I've ran in axisandallies.org. The end numbers are the votes received so far.

USSR: 6 INF on Buryatia 5 (6%)
USSR: sinking the Med fleet on round 2 1 (1.2%)
USSR: Losing less units than average on R1 attacks 3 (3.6%)
USSR: moving INF to Sinkiang 5 (6%)
USSR: attacking Norway to prevent sinking of SZ2 1 (1.2%)
Germany: failing attack on Egypt 2 (2.4%)
Germany: heavy ground losses on G1 1 (1.2%)
Germany: not stacking Karelia or Ukraine on G1 3 (3.6%)
Germany: not attacking West Russia on G1 3 (3.6%)
Germany: naval purchase on G1 4 (4.8%)
UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter 5 (6%)
UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans 2 (2.4%)
UK: conquering Borneo and/or New Guinea 2 (2.4%)
UK: fleet at SZ2 survival 2 (2.4%)
UK: landing the Indian fighter on Bur or China 1 (1.2%)
UK: building IC on India 8 (9.6%)
Japan: attacking Buryatia 1 (1.2%)
Japan: loss of a capital ship (battleship/carrier) on J1 3 (3.6%)
Japan: loss of 1 or more fighters 3 (3.6%)
Japan: minor naval losses (cruiser, sub) 3 (3.6%)
Japan: defeat on China attack 6 (7.2%)
Japan: not sinking the US fleet at SZ52 2 (2.4%)
US: attacking SZ60 on US1 0 (0%)
US: building IC on Sinkiang/China 5 (6%)
US: counterattack on SZ52 1 (1.2%)
US: full build up of the Pacific fleet 6 (7.2%)
US: retreating all units from Atlantic to Pac 1 (1.2%)
US: landing on Algeria 2 (2.4%)
US: reinforcing the UK SZ8 fleet with cruiser and fighter(s)

16 voted so far, each could choose 6 conditions:
* Soviet Union (15 votes total) - 5 votes go both for moving 5 INF to Sinkiang and on massing 6 INF on Buryatia, finally 3 votes for losing less than average on its round 1 attacks on German forces.
* Germany has a smaller impact (14 votes total), mostly split into a naval buy, a failed Egypt attack, not stacking Karelia/Ukraine and/or not attack West Russia on G2.
* For the UK (20 votes), 8 votes were cast for an Indian IC, with an attack on Indochina being the runner up with 5 votes.
* Japan (18 votes) has a failed China J1 attack with 6 votes, followed by loss of a capital ship or loss of 1 fighter or losing minor naval units on J1 with 3 votes.
* US (19 votes) - full build up of the Pacific fleet (winner with 6 votes), followed by IC on Sinkiang (5 votes).

[bmaster]

Besides russia not having a bad start on R1, a big factor that convinces me to try kjf is when germany actually does very well in egypt on G1. If they take no losses or just 1 hit, I just don't have great odds of dislodging the axis from egypt very quickly anyway. So even though it's a bad result, it makes me consider kjf more seriously.

Alternately, if germany gets hit hard in egypt on G1 and uk could pretty easily re-take egypt, then I feel it's my responsibility to try for egypt and skip the kjf, because giving germany africa when their hold on it is so tenuous feels foolish.

[elksta]

since i usually give g10 to axis, everything is a condition for a kjf

[rockismyreligion]

I disagree on any and all conditions for a KJF. I think that if you're going to employ one, you must establish that fact before you finalize your end phase move on Russia's first turn. There are certain moves you must make in order to properly set up for it. A delayed KJF, for example, after seeing a fantastic first German turn, makes Germany's job of crushing Russia that much easier. Germany is a monster when fighting Russia alone. All Japan has to do is try and piss about while playing chess with the USA in the Pacific, which, in all honesty, is not that hard to do (if you're a good Japan).

[bmaster]

I disagree on any and all conditions for a KJF. I think that if you're going to employ one, you must establish that fact before you finalize your end phase move on Russia's first turn. There are certain moves you must make in order to properly set up for it. A delayed KJF, for example, after seeing a fantastic first German turn, makes Germany's job of crushing Russia that much easier. Germany is a monster when fighting Russia alone. All Japan has to do is try and piss about while playing chess with the USA in the Pacific, which, in all honesty, is not that hard to do (if you're a good Japan).

Why not react to new events? If germany's going to place a risky stack in karelia, and build plenty of tanks, then you really should change plans. UK can help double-kill karelia effectively, and you've got a great kgf. I assume the reason you can't shift gears in that way is because you've already diverted russian tanks? I prefer a basic shift of russian infantry. 6 inf on bury and 4 inf in sink and 1 inf in yakut isn't an optimal kgf move, but it's basically fine so long as that uk fighter gets to bury to make that square spiky. There's really no harm done in changing course after some pretty reasonable russian moves.

[Hobbes77]

I disagree on any and all conditions for a KJF. I think that if you're going to employ one, you must establish that fact before you finalize your end phase move on Russia's first turn.

I disagree with your method because it alerts the Axis right from the start for the possibility of a KJF.

The above list is really a checklist for both sides to use during the first round. Russia finishes its turn, Germany checks the list and if the Russians are sending units to Yakut/Sinkiang then the German buy/moves should be made to pressure Russia. Next comes the UK, who evaluates the situation and decides upon KJF or not, but some actions may also tip off Japan that it will know that a KJF is in place.
To me the decision should be made on the US1 turn, after both Germany and Japan have played and hopefully are not expecting a KJF - then the Allies gain one round of preparations while the Axis needs to change or adapt its strat. That's another reason why I dislike the India IC on UK1 or moving Russians into Sinkiang/Yakut on R1.

There are certain moves you must make in order to properly set up for it. A delayed KJF, for example, after seeing a fantastic first German turn, makes Germany's job of crushing Russia that much easier. Germany is a monster when fighting Russia alone. All Japan has to do is try and piss about while playing chess with the USA in the Pacific, which, in all honesty, is not that hard to do (if you're a good Japan).

Precisely why you be careful not to reveal your hand (and wait until the R1 combat plays out before moving the units on Asia).

[bmaster]

To me the decision should be made on the US1 turn, after both Germany and Japan have played and hopefully are not expecting a KJF - then the Allies gain one round of preparations while the Axis needs to change or adapt its strat. That's another reason why I dislike the India IC on UK1 or moving Russians into Sinkiang/Yakut on R1.

I have to say, Hobbes. While this approach is fine if you're just checking if J screwed up or got unlucky, it's not going to net a compelling kjf in the vast majority of games. If you won't build an IC in india on UK1 you definitely should never build that IC at all. If you won't move russians to sinkiang on R1, then you definitely don't want them dancing around in asia after the fact. J is most vulnerable on it's first turn, and if you don't systematically ramp up the pressure, you either won't get an opportunity to play the kjf or you won't have very good odds of winning it against a good J player.

[Hobbes77]

To me the decision should be made on the US1 turn, after both Germany and Japan have played and hopefully are not expecting a KJF - then the Allies gain one round of preparations while the Axis needs to change or adapt its strat. That's another reason why I dislike the India IC on UK1 or moving Russians into Sinkiang/Yakut on R1.

I have to say, Hobbes. While this approach is fine if you're just checking if J screwed up or got unlucky, it's not going to net a compelling kjf in the vast majority of games. If you won't build an IC in india on UK1 you definitely should never build that IC at all. If you won't move russians to sinkiang on R1, then you definitely don't want them dancing around in asia after the fact. J is most vulnerable on it's first turn, and if you don't systematically ramp up the pressure, you either won't get an opportunity to play the kjf or you won't have very good odds of winning it against a good J player.

As mentioned on another thread the key is to force Japan to choose between Asia and the Pacific. On this case you let Japan advance to Sinkiang and Yakut and India (and thus divide its forces) while the Soviets contain the Germans until the UK starts heavily landing on Europe.

Then Japan has to build more land units to keep the pressure on Russia - and has to deploy them through three corridors that can't support one another. Or build fleet to stop the US.

One of Russia's greatest advantage is the ability to trade space for time - building ICs on India and Yakut removes it because it forces Russia to defend those areas.

[bmaster]

ok. So you surrender africa to the axis while the us makes this delayed buildup in the pacific? And J has a stronger income than the usa by this time and a positional and starting fleet advantage, so they can basically play a little conservative with russia, hold of the us buildup, and germany nets africa for the rest of the game or until it becomes unstoppable?

Just seems like the balls in the axis court there. There's nothing the allies can do that they can't counter cost effectively in the pacific. And while the core of russia might be a little more protected, the loss of africa and germany's strong income means both the europe nor african money is going to the axis infantry buildup. There's just no reason for J to ever have to worry about losing some ground to russia in the late game, so long as in the global scene germany is flush with cash.

[lukalion]

I think Hobbes is talking about 1942 .
Germany never goes further then Egypt and ones Ger is kicked from Africa Uk focus on north to help Russia, while Usa is building in Pacific.

In theory :
UK and Russia (both around 30ipcs) can keep Ger (around 40 ipcs) from advancing while Usa (40) and Jap (40) have navy race.
The thing is if Jap decide to go in race with Usa, Russia can easily def/retake all major corridors in Asia.
If it focus on sending ground units to Asia, Usa will soon out build Jap and sail for the islands.
In the long run if they can stop Ger allies will win cause of the ipcs advantage. ??????

[Hobbes77]

I think Hobbes is talking about 1942 .
Germany never goes further then Egypt and ones Ger is kicked from Africa Uk focus on north to help Russia, while Usa is building in Pacific.

In theory :
UK and Russia (both around 30ipcs) can keep Ger (around 40 ipcs) from advancing while Usa (40) and Jap (40) have navy race.
The thing is if Jap decide to go in race with Usa, Russia can easily def/retake all major corridors in Asia.
If it focus on sending ground units to Asia, Usa will soon out build Jap and sail for the islands.
In the long run if they can stop Ger allies will win cause of the ipcs advantage. ??????

Yeah, whenever I'm writing I'm thinking of 1942, trying this on Revised is much harder/impossible because of the Japanese transports being able to be taken as casualties.
You've described the fundamentals of the strategy but what I've found out is that it is still risky on 1942 but can have a chance.

[bmaster]

Ah 1942. Cool strategy

[jbrentmorrison]

I disagree with your method because it alerts the Axis right from the start for the possibility of a KJF.

There are certain moves you must make in order to properly set up for it. A delayed KJF, for example, after seeing a fantastic first German turn, makes Germany's job of crushing Russia that much easier. Germany is a monster when fighting Russia alone. All Japan has to do is try and piss about while playing chess with the USA in the Pacific, which, in all honesty, is not that hard to do (if you're a good Japan).

Precisely why you be careful not to reveal your hand (and wait until the R1 combat plays out before moving the units on Asia).

Have you guys ever set up a KJF as a decoy? I agree that there are certain moves needed in order to go KJF, but the same would be true for defending against one. The Allies can fulfill many prerequisites without actually building an IC, and can reveal their true intentions by UK 3.

[rockismyreligion]

To me the decision should be made on the US1 turn, after both Germany and Japan have played and hopefully are not expecting a KJF - then the Allies gain one round of preparations while the Axis needs to change or adapt its strat. That's another reason why I dislike the India IC on UK1 or moving Russians into Sinkiang/Yakut on R1.

I have to say, Hobbes. While this approach is fine if you're just checking if J screwed up or got unlucky, it's not going to net a compelling kjf in the vast majority of games. If you won't build an IC in india on UK1 you definitely should never build that IC at all. If you won't move russians to sinkiang on R1, then you definitely don't want them dancing around in asia after the fact. J is most vulnerable on it's first turn, and if you don't systematically ramp up the pressure, you either won't get an opportunity to play the kjf or you won't have very good odds of winning it against a good J player.

That's entirely where my point draws its base.

[speedcrayzy]

in either AA or AA42, is it even mathematically possible to defeat a good Japan player using a KJF strategy?
(in Low Luck dice)