I’ve seen a strategy that involves dropping Russia’s planes in Yunnan to help China keep in J1. Is it a big deal for China? Certainly it means being able to buy 3 art instead of 4 inf, but are there other worthwhile ripple effects? Especially for hurting Japan and improving China and UKPacs situation?
I ask because I’m considering some different ideas about the Allied bid like another Chinese inf on Yunnan and another Russian fighter in Moscow. Or 3-4 art or mechs in Russia (which has nothing to do with China, but the mechanized Russia convo). Or giving UK another transports at S. Africa…
1 inf in Yunnan is a common bid. Holding Yunnan on the first turn is a big deal. it means the Chinese units there are surviving, and it means that japan will have trouble ever killing china. Those extra arts means china will have a permanent improved counterattack. Instead of one strong attacking unit, china will have 4.
@Kreuzfeld said in Is China keeping Yunnan J1 a big deal?:
1 inf in Yunnan is a common bid. Holding Yunnan on the first turn is a big deal. it means the Chinese units there are surviving, and it means that japan will have trouble ever killing china. Those extra arts means china will have a permanent improved counterattack. Instead of one strong attacking unit, china will have 4.
Is 1 inf enough for a strong impact? It looks like dropping an inf or art in Northern China means a successful counter attack (if Japan brings the mech, too, it drops to a 50/50).
Flying the Russian planes to Yunnan seems bad, too, since its a losing battle if Japan brings its bombers, too. You’d have to bid a Chinese inf and a Russian fighter to make that a winner.
I’m wondering if a stronger China at the opening means much in the early rounds (like allowing the U.S. to focus on Germany without losing the Pacific).
Yes and No!
It depends on how China is holding Yunnan.
Let’s say Japan rolled very bad and China is able to stack Yunnan, then UK Pac should dow and fortify it along with China.
This is giving Japan a very hard time to conquer China and crush India in the long term.
But it is no garant to simply stack Yunnan with extra forces, bc this simply means that Japan will need to spend more attention to Yu and dedicate more units there.
Yunnan usually means 6 extra IPCs for china + the ability to purchase artillery, which can spell trouble for japan. any slowing down of japan in the opening turns is great for the allies.
I always thought of it more as forcing Japan to pull more units to take Yunnan, which prevents those units from participating in other battles/movements where they may be needed.
I don’t play enough G40 to give you precise details, but I imagine if, say, Japan was forced to commit an extra Bomber to Yunnan J1, that would hurt the odds of a J1 attack on Pearl Harbor, which may end up saving the starting US Fleet. That has more obvious snowball effects that may help the Allies keep Japan contained for a few extra turns.
Each unit on Yunnan moves the odds, but it takes more than 3 (the proposed bid inf, fighter, tac). Japan will still attack–until we get the bid higher it wont dissuade that strike by 8 units.
Russia cannot in good conscience sacrifice 2/3 of its air force on anything but a certainty. The loss of the fighter (which many people send east anyways) will mean that you cannot deter strat bombings. Losing both means your counterattack ability is zilch.
@taamvan said in Is China keeping Yunnan J1 a big deal?:
Each unit on Yunnan moves the odds, but it takes more than 3 (the proposed bid inf, fighter, tac). Japan will still attack–until we get the bid higher it wont dissuade that strike by 8 units.
Russia cannot in good conscience sacrifice 2/3 of its air force on anything but a certainty. The loss of the fighter (which many people send east anyways) will mean that you cannot deter strat bombings. Losing both means your counterattack ability is zilch.
Sounds like this would require a Chinese inf (or art) AND another Russian fighter, then. 2 fighters and the tactical swing the odds strongly against Japan even if they bring the bombers.
Of course, is that worth it, Russia’s AF gone for 2 turns? I think I’m more tempted by 2 art and 2+ mechs for Russia up by Finland so Russia can invade there.
I don’t see any value in going after Scandinavia with the Soviets. Leave that to the UK. They need income/a base of operations and they’re more suited to take it than the Russians anyway due to their navy (once they rebuild it, anyway…)
Any Soviet unit that goes to Scandinavia isn’t going to make it back to Moscow in time for the final battle, period. They’ll be cut off as the German/Italian can-opener rages by.
The 'Spread of Communism" bonus is nice but it may ultimately not end up being worth it if you have to devote too many units to obtain it in the first place.
@DoManMacgee said in Is China keeping Yunnan J1 a big deal?:
I don’t see any value in going after Scandinavia with the Soviets. Leave that to the UK. They need income/a base of operations and they’re more suited to take it than the Russians anyway due to their navy (once they rebuild it, anyway…)
Any Soviet unit that goes to Scandinavia isn’t going to make it back to Moscow in time for the final battle, period. They’ll be cut off as the German/Italian can-opener rages by.
The 'Spread of Communism" bonus is nice but it may ultimately not end up being worth it if you have to devote too many units to obtain it in the first place.
The idea behind Russia invading Finland is mostly centered on 1 strong condition: Russia being able to take down a German stack of 7 inf and earning a +5 bonus for doing so. I don’t do it often, but if Germany takes Kareilia and Baltic States on G2, I’m a fan then.
All the varied risks you could take with Russia all serve to make you weaker in the final battle. Russia is weak enough OOB that simply put, they’re all distractions (china, siberia, xforce to iraq, scandanavia all of it) and alot of these moves just hand the Axis extra money when Moscow finally falls.
On the other hand, if you make Russia even slightly stronger, and Germany’s income slightly smaller, there is a big effect 4-5 turns later, such that Russia isn’t easy to conquer at all. That is why germany pretty much has to declare on G2 or do a G1 and leave the UK a partial navy.
Russia needs to be Goldilocks. Not too strong, not too weak. It should fall in the face of an all-in Axis effort–but if that all-in effort is too costly then the UK and US will and should eventually win the game. That is the most interesting and balanced game that can come of the G40 setup, IMO.
OOB, Russia doesn’t have many of the things it needs to have those choices, it only needs a bit more to get to being “just tough enough”.
You really shouldn’t take some of the key factory placement areas with Russia (Finland, Norway, Iraq, Persia) because Russia can’t spare any income to buy or fuel factory areas, and once Russia has taken those zones, the UK and the US cannot.
Good points. I should say my Finland invasion often is just attacking that stack to slow down Germany 1 extra round, maybe.
As with any opening, often its best for Russia to not even kill the entire German group in a territory, but to make a big dent and retreat so that the threat of German counter attack is gone. Stalling is the goal of mechanized Russia I brought up in another thread… you trade units for maneuverability and hope for an opening to hit Germany once in a way that buys you an extra turn (or 2), which let’s you buy more units so you end up where you would have anyway, but its a round or 2 later. Which, for Russia, can make all the difference.
It is a big deal, really needs 2 USSR fighters bid. 1inf 1ftr is a bit marginal. Just not enough of a big deal to make the game untenable for the Axis.
If there’s a J1 DOW, you can stack Burma turn 1 more easily. It really deters the J1 DOW, if you think that is good for the allies. Which it is.
Follow up actions probably depend a lot on what the Axis do.
Using 20 of your bid to accomplish this? Some question if it can be used better elsewhere, particularly if you don’t have a high bid to start with. Once you get to 30, you can do this combined with the Scottish fighter.
@simon33 I’m not sure I see the need for a bid at all here. China has enough starting forces to retake it C1 and if Japan only has minimal ground forces in range to take it again J2. That means the UK (If they are aggressive and are moving forward from India (A sure bet when I’m playing my regular opponents) can march in with at least 5 units.
@M36 , yes you are correct About it.
BUT: most commonly Ftrs and TacB’s will be stacked at Kwangsi along with whatever you bring from J via TT’s.
The reason is to threat India and the Money Island along with the Phillipines.
On J2 you are able to move where you please (Sumatra/Java/Celebes/Aus.West coast)
as Japan and/or kill simply the Chinese majority with one blow using the IJAF and some ground Units.
This style is used by a lot of members here on the forum and i also see that the style varies from Playgroup to playgroup. So i am only speaking on the play behaviour of this forum here :-)
M36, you are more then welcome to adapt some more styles or even play us in a friendly or on a more challenging scale in the League. :v: :+1:
Welcome to the Forum.
@aequitas-et-veritas Thank you, I’m glad to be back after many years absence. 😁 If I ever have enough time I will have to try some of the forum games, as I only have the experiences of my group to base my opinions on. We have taken to playing China much like the Soviets, with one big fighting withdrawal/delaying action, and adopted an aggressive UK/ANZAC to keep Japan busy playing whack a mole. While the overall strategy remains the same it’s always a challenge coming up with fresh tactics since we all know each other and our playing styles. So far the Allies are generally able to hold on by the skin of their eyelids until the sleeping giant arrives on the scene to find a very spread out Japan. That is why I always advocate aggression. Any Japanese attack that does not take them closer to Calcutta or Sydney is considered a success.
@M36 said in Is China keeping Yunnan J1 a big deal?:
@simon33 I’m not sure I see the need for a bid at all here. China has enough starting forces to retake it C1 and if Japan only has minimal ground forces in range to take it again J2. That means the UK (If they are aggressive and are moving forward from India (A sure bet when I’m playing my regular opponents) can march in with at least 5 units.
I think you should have a bit more of a think about the possibilities it allows for the allies. It is doubtful that Japan will be able to take Yunnan J2 because China hasn’t lost 4inf in Yunnan, can move in the 6inf from Szechwan and mobilise 3art. The other allies can also help. Not needing to trade inf to get its 6IPC national objective helps its cause a fair bit.
If Yunnan is taken J1 and China attacks with everything and stacks it up, at best you have 12 inf + other allies planes. If there was a J1 DOW, perhaps this is enough to hold the territory for a turn but I don’t really think otherwise because the troops on Hunan and Kwangsi/FIC will come through and take it out.
@simon33 I see your points. In my experience however ANY additional turns Japan spends fighting in China is a benefit to the Allies.
So the real question becomes whether China can keep Yunnan on J2 as well, and how it affects Japan going forward.
Certainly being able to buy artillery seems worthwhile, though less useful when simply trying to stack Yunnan (art over inf means 1 less unit each on C1 and C2) but necessary to counter Japan’s relatively weak ground forces.
It looks like it sort of depends on Japan’s J1. Yyou can keep Yunnan on J2 but if Japan brings an additional transport (or 2) on J1 so they can help attack on J2, China needs some or all of UKPac or Russia’s air force to save the 15-20 inf/art
Of course, if Japan is using transports to feed the mainland, it means less income down South.
So something like this strategy might be hell on Japan if the U.S. is aggressive on the Pacific side. 9ish less ipcs on J3 is one less ship to defend, and tends to ripple through the early choices.
I say yes because it forces Japan to invade India by sea which is great if US is putting a lot of pressure on Japan. It is unfortunate that China can’t stack in India but you can for sure block Japan if you don’t care to hold on to China.
