A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

[TheDesertFox]

I’m not 100% how other people play China and if they play China the way I do but after having watched The Good Captain’s J1 video on what he demonstrated as an Allied play from one of the “better players” I feel like this one may be an outlier after all. The only basis that I’ll be going with when it comes to this strategy of course is that Japan will be doing a J1 attack. Here we go.

With China starting off with 12 IPCs, the most obvious and only thing they should be buying is 4 infantry. Now, when it comes to reacting to what Japan has done, it can always depend. The one thing that will never change however is that Japan can attack a MAXIMUM of 4 Chinese territories that turn, 2 of which don’t even have units in them. Depending on what the Japan player does in their J1, they may attack Yunnan, they may not, but for the sake of this strategy let’s just say they’re gonna go all in on China. Japan can split up their forces in a multitude of ways but I believe this is more then like what most players would do when attacking China on J1. (Tell me if I’m wrong on this.)

For the battle of Hunan, Japan always will achieve a victory there, however most commonly China will atleast score 1 hit back against Japan.

The battle of Yunnan however is a lot more dicey and up in the air for both sides. I’ve rolled this battle a plethera of times and gotten mixed results but the most common thing I saw was Japan scoring 2 hits and China scoring 2 hits on the first round of combat. Japan obviously finishes the fight on the second round with the 2 leftover Infantry more often scored one more hit then they did get 2 hits or no hits at all, leaving just the artillery on Yunnan but they can just as often be left with an infantry and artillery. For Japan’s build, it’s not going to be super relevant for this strategy but for this sake of things I’ll say they built 2 transports and an IC to go on Kiangsu in good faith.

With those battles out of the way, this is where a lot of players differ in what they do next as China. This step is one of the most important ones for China, and will require specially placed counter attacks in a few territories. One of them being Yunnan and the other being Hunan. The Chinese figher will go into Hunan and the 6 infantry will go into Yunnan. Normally attacking with only infantry isn’t really the play, however with 6 of them you’re almost guaranteed atleast 1 hit you need to take out the lone artillery. Both battles have the Japanese at a 33.32% chance of hitting, which isn’t great odds, so for the sake of this strategy the Chinese will lose an infantry on Hunan. For the non combat move, China will want to move the infantry from Shensi up to Suiyuyan along with the fighter that fought on Hunan. At the end of the first round, China will have made 16 IPCs with the Burma Road Nat Obj in their hands. This is what the end result of round 1 in the Pacific should look like.

There’s no telling how different these moves could have been had Japan chosen to do something different. Their mainland troops are already going to have to split off as much as they can if they wanna hit all 4 mainland territories to include Kwangtung if they plan on sending their transports elsewhere in the Southern Pacific. Obviously the placement of the 4 infantry will vary as well if you had to fight against say an artillery AND an infantry on Yunnan as well. The most important thing that this strategy did was it prevented Japan from counterattacking on Yunnan again and it also put a big amount of pressure for Japan up North as well. Even if Japan went all in on Hunan with everything they could bring from Kiangsi making the counterattack in their nearly impossible to win, Yunnan will still be the same result where China will have their 6 infantry move in to take it and even have British infantry and planes move into help protect Yunnan as well, making an attempt at taking it very costly for Japan.

[AndrewAAGamer]

What about the 2 Siamese infantry that move to FIC? They can hit Yunnan on J2.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

With the risk of losing a large portion of Japan’s aircraft along with it? I’d be more than happy to have Japan throw away their 2 infantry and half their air force in the name of China not getting the Burma Road.

And on another not-so-important note, typically I like to send in the fighter from Formasa down to take out the British battleship along with the cruiser and 2 Strat bombers. Personal preference whether or not someone does this but with the things dice are capable of, it’s never an impossibility to get completely screwed over in that battle and end up having to lose a strat bomber… anyway, point is, I have to land the fighter on Siam which is why I leave 1 infantry on Siam to protect the fighter but that’s just when I do it.

[AndrewAAGamer]

The battle results are not the issue.

Your map shows no Japanese ground troops able to hit Yunnan on J2 which is inaccurate. If you are going to present a strategy it should include all factors.

As for leaving an infantry in Siam why not just land that fighter on the Jap carrier moving to SZ36?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

With the risk of losing a large portion of Japan’s aircraft along with it? I’d be more than happy to have Japan throw away their 2 infantry and half their air force in the name of China not getting the Burma Road.

Ummm, a large portion of the Japanese air force? You greatly exaggerate.

You have 6 Chinese infantry sitting there. You can add 2 additional UK ones from Burma for a total of 8 infantry.

Your map does not show it but the Japanese can hit it with 8 fighters, 8 tactical, 2 bombers and 2 infantry.

Average battle results are 2 infantry and 1 fighter lost by the Japanese to clear Yunnan. I would certainly pay ONE fighter to take out that stack of 8 infantry. Not only strategically is it worth it but tactically too from a TUV perspective as it is plus $8 for the Japanese.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

So since you brought that up, let’s talk about that. I’m always for adaptability in strategies and you know just as well as I do that there’s variation to the J1. If I knew you were going to try your hand at attacking Yunnan, which let’s say in this case you are, then let me propose an alteration to you. Instead of sending 2 infantry in you send 1 to Hunan and obviously send the fighter as well so that you can devote the other infantry to Yunnan. The artillery may hit, it may not, regardless, the battle is 90% in favor to China and it doesn’t really matter either in this case if they do have the infantry left to take it or not, just removing the artillery from the board is what matters. Then it’s just a matter of moving the other infantry from Kweichow to Yunnan and putting the 4 infantry you built on your turn on Yunnan as well, giving you a total of 11 Chinese infantry plus the 2 that come from the UK giving you 13, and on top of that their 2 fighters and their tac bomber that you neglected as well… this battle has Japan at a win, but a negative trade of 5 IPCs against the combined Chinese and UK force, which may as well be a loss for you at that point if you were really willing to throw in all your planes in the name of China not holding the Burma Road…

(Edit: Sorry, I forgot as well that if you wanted to actually take Yunnan from China then that would cost you an extra 10 or 11 IPCs due to having to keep the infantry alive, so it’s actually a 10+ IPC negative trade)

[AndrewAAGamer]

Why is it that as soon as a point is made about something you post you do not answer that point but instead switch to another completely different scenario?

Your original post declared that the Japanese would be foolish to attack Yunnan, based on your original scenario, as they would lose a large portion of their air force. That declaration was false as shown by my response.

If you are now switching to a different scenario that would provide a different response.

In your new scenario I would agree that with a significantly greater amount of Chinese infantry defending Yunnan the Japanese would not attack Yunnan on J2 and would wait till J3 to do it. This is by far the most common Chinese defense I see.

and on top of that their 2 fighters and their tac bomber that you neglected as well

I didn’t neglect anything. I purposefully left the UK 2 fighters and 1 tactical bomber out of your original scenario Yunnan defense as I figured only a fool would put the 3 priceless UK planes at risk for such a minimal gain.

Adding in the 3 UK planes to the original battle, instead of killing 0.7 Japanese planes with a +8 TUV for Japan, the Japanese lose 3 planes with, basically 2 more planes lost, a TUV increase to +18 insead of the +8. Only a crazy person would trade those 3 UK planes for 2 Jap fighters.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

(Edit: Sorry, I forgot as well that if you wanted to actually take Yunnan from China then that would cost you an extra 10 or 11 IPCs due to having to keep the infantry alive, so it’s actually a 10+ IPC negative trade)

Why would Japan lose a fighter to take Yunnan? It is worth only $1 to them. The only possible time would be if the Chinese had no way to retake it to deny them the $6 NO plus $1 for the territory, which is not the case in your original scenario.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

Andrew I’m someone that’s willing to adapt and overcome. Since you want recognition here you go. You were right. Yes, you were right in your original statement that an attack with 2 infantry and a butt ton of aircraft would do the job well against 8 infantry on Yunnan. The partiality in what you neglected though was the fact that the 2 British fighters and Tac bomber would also be defending that as well, something you completely left out and something I very clearly stated would happen at the end of my original post… so don’t get on my neck about changing things up man. If you think the Allies are “foolish” for forcing Japan to take loses then I suppose it makes sense why you don’t have a hard time steamrolling them and collecting 70+ IPC’s a turn. It’s because all your opponent does is turtle up on Calcutta and keep his planes grounded there not doing anything or sending them to the West where they aren’t needed…

This strategy of mine involves them sending their aircraft in to defend Yunnan. I, in all respects, could care less if you think it’s foolish for the Pacific Allies to “play aggressive” by sending their planes in to defend vital territory. You can think its foolish for the Allies to take initiative, I see it differently than you do because I’ve seen the success it can have in the past. And now you opt to agree with my new proposition of putting 13 infantry down on Yunnan. Is it because you and I both know that Japan would suffer a heavy amount of casualties if they went through with that attack? Part of what it means to play the Allies is to be able to react to what your opponent does. Seeing as some people seem willing to throw in their entire airforce toward taking out Yunnan, thus calls for an alteration in strategy and tactics.

Andrew, people tried turtling on Moscow, they tried turtling on London, and they tried turtling on Calcutta and Honolulu, and it didn’t work. Every single time the Allies found themselves losing because they never thought to take the offense and take the initiative and force the Axis to actually commit to taking loses in battle.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Why would Japan lose a fighter to take Yunnan? It is worth only $1 to them. The only possible time would be if the Chinese had no way to retake it to deny them the $6 NO plus $1 for the territory, which is not the case in your original scenario.

Hence why I strategically put the word “IF” in there.

[Cornwallis]

@thedesertfox you have a link to the video of the Corporal?

[AndrewAAGamer]

Sigh - Why am I wasting my time with you? I know, because I care about the community, and I do not want people putting out bad advice without it being pointed out it is bad advice.

I do not need any “recognition” from you, what I want is good advice that people can follow to be better players so when I see someone putting out bad advice I chime in to rectify that. And I expect if you say A, and someone else points out A is not good advice then yes, I want you to acknowledge that the A advice was incorrect before moving on to something else.

Your resume for providing advice so far is pretty dismal… In the last 2-3 days you have a) have thrown out the idea of a Floating Bridge strategy which will not be viable against any decent player, b) you buy a battleship for the USA which is a no-no, c) you have NEVER seen Japan in the 70s which is a common occurrence and d) now a China strategy that was sure to fail without my input. So excuse me for taking the time to counter your bad advice. When you do provide good advice I have agreed with you; I wish you would provide more good advice and far less bad advice.

In other regards…

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer

Andrew I’m someone that’s willing to adapt and overcome. Since you want recognition here you go. You were right. Yes, you were right in your original statement that an attack with 2 infantry and a butt ton of aircraft would do the job well against 8 infantry on Yunnan. The partiality in what you neglected though was the fact that the 2 British fighters and Tac bomber would also be defending that as well, something you completely left out and something I very clearly stated would happen at the end of my original post… so don’t get on my neck about changing things up man.

As I already stated I did not neglect the 3 UK planes; I left them off on purpose as it would be silly to add them into the defense of Yunnan with only 8 infantry to accompany them.

If you think the Allies are “foolish” for forcing Japan to take loses then I suppose it makes sense why you don’t have a hard time steamrolling them and collecting 70+ IPC’s a turn. It’s because all your opponent does is turtle up on Calcutta and keep his planes grounded there not doing anything or sending them to the West where they aren’t needed…

If your idea of a good strategy is to trade 3 UK planes for 2 Japanese planes than that is not being aggressive; that is being foolish. Any statement that it is a good idea to lose MORE TUV than your opponent when you are on defense is a sure way to lose every game, every time.

In addition, I didn’t say those planes were not doing anything; I said in your silly original scenario that it would be foolish to add them. In your second scenario, with 13 infantry, then I did agree that would work with the additional 3 UK planes in holding the Japanese so quit misquoting me.

This strategy of mine involves them sending their aircraft in to defend Yunnan. I, in all respects, could care less if you think it’s foolish for the Pacific Allies to “play aggressive” by sending their planes in to defend vital territory. You can think its foolish for the Allies to take initiative, I see it differently than you do because I’ve seen the success it can have in the past. And now you opt to agree with my new proposition of putting 13 infantry down on Yunnan. Is it because you and I both know that Japan would suffer a heavy amount of casualties if they went through with that attack? Part of what it means to play the Allies is to be able to react to what your opponent does. Seeing as some people seem willing to throw in their entire airforce toward taking out Yunnan, thus calls for an alteration in strategy and tactics.

Andrew, people tried turtling on Moscow, they tried turtling on London, and they tried turtling on Calcutta and Honolulu, and it didn’t work. Every single time the Allies found themselves losing because they never thought to take the offense and take the initiative and force the Axis to actually commit to taking loses in battle.

Again, do not put out statements I never said. I have not once talked about turtling being a good strategy. What I have said is throwing your valuable resources away for less value than they are getting is not a strategy that works and it should not be followed. Being aggressive with China, UK Pacific, ANZAC and the US is definitely the best strategy out there to keep Japan at bay. Japan will still get into the 70s but they will not win the game in the Pacific. But, there is a vast difference in being intelligently aggressive in your play and being foolishly aggressive in your play as you espouse.

[TheDesertFox]

@cornwallis

Here’s the video. Its a decent J1 but after play testing it has multiple noticeable flaws, one such flaw being his J2 purchase choice, but that’s just me.

https://youtu.be/fRi3aIsj8P8

[Cornwallis]

@thedesertfox your fighter cannot attack Hunan and fly to suiyan because in total that would be a total of 5 movements…

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

You agreed with me on one point, that point being that you wouldn’t attack Yunnan on J2 if they had 13 infantry and 3 planes defending it because you realized the very apparent fact that Japan would lose a serious amount of planes as a result of it. It was a nice conversation we had but I don’t wanna get you all riled up and emotional man. It’s good that you wanna voice your opinion man. That’s what we do on these forums, just so long as we can all do it in good faith and share ideas with one another. I shared my ideas, you shared yours, and we came to a consensus that China can hold the Burma Road past turn 2, thus preventing Japan from grounding and pounding without devoting a significant amount of resources. And I do appreciate you taking the time to respond man, I really do. You indeed helped me realize a new possibility that Japan would be willing to go after Yunnan even with only 2 infantry. That possibility of an attack allowed me to readjust my strategy to ensure that Yunnan can’t fall. So I think in the end we both managed to reach a middle ground that shows that China won’t just fall under Japan’s boot. I’m not the best A&A player out there and even I know I still have things to learn. I know your passionate about your J1 take over the world strategy but atleaat try to make an effort to build on these ideas to better help the Allies lol. I didn’t dismiss my floating bridge strategy, nor is buying a battleship a “no no” as the USA either. Granted buying lots of battleships is a big no no, I prefer buying strat bombers instead for the Pacific. Way more cost effective then battleships but it’s nice to have something that can take a hit. Third and finally, you again missassume that I haven’t seen a 70+ IPC Japan when I have made 0 light to that. I have pal, its almost like I’ve done it myself AS JAPAN. You ought to keep yourself in check before mindlessly insulting me for made up crap. Because for the past 2-3 days you’ve essentially done nothing but tell me “Japan OP, Japan destroy all, Japan make 70 IPCs and win, Japan crushes everything with unlimited resources”. I’ve atleast offered some variation in what I’m saying.

[TheDesertFox]

@cornwallis

You’re absolutely right, that’s my mistake.

Instead I would move the fighter and the 3 infantry to Shensi instead.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Item 1
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

You agreed with me on one point, that point being that you wouldn’t attack Yunnan on J2 if they had 13 infantry and 3 planes defending it because you realized the very apparent fact that Japan would lose a serious amount of planes as a result of it.

Actually I agreed with you on two points. The one you stated and the following…

@andrewaagamer said in Was KJF really that bad?:

If you want to say that Japan cannot do everything IF the USA provides sufficient resources into the Pacific then I agree with that 100%.

Item 2
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I know your passionate about your J1 take over the world strategy but at least try to make an effort to build on these ideas to better help the Allies lol.

It is not my J1 DOW strategy. COW was, as far as I know, the first one to officially put forth the J1 opener; so I give credit where credit is due. While I do not use his version exactly; 90% of my J1 DOW opener is his baby.

Also, I am trying to help the Allies against Japan. That is why I am trying to counter your less than stellar advice where I think it goes awry. Funny how you just thanked me for helping you improve your China opening and then state this.

Item 3
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I didn’t dismiss my floating bridge strategy, nor is buying a battleship a “no no” as the USA either. Granted buying lots of battleships is a big no no, I prefer buying strat bombers instead for the Pacific. Way more cost effective then battleships but it’s nice to have something that can take a hit.

Sorry, bad advice again. Buying battleships is a mistake. They have poor value for their cost. You should read my Warfare Principles of Axis and Allies article. In addition, buying bombers for the US in the Pacific is also a mistake. Yes, they have great mobility and project firepower but what the US needs in the Pacific is to control the Ocean and to do that they needs ships in the sea. (Kind of like boots on the ground)

Item 4
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Third and finally, you again missassume that I haven’t seen a 70+ IPC Japan when I have made 0 light to that. I have pal, its almost like I’ve done it myself AS JAPAN. You ought to keep yourself in check before mindlessly insulting me for made up crap.>

Well, I can only go by what you said previously. Both of these statements below sure made it seem you disagreed that Japan could get to $72.

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

Regarding the merits of how much money is being made/spent, in my test runs, Japan never got to the point where they were making 72$, and that’s all thanks to my combined British and Anzac strategy.

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

So I’ve counted out all the provinces and in order for Japan to control that much money, they need to have taken ALL of China, ALL of the money islands and ALL of Southeast Asia. That’s without Australia, Honolulu, and Russia. I’m not sure what you’re Allied player is doing to allow Japan to take over that much money but whatever they’re doing is wrong… just straight up wrong.

Item 5
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Because for the past 2-3 days you’ve essentially done nothing but tell me “Japan OP, Japan destroy all, Japan make 70 IPCs and win, Japan crushes everything with unlimited resources”. I’ve at least offered some variation in what I’m saying.

Actually, I spent the past two days trying to rectify your bad advice. You are the one who continues to exaggerate what Japan can do in your sarcastic retorts about unlimited ships and resources. I have clearly stated that, IF the US spends enough money in the Pacific, Japan can be reigned in.

While I am not enjoying this conversation, if you continue to misrepresent my statements I will continue to reply so please stop fabricating what I say so I can spend my time on more fruitful pursuits. I take care to be very exact in my statements and I do not appreciate your trying to tarnish my reputation by misquoting me and misrepresenting what I am saying.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

So then let’s start over, shall we? I wanna know how to beat Japan too as the Allies, and I feel like I to include the ideas that other people including you have presented, have been hitting close to home. For one thing, you’re right that in order to defeat Japan, the Allies need to be strategically offensive and take initiative. Players are going to find no luck if they just try to turtle up on Calcutta or even worse if they just don’t commit their resources to get stuff down. The other thing that I’ve also stapled is that there is a window that the Allies need to take advantage of. While Japan can get to the point where they’re making 70+ IPCs, they’re not gonna do it on the first three to four turns, atleast, not without having taken a decent amount of loses in exchange. That’s the window that the Allies need to take. The only question is how to assemble that in such a way that involves all three Pacific Allied nations working together that will ultimately stop Japan. With your help and wise notice of Yunnan being under threat, China and the UK should be able to hold Yunnan adequately for the time being. I’ll have a look at your Warfare Principles and see if I can pick up a thing or two since I’m genuinely curious about alternatives. Now, with Yunnan holding, it’ll require Japan to commit resources to it or branch off to try to go after say the money islands or some other National Objective that they might want.

My initial thought when it came to the U.S and carriers was not to buy fighters and tac bombers for them and instead buy 2 fighters for the carrier and then just purchase a strat bomber instead. That way you can hit with a hard offense of rolling at 4 with the strat bombers at a cheaper price then battleships and still be able to defend at 4 with 2 fighters incase Japan decides to take a shot at your navy. Just seemed what was logical at the time but if not that, would they just spam cruisers and destroyers and subs?

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

Just read over your warfare principles strategy and I am pretty impressed with how much detail you put into it. My only question however is, wouldn’t Strat Bombers still be a viable option after you’ve jazzed up the navy with your carriers and destroyers and cruisers?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

So then let’s start over, shall we?

Works for me.

So, the Allied strategy in the Pacific. BIG Topic! Let’s start high and work our way down.

10,000 foot view: Japan has the initiative and more firepower and can take out any one target (India, China, Hawaii or Sydney). However, with less money than her four opponents combined, the Allies quickly catch up so the goal of the Allies is to slow Japan down so she cannot take two areas, force her to spend money on retaking already captured territory and then overwhelm her with a superior US fleet. Japan’s Achilles Heel is that her capital is in the North and her main money is in the South. As you say, Japan cannot be everywhere at once. To win in the Pacific the Allies must get a larger fleet into the Ocean to force Japan to sit in SZ6. If the US fleet cannot be blown up, and the Allied Fleet is in The Caroline’s, than Japan has no choice but to move to SZ 6 and then the Allies retake all the Money Islands and Japan’s dream of conquest is dashed.

Japan Plan: We can assume Japan is gong to go for either India or China as those are the more logical areas to take. Reason being even though Japan can take Sydney or Hawaii with the US so close she cannot leave those possessions to go get the winning area without probably losing them to the US. Whereas, if Japan takes China or India the IJN protects those possessions from the US. Japan wants to take India and clear or stalemate China, so her coastal Victory Cities are safe, then turn to the Ocean to get Hawaii or Sydney for the win.

Roles of each Allied Power: There are three minor Powers (UK Pacific, China and ANZAC) plus one major Power (USA) to fight Japan. Since, the ultimate goal of the Allies is to have a superior fleet and we know the US is the only one that can achieve that due to money, the one and only goal of the US is to build a bigger and badder fleet than the Japanese.

US Step 1: Get to The Caroline Islands. From the Caroline’s the Allied fleet can send transports to Java, The Philippines, Celebes and threatens the China Coast. This gives the Allies more money to spend and forces Japan to spend valuable ground troops and transports retaking those already captured islands/areas. This game of attrition should be played by ANZAC if at all possible, with the exception of The Philippines for the US.

US Step 2: Have a fleet that can survive if it moves to SZ6. It requires a significantly larger flee to move to SZ6 safely than it does to move to The Caroline’s safely.

ANZAC: ANZAC is the one nation you want to use to trade the Money Islands with. As they can hit Java with any newly built transport and tucked out of the way they need to assume the cannon fodder role. With a large enough US fleet protecting Sydney ANZAC can go all out in costing Japan money. Nothing is more frustrating to Japan then having to retake the same islands over and over again and losing transports and ground troops too boot. Therefore, ANZAC wants to build transports and ground troops to trade islands and maybe some destroyers if the US needs assistance.

China: China’s one and only goal is to kill Japanese ground troops. There is a fine balance they have to achieve as they do not want to allow their stack to get over powered by a few Japanese ground troops and a ton of planes but they need to stay close enough to the front lines that Japan is forced to deal with them. As you already determined, they can trade or even hold Yunnan for 2-4 Turns depending on the Japanese strategy. Trading Yunnan denies Japan a much needed landing zone and the lynch pin for Japan is it is difficult for them to get enough ground troops consolidated to move next to the China stack without getting mauled. Once Japan can do that China must pull back.

UK Pacific: Like China UK Pacific’s goal is to kill Japanese ground troops. Having 2-3 mechs helps this greatly so UK firepower can still reach out to Shan State even when sitting in Burma is untenable. You don’t want Japan getting Shan State or Yunnan for as long as possible to deny them a cheap airport. Once Japan builds up a force large enough to take India cheaply UK needs to retreat to West India and trade India for as long as possible. Some reinforcements from the Middle East may be needed to extend this trading as long as possible. While it provides Japan with probably $3-$6 more IPCs per Turn the loss of troops, the inability to build in India and most importantly the pinning of Japan air power is well worth it.

So, there it is. That is how you contain Japan. The faster the US can build it’s fleet the faster the Allies gain control in the Pacific which is why I disagree with spending too much money on the Europe side of the board.