@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
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?
So, as I just mentioned in the Allied strategy post, the main goal of the US is to get a fleet big enough that Japan cannot blow it up. Bombers do not help doing that. The US focus should be carriers and fighters with an occasional transport mixed in to replace losses retaking The Philippines.
Once the US is firmly stationed off Japan then I could see buying some bombers.
Really nice analysis here, there are a few things however that I’d like to add and get your opinion on as well.
One thing that neither of us have mentioned is the concept of the Soviet presence in Siberia (not the territory, just the general map location). One thing that I’ve tried recently is to leave the 2 AA guns as well as 9 infantry on Amur. That means that Japan will not only have to keep troops in Manchuria but also Korea as well. Granted, some might say that “Oh well you need those troops to defend Moscow”, and granted, that could be so, but that won’t be a problem for the Soviets if the UK and the US can get the Germans to start spending their money on both sides of Europe, hence the whole concept of Floating Bridge.
Another thing that I think is worth mentioning is that window that I was telling you about earlier. The Pacific Allies have a window of opportunity in the early/mid game where they can really square off with Japan before they start making lots of money. Aside from holding Yunnan, one thing that I’ve opted to do is send the transport with 2 infantry from India and take Sumatra with it. This will not only recover the 3 IPCs you lost from Kwangtung but give you a bonus IPC, meaning you’re now making more then what you originally were. On top of that, you’ve put down 2 infantry on the island which essentially means that Japan won’t be able to just transport blitz the island with a single infantry like they would’ve wanted to. Granted, 2 infantry isn’t a lot, either a cruiser/battleship landing shot or a few planes/artillery will do the trick, however thats the idea. To get Japan to pull their fleet/airforce/important heavy weapons away from the mainland.
The most important thing to remember is that Japan can spend their money to get ALOT of ground units or ALOT of ships, but never both. As you said in your Warfare thread, ships are expensive. This is ultimately what the Allies have to take advantage of. Now, in regards to Japan threatening Calcutta, I feel that the most common way they would take the city is by Amphibious Assault instead of trying to force their way through Burma and Shan State. Now, this ones gonna be a longshot, but hear me out: If Japan has no viable transports or ground units poised to attack Calcutta, then why keep ground troops there? I think that if the UK Pacific can build up a large enough airforce (courtesy partially to the UK Europe), then they can prevent Japan from just leaving transports out in the open for the taking. In the Good Captain’s J1 video, he moves 3 of his transports that he purchased on J1 down to Indochina on J2 and put an airbase there with no other ships protecting them. In my test run, I was able to bomb the airbase, then destroy the transports with no worry of a scramble happening. But tell me what you think before I move to the next stage of planning first.
@andrewaagamer hi Andrew,
Thanks for this clear Manuel.
Do you play with the US in a more KJF strategy, so investing +75% of your income in the pacific or is a KGF the way the go and is your Manuel here a “just in case you wanne try-out something different and go for KJG”?
@cornwallis said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
@andrewaagamer hi Andrew,
Thanks for this clear Manuel.
Do you play with the US in a more KJF strategy, so investing +75% of your income in the pacific or is a KGF the way the go and is your Manuel here a “just in case you wanne try-out something different and go for KJG”?
Good question!
So I use 85% of the Bid on the Europe side of the board to make sure Italy gets hosed by UK immediately and to save half of the British fleet. Because of this I am able to send minimal US resources to Europe to assist UK. With the UK controlling the Med and Africa all the US really has to do is threaten the 1-2 Berlin punch and help take Norway. Therefore, I only send to Europe 1 AC, 1 DD, 1 Ftr, 1 Tac, 1 Bmb plus 3 transports and ground troops. Then, once Norway is under US control, I build a minor IC followed by 3 infantry every Turn. Besides those expenses, until Japan is under control, all of the rest of the US monies go into the Pacific against Japan.
Do you always scramble into Taranto as the Axis? I always do especially if I plan on coming down into the Med as Germany but I don’t know if other people do as well.
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
One thing that neither of us have mentioned is the concept of the Soviet presence in Siberia (not the territory, just the general map location).
Yes, I forgot to cover the Russians. The Eastern Russian Troops are a huge topic all by themselves.
Personally, I like to leave all 18 infantry and 2 AA guns in the East. At a minimum I think you should leave 12 infantries plus the 2 AA guns. Let’s discuss why.
I think we can all agree if we leave 12 to 18 (plus 2 AA) Russian troops in the east then Japan is most likely not going to be able to roll up the Russian flank. In addition, having those Russian troops in the east threatens the northern flank of Japan forcing Japan to leave some ground troops behind in Manchuria/Korea instead of rushing off to attack China.
The most often used options I see are:
Option 1 - All 20 Russians to Moscow: There are 20 ground troops worth $64 TUV that can go to Moscow. Six of them can make it on R6 which, is one Turn before the normal G7 attack of Moscow. Assuming Moscow holds on G7 the other 14 make it on R7. These 20 extra troops obviously can assist in defending Moscow but… at what cost?
If Russia abandons their eastern flank, then most likely Japan is going to land 2 infantries in Siberia on J2. On J3 they take Sakha and Soviet Far East followed by Amur and Buryatia on J4. Japan will probably wait till J4 to hit Amur and Buryatia because they do not want to give Moscow two more infantry in defense coming from Olgiy. On J5 they are probably stalled one Turn, due to the converting Mongolians, and then on J6 take Yakut and finally on J7 Yenisy. So, what does this do?
Loss of Russian Income, assuming holds against a G7 and/or G8 attack:
Siberia = R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 = -5
Sakha + Soviet Far East = R4, R5, R6, R7 = -8
Amur + Buryatia = R5, R6, R7 = -6
Yakut = R7 =-1
Yenisy = 0
Total loss of income through R7 = $20
From R8 on each Turn’s loss of income = $7
So, immediately, we can see that Russia did not really gain $64 in the defense of Moscow. They gained $44 due to the loss of income. Also, every additional Turn that goes by they lose $7 more income so that by Turn 13 they have less money than they would have if, and this is a big if, they could have held to R13 without those eastern troops. Without those eastern troops they are probably going to lose Moscow by R10 or R11 even with drastic help from UK so if the only factor we are looking at is the defense of Moscow, then YES, it makes sense to send all the eastern troops back to Moscow.
Income Gain by Japan: As we already see from above by J7 Japan collects $20 more income from capturing Russian territories. If we consider the world view, and not just the Moscow view, that means by Turn 9 we are slightly ahead based on the below calculations and on Turn 10 we are slightly behind.
Gain of 20 Eastern troops = + 64
Loss of Russian income = - 34
Gain of Japan income = - 34
Gain of 3 Mongolians that survive = + 9
Loss of 1 Jap infantry to kill 3 Mongolians that do not service = + 3
Based on this world view perspective it now does not make as much sense to send all the troops to Moscow as we are hurting ourselves in the long run. And we have not even taken into consideration that by leaving troops in the east we can pin Japanese ground troops making life more difficult for Japan.
So out the window goes Option 1 - All 20 Russians to Moscow.
Option 2 – 6 to Moscow and 14 left behind AND Option 3 – All 20 stay in the east:
I think we can safely assume that we can protect the bulk our eastern flank with both option 2 and option 3. With 14 units we can be pushed back into Buryatia which means Siberia and Soviet Far East would be in Jeopardy. With 20, except for Turn 1, we can probably safely sit in Amur and thus only Soviet Far East is at stake. However, with a lot of targets I would think the Japanese are not going to send a transport just for Soviet Far East so the comparison is more likely $2 (for 14) or $0 for 20. So, we are looking at a $2 difference per Turn by sending 6 infantry towards Moscow. Those 6 infantry are worth $18 TUV so it would take 9 Turns to lose money on that scenario.
The other difference is how many Japanese troops do you pin in Manchuria/Korea.
12 infantry probably pins 9 infantry and an AA gun
18 infantry probably pins 11 infantry, 1 fighter and an AA gun
So 18 gives us most likely no loss of income and pins 3 more units that are not making there way to China, which by the way protects Russia’s right flank and hastens how quickly Japan is stalemated and allows the US to send more forces to Europe earlier.
So based on this analysis I would say do not send all 20 Russians back, it is okay to send 6 back (Option 2) but I think it is slightly better to keep them all in the east (Option 3).
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
one thing that I’ve opted to do is send the transport with 2 infantry from India and take Sumatra with it. This will not only recover the 3 IPCs you lost from Kwangtung but give you a bonus IPC, meaning you’re now making more then what you originally were. On top of that, you’ve put down 2 infantry on the island which essentially means that Japan won’t be able to just transport blitz the island with a single infantry like they would’ve wanted to.
Okay let’s look at this.
TAKE SUMATRA:
Gain of $4 on UK1 = +4
Most likely gain of $4 on UK 2 as Japan will not want to take Sumatra with 2 infantry on it = +4
Loss of $7 transport = -7
Gain of $9 for loss of income by Japan for not taking Sumatra and not getting NO = +9
Loss of $4 for Shan State (Convoy Disrupted) and Sumatra (Taken by Japan) = -4
Loss of $2 Persia income = -2
Loss of ANZAC $5 NO for Malaya = -5
Loss of 2 infantry = -6
Gain of $3 killing one Jap infantry (most likely outcome at 55%) = +3
Total = -4
Compare this to the normal taking of Persia of +2 and it is a -6 swing to take Sumatra so my vote would be not to do this scenario.
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
Now, in regards to Japan threatening Calcutta, I feel that the most common way they would take the city is by Amphibious Assault instead of trying to force their way through Burma and Shan State.
I would agree that the most likely avenue of attack, at least for an early capture of India, is going to amphibiously.
Now, this ones gonna be a longshot, but hear me out: If Japan has no viable transports or ground units poised to attack Calcutta, then why keep ground troops there? I think that if the UK Pacific can build up a large enough airforce (courtesy partially to the UK Europe), then they can prevent Japan from just leaving transports out in the open for the taking. In the Good Captain’s J1 video, he moves 3 of his transports that he purchased on J1 down to Indochina on J2 and put an airbase there with no other ships protecting them. In my test run, I was able to bomb the airbase, then destroy the transports with no worry of a scramble happening.
I wouldn’t base a strategy on hoping my opponent made a mistake. If the US had a bomber within range of FIC and FIC had an airbase on it protecting lone transports, and UK or ANZAC had a plane that could hit the FIC SZ, I would think most people are going to consider the very real possibility of a SBR attack to take out the airfield. And even if they don’t once it happens to them they won’t let it happen again. Therefore, it is not a strategy it is a gambit.
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
Do you always scramble into Taranto as the Axis? I always do especially if I plan on coming down into the Med as Germany but I don’t know if other people do as well.
I would only scramble if the UK Player did not bring sufficient forces into the battle.
What do you mean… plan on coming down into the Med as Germany
You mean build ships out of Southern France?
Understandably so, however it’s sort of the same concept with Germany. Germany wouldn’t have to protect their Coastline with lots and lots of units if there was no sign of an amphibious assault from either the Americans or the British. If you can save time and units and money why not do it? Not to mention even if Japan does pull transports outta their pockets, the UK in India have the benefit of being able to move their units back rather quickly in the event that an invasion of Calcutta is on the horizon.
I understand what you mean with Persia, it’s just I feel like the UK Pacific should do everything in their power to try and make as much money they can and prevent the Japanese from jumping the money islands.
As for Russia, I’m glad you agree that it can be beneficial to leave troops behind. There’s definitely something to be said for taking troops to Moscow, but Russia could undoubtedly prove useful to the Pacific Allies by keeping their troops in Siberia. It will prove to be all the more beneficial if they can get a fighter or a strat bomber out there as well (assuming Moscow is not under any threat and the Russians are holding firm).
What I mean by Germany coming down into the Med is Germany actually taking units and ships down to the Med and helping Italy in North Africa.
How are you preventing Japan from getting the rest of the money islands next turn? Sure you could stack everything on Java and Japan takes Malaya J2 and then Java J3… not a big distraction for how much the Allies have to sacrifice. You can prolong the game with constant sacrifices, but eventually the Allies will find themselves down hundreds of TUV.
When I do an Afrika Korps strategy as Germany, typically I’ll only ever building a carrier and a destroyer, then use my pre-existing boats to send down there and that’s the navy. Everything else will go straight to Barbarossa. Granted of course, halting Japan from taking Java with 2 infantry and a transport is indeed a sacrifice, and too many sacrifices will result in the Allies losing, but sacrifices need to be made in order to win regardless. Typically should the Japanese position their fleet in Sumatra/Java would be the optimal time for America and ANZAC to start advancing forward.
Taking Java with 2 infantry does not deter Japan at all in this save file. The allied troops in Java get killed on J2 at the cost of perhaps a Japanese infantry. Allies gain 4 PUs and lose 13 TUV. Axis loses 3 TUV. Not a great trade compared to the other options of heading west with the India transport and to New Guinea with the ANZAC transport. This is my complaint about your strategy. Same for Andrew. You post suggested moves that make absolutely no sense.
In this match that I posted J1, the Allies stacked Java with 3 infantry, 1 AA, and 2 fighters. That was sufficient that I took Malaya on J2. Minor nuisance for so many resources spent.
My opponent traded away too many units to start the game, making it easy for the Japanese to stall the Allies while Germany cruised to victory in Europe. Moscow feel on G6 and there was insufficient Allied forces to stop the march onwards into the Middle East and then Egypt.
Now check out the games of top players who win as Allies. They don’t need to make significant sacrifices and don’t get into risky battles. See this match that Andrew is playing where Moscow is holding firm on turn 8 and the Allies are out-earning the Axis by a significant amount. Still so much to happen in the game, but it certainly is a reasonable position for the Allies to be in at this point. 27 Allied planes in the European theater, giving them considerable flexibility to project power in multiple directions. That stack in Greece is a major nuisance.
2022-oob-playoffs-r1-andrewaagamer-x-vs-oysteilo-a-60 (10).tsvg
Not Java sorry, Sumatra. But I wouldn’t doubt that the result would be similar. Regardless, I only meant to devote 2 infantry to take the island and hold it atleast for a little while before Japan comes in and takes it. Any time the Allies can buy is time that is needed while they can continue building up Malaya and not be so far behind on IPCs.
@thedesertfox you arent spamming cruisers - they are too expensive a unit. also you shouldnt ever purchase a single cruiser anyways - they are very much not the best unit for the cost. subs and destroyers should be the backbone of your navy while your loaded carriers do the heavy hitting. Also Andrew is correct about battleships not ever being a great purchase either.
@andrewaagamer i think the (except for turn 1) is a big point you cant gloss over. as Japan if you are stacking amur turn 1 with the russians i am going to wipe out your army in one big attack when i have the units in position and then can gobble up your territories immediately following the big attack. also the russians can keep units in Tsaka to project a threat if the Japanese want to grab SFE for free with a sinlge transport turn 1.
@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
@andrewaagamer i think the (except for turn 1) is a big point you cant gloss over. as Japan if you are stacking amur turn 1 with the russians i am going to wipe out your army in one big attack when i have the units in position and then can gobble up your territories immediately following the big attack. also the russians can keep units in Tsaka to project a threat if the Japanese want to grab SFE for free with a single transport turn 1.
Yeah, I admit I was tired of typing and I probably should have gone into more detail as to why you can’t be in Amur on R1 for all the newbies out there that have not learned that yet the hard way.
I am not crazy about going to Sakha with the Russians. Buryatia is the spot for me. If you go to Sakha the Japanese can get 17 ground troops into Amur and their entire airforce into position to wipe you out since you are trapped there. As Japan I would forego an early DOW on the rest of the Allies and go after Russia if my opponent did this.
Should also add there is no guarantee even 20 can stay in Amur the whole time. If Japan ever has enough units in position to wipe out that stack they have to pull back to Buryatia until the danger passes.
