Fantastic alternative strategy. Definitely could be a meta-buster. The best part is you have found a way to open KJF without coinflipping SZ37 and without requiring misplay or bad dice by Japan.
@@petersamantharadisich6095 If UK takes CV first, followed by, sub, then fighter/cruiser, they have a 63% to clear. To get a position that is terrible for Japan is like 0.05% off of a 50/50. I think UK has a 49.95% chance to put Japan in a position to lose off that opener. Quite literally a picture perfect coinflip opener. Either way, anything less than 80% is a coinflip to me.
@@domjuggernaut508 I think your calculation is assuming that uk only brings 1 fighter...you can also bring a second fighter from Egypt...even a basic calculation is 15 attack power + 6 hit points for uk vs 14 attack power and 5 hit points for japan. The bad outcomes in r1 are when uk gets 0 or 1 hits and japan gets 3 or 4 - this has probability of about 8% of occurring...much more likely that both sides hit 2 or 3 times....so round 2 of the battle is normally 3/4 uk units roll for 3 vs 2/3 japan units rolls for 4. Also, even if uk loses the fight, Japan will only have a battleship left (ie uk is very likely to hit at least 4 times in the whole battle). so you've still taken 34 ipcs of japan navy/air off the board - ie set them back 1 turn of production....
@@petersamantharadisich6095 This is incorrect. Gencon3.0 settings allow for 2 cru, 1 sub, 2 ftr, 1 CV vs 2 ftr, 1 BB, 1 CV. assuming optimal OOL of sub last for UK, UK has 0.3% better odds than a 63- 63.1 % taking sub off after CV, which is most common. UK would have to get a result in the 0- 49% range to truly damage Japan. Even then it would have to be coupled with an India naval purchase to really take advantage of the situation. With german fleet still alive this is quite a gamble, especially if Russia also sent units east. SZ37 is the definition of a coinflip opener. I'm not sure how you are arriving at you 93% calculation, but even in low luck you are only getting up to 80% for UK.
I like the idea of mixing it up, I have also been wishing for ways to get into an advantaged KJF position as allies, even trying 5 inf 2 fighters on Buryatia on R1. Regarding your "twist" presented here while I liked it at first glance I wouldn't fear this as Japan, on J1 my reply would be to kill the cruiser and sub with BS, AC + 1/2 ftrs, take SZ61 with BS / DD (in range of India SZ), and I will do Pearl light ignoring both UK transports. (the one that would escape by rounding South Africa can be chased down which I would possibly do as Japan). J1 purchase: 2 inf, 2 trans, 1 DD. So the net of the twist is OK as Allies you have slowed Japan down at the cost of one less infantry in India (and loss of sub / cruiser)
Sorry for the late reply - have been busy in the Discord league games. The main point of the twist is the UK sub will be set to submerge. This will allow a 1-3 sub drop at India turn 2 . Japan can choose to trade their sz61 des to kill the built sub, with the submerged UK sub and fighters hitting the Japan Des in return. J1 build must include the des (as you indicated-kudos, by the way. However most are still in the 3 transport build or 2 tran and a fighter) or else on UK2 they can drop 3 subs without repercussion if they want. In my experience, I only need UK to shift the Pacific naval balance by 2-4 boats. Thus, this will lead to US getting an accelerated stack landing in the money islands rather than wasting transports trading for the islands. By the way, IF Japan does buy a des or fighter on J1, then I shift this to a KGF likely , and that is 1 transport slower to a Japan start. And Japan speed to Moscow is key in a KGF. In this case the twist created a slight advantage for the KGF.
one option that axis should consider on kjf is sending a few german planes over to, or near Philippines, as it means US cannot use destroyer blocking effectively (only uk can do it). Also, I think it's better for the uk+russia to help out the US in a kjf by going after Japanese land, and keeping china income going to the us. means us can out build japan easily, which means that you can take close battles (eg 50% win chance) rather than waiting for a certain win. the other advantage of uk focusing on land is the troops are useful to defend moscow. kjf also usually means that Russian income is higher, which means it can last longer against Germany. you can be quite aggressive with Russia for first 1-2 rounds without it costing you moscow (eg stack buryatia with 5 inf, put 2 inf +1 fighter in sinkiang, put 1 inf+1tank in Szechuan). you can always move russian troops back on r2 if you need to
Another player dubbed my take as KJF by sea, ad compared to Battlescotch's KJF by land - similar to what you are suggesting. Ultimately, I think the most ideal answer lies somewhere in between. Although I am not afraid to drop(sacrifice?) the "big" UK fleet drop (2 ac + des with 4 fighters landing) at India, I actually like the idea of getting 2-4 UK subs in the water that can sneak to meet the US fleet and just provide enough def hit points to allow an earlier stack of the money islands. *This strat would then allow more land pressure with the rest of their builds. Ie - a hybrid of land and sea KJF---I just have not crunched this down to a "science" yet. But, I do agree the KJF by land is a very strong play.
Although I am not sure about the Russian income being higher. Against a skilled German player, they are going to take away Russia's income pretty fast.
This would seriously confuse any player silver or below, perhaps even some gold level player, but it would not in any way cause a serious platinum level player to even blink. I would spot this a mile away and take the inconvenience of the 3 trans 3 inf build for Japan and modify it ever so slightly. I stopped doing Pearl light months ago, it just doesn't make any sense for Japan, in either a KJF or KGF. Japan has one job in either scenario, and the only thing that prevents them is things like this, BUT only for a turn, which, under the circumstances is fine in most cases. By the way, try the two ocean strategy on me and I will crush your soul. Not only will I continue to threaten, India, China, albeit a turn later than I would like, but I will also defend the Pacific in such a way that causes the USA to continue to commit resources there, leaving less for the KGF assist in the Atlantic. One thing you will NOT see at higher level play is a Japan player bothering with the destroyer blocking either in the north or the south. All they will do is keep their island safe from attack, and then go about the business of killing Russia through China. To do this, Japan has to build their IC off the coast of SZ61 (this is important) no later than turn 2. Granted British subs or any UK fleet in the pacific is annoying for Japan, but that's all they are, especially if the opponent is employing a two-ocean strategy. What a lot of new players fail to understand is the concept of zig and zag warfare. It basically means that whatever your opponent is doing on one side of the map, means there's less they can do on the other side. Understanding and embracing this concept will up your game immensely. All that said, I encourager ANY A&A content on youtube, we need more of it. Cheers!
I agree and disagree. I love your perspective on zig and zag warfare. Similarly, I have tried to make the point in Discord that you really play what your opponent gives you. This is why I list priorities, but not necessarily a play by play because this version of UK "assist" to the KJF really depends on how the Axis player plays. I will say that most of the games so far have been Gold level players, I have already beaten several platinum players as well. I look forward to the upcoming Discord League season where I will be in the top bracket and get to test my theories against several top 10 players. Watch for future videos as I show how it holds up! I hope we meet sometime on the game! Good luck!
I think its a little odd for a "serious platinum player" to dismiss a pretty standard KJF opener out of hand. Building an IC off of 61 is pretty unusual as a KJF response and almost always suboptimal, especially when UK is also buying navy. You are risking getting Borneo stacked quite early with 4-6 extra UK ships. If you are buying 3 trans 3 inf turn 1 and then 1 IC on turn 2 that leaves you about 15-18 IPC for navy. You get what, 3 subs tops? If you modify your turn 1 build to include maybe a fighter I could see it, but how do you secure your income through J4-6 when purchasing like this. You wont have units for your transports and enough navy/air. I would rather buy 5 inf, play standard and not have the IC at all. the turns after purchase subs if fodder is needed, but mostly air to threaten both land and sea. And if you dont buy transports you risk allies just abandoning this plan at -1 unit for india from that sub and transport trading borneo with you at a transport deficit. The point of the video was to provide a semi neutral KJF opener and I think it does that quite nicely. Sub leaking seems quite viable as -1 land unit to india is not that big of an issue if you commit to KJF or KGF.
Fantastic alternative strategy. Definitely could be a meta-buster. The best part is you have found a way to open KJF without coinflipping SZ37 and without requiring misplay or bad dice by Japan.
sz 37 is a coin flip only if you try to hold onto the carrier. it is 95% to win if you take uk hits in order of attack power
@@petersamantharadisich6095 If UK takes CV first, followed by, sub, then fighter/cruiser, they have a 63% to clear. To get a position that is terrible for Japan is like 0.05% off of a 50/50. I think UK has a 49.95% chance to put Japan in a position to lose off that opener. Quite literally a picture perfect coinflip opener. Either way, anything less than 80% is a coinflip to me.
@@domjuggernaut508
I think your calculation is assuming that uk only brings 1 fighter...you can also bring a second fighter from Egypt...even a basic calculation is 15 attack power + 6 hit points for uk vs 14 attack power and 5 hit points for japan. The bad outcomes in r1 are when uk gets 0 or 1 hits and japan gets 3 or 4 - this has probability of about 8% of occurring...much more likely that both sides hit 2 or 3 times....so round 2 of the battle is normally 3/4 uk units roll for 3 vs 2/3 japan units rolls for 4. Also, even if uk loses the fight, Japan will only have a battleship left (ie uk is very likely to hit at least 4 times in the whole battle). so you've still taken 34 ipcs of japan navy/air off the board - ie set them back 1 turn of production....
@@petersamantharadisich6095 This is incorrect. Gencon3.0 settings allow for 2 cru, 1 sub, 2 ftr, 1 CV vs 2 ftr, 1 BB, 1 CV. assuming optimal OOL of sub last for UK, UK has 0.3% better odds than a 63- 63.1 % taking sub off after CV, which is most common. UK would have to get a result in the 0- 49% range to truly damage Japan. Even then it would have to be coupled with an India naval purchase to really take advantage of the situation. With german fleet still alive this is quite a gamble, especially if Russia also sent units east. SZ37 is the definition of a coinflip opener. I'm not sure how you are arriving at you 93% calculation, but even in low luck you are only getting up to 80% for UK.
How could a 15 vs 14 combat power battle be a 95%?
I like the idea of mixing it up, I have also been wishing for ways to get into an advantaged KJF position as allies, even trying 5 inf 2 fighters on Buryatia on R1. Regarding your "twist" presented here while I liked it at first glance I wouldn't fear this as Japan, on J1 my reply would be to kill the cruiser and sub with BS, AC + 1/2 ftrs, take SZ61 with BS / DD (in range of India SZ), and I will do Pearl light ignoring both UK transports. (the one that would escape by rounding South Africa can be chased down which I would possibly do as Japan). J1 purchase: 2 inf, 2 trans, 1 DD. So the net of the twist is OK as Allies you have slowed Japan down at the cost of one less infantry in India (and loss of sub / cruiser)
Sorry for the late reply - have been busy in the Discord league games. The main point of the twist is the UK sub will be set to submerge. This will allow a 1-3 sub drop at India turn 2 . Japan can choose to trade their sz61 des to kill the built sub, with the submerged UK sub and fighters hitting the Japan Des in return. J1 build must include the des (as you indicated-kudos, by the way. However most are still in the 3 transport build or 2 tran and a fighter) or else on UK2 they can drop 3 subs without repercussion if they want. In my experience, I only need UK to shift the Pacific naval balance by 2-4 boats. Thus, this will lead to US getting an accelerated stack landing in the money islands rather than wasting transports trading for the islands.
By the way, IF Japan does buy a des or fighter on J1, then I shift this to a KGF likely , and that is 1 transport slower to a Japan start. And Japan speed to Moscow is key in a KGF. In this case the twist created a slight advantage for the KGF.
one option that axis should consider on kjf is sending a few german planes over to, or near Philippines, as it means US cannot use destroyer blocking effectively (only uk can do it).
Also, I think it's better for the uk+russia to help out the US in a kjf by going after Japanese land, and keeping china income going to the us. means us can out build japan easily, which means that you can take close battles (eg 50% win chance) rather than waiting for a certain win. the other advantage of uk focusing on land is the troops are useful to defend moscow. kjf also usually means that Russian income is higher, which means it can last longer against Germany. you can be quite aggressive with Russia for first 1-2 rounds without it costing you moscow (eg stack buryatia with 5 inf, put 2 inf +1 fighter in sinkiang, put 1 inf+1tank in Szechuan). you can always move russian troops back on r2 if you need to
Another player dubbed my take as KJF by sea, ad compared to Battlescotch's KJF by land - similar to what you are suggesting. Ultimately, I think the most ideal answer lies somewhere in between. Although I am not afraid to drop(sacrifice?) the "big" UK fleet drop (2 ac + des with 4 fighters landing) at India, I actually like the idea of getting 2-4 UK subs in the water that can sneak to meet the US fleet and just provide enough def hit points to allow an earlier stack of the money islands. *This strat would then allow more land pressure with the rest of their builds. Ie - a hybrid of land and sea KJF---I just have not crunched this down to a "science" yet.
But, I do agree the KJF by land is a very strong play.
Although I am not sure about the Russian income being higher. Against a skilled German player, they are going to take away Russia's income pretty fast.
This would seriously confuse any player silver or below, perhaps even some gold level player, but it would not in any way cause a serious platinum level player to even blink. I would spot this a mile away and take the inconvenience of the 3 trans 3 inf build for Japan and modify it ever so slightly. I stopped doing Pearl light months ago, it just doesn't make any sense for Japan, in either a KJF or KGF. Japan has one job in either scenario, and the only thing that prevents them is things like this, BUT only for a turn, which, under the circumstances is fine in most cases. By the way, try the two ocean strategy on me and I will crush your soul. Not only will I continue to threaten, India, China, albeit a turn later than I would like, but I will also defend the Pacific in such a way that causes the USA to continue to commit resources there, leaving less for the KGF assist in the Atlantic. One thing you will NOT see at higher level play is a Japan player bothering with the destroyer blocking either in the north or the south. All they will do is keep their island safe from attack, and then go about the business of killing Russia through China. To do this, Japan has to build their IC off the coast of SZ61 (this is important) no later than turn 2. Granted British subs or any UK fleet in the pacific is annoying for Japan, but that's all they are, especially if the opponent is employing a two-ocean strategy. What a lot of new players fail to understand is the concept of zig and zag warfare. It basically means that whatever your opponent is doing on one side of the map, means there's less they can do on the other side. Understanding and embracing this concept will up your game immensely. All that said, I encourager ANY A&A content on youtube, we need more of it. Cheers!
I agree and disagree. I love your perspective on zig and zag warfare. Similarly, I have tried to make the point in Discord that you really play what your opponent gives you. This is why I list priorities, but not necessarily a play by play because this version of UK "assist" to the KJF really depends on how the Axis player plays. I will say that most of the games so far have been Gold level players, I have already beaten several platinum players as well. I look forward to the upcoming Discord League season where I will be in the top bracket and get to test my theories against several top 10 players. Watch for future videos as I show how it holds up! I hope we meet sometime on the game! Good luck!
I think its a little odd for a "serious platinum player" to dismiss a pretty standard KJF opener out of hand. Building an IC off of 61 is pretty unusual as a KJF response and almost always suboptimal, especially when UK is also buying navy. You are risking getting Borneo stacked quite early with 4-6 extra UK ships. If you are buying 3 trans 3 inf turn 1 and then 1 IC on turn 2 that leaves you about 15-18 IPC for navy. You get what, 3 subs tops? If you modify your turn 1 build to include maybe a fighter I could see it, but how do you secure your income through J4-6 when purchasing like this. You wont have units for your transports and enough navy/air. I would rather buy 5 inf, play standard and not have the IC at all. the turns after purchase subs if fodder is needed, but mostly air to threaten both land and sea. And if you dont buy transports you risk allies just abandoning this plan at -1 unit for india from that sub and transport trading borneo with you at a transport deficit. The point of the video was to provide a semi neutral KJF opener and I think it does that quite nicely. Sub leaking seems quite viable as -1 land unit to india is not that big of an issue if you commit to KJF or KGF.