Thank you!
A Nameless but Effective China Strategy
-
Exactly. Moscow is the only problem. The Allies in the Pacific to include Russia can stop Japan, the problem is stopping Germany. That’s why I’ve been trying to make some kind, any kind, of a floating bridge for America work because it’s the only hope the Russians have of survival.
-
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
of a floating bridge for America work because it’s the only hope the Russians have of survival.
First, I would recommend giving up on that Floating Bridge idea. The infrastructure cost is just too great. Look instead at trying to capture or place minor IC’s (mIC). Normandy and Southern France have existing mICs. Greece and Norway are great places to put new ones.
Second, as for Russia; Moscow falling early is a problem. Moscow falling late is not. Taking Moscow does not win the game for the Axis. Taking Moscow and then taking Cairo does. Therefore, the key for the Allies is to have made enough progress against Germany/Italy and built up an Egyptian Wall that Germany still cannot win the game once Moscow falls.
-
russia can survive without an american bridge strategy. fly all the fighters you can spare if possible to moscow - even anzac fighters ive seen in moscow to help hold or british fighters built in persia can fly to moscow in one move.
-
@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
Second, as for Russia; Moscow falling early is a problem. Moscow falling late is not. Taking Moscow does not win the game for the Axis. Taking Moscow and then taking Cairo does. Therefore, the key for the Allies is to have made enough progress against Germany/Italy and built up an Egyptian Wall that Germany still cannot win the game once Moscow falls.
Don’t forget that the Allies can’t just endlessly defend, defend, defend. At some point, they’re going to have to take the initiative and go on the offense. If there’s a method to defeating Germany while they’re still in the thick of war not having seized Moscow, then I’m all for that method since I think we could all agree that the Allies would stand a better chance against a Germany still fighting Russia then a Germany that’s already destroyed Russia. If the Allies try to just defend their victory cities there will be no thought of them winning at all.
-
Goal #1 for the Allies is first to stop the Axis. Then, with an advantage in money, build up a superior force and then finally push forward. Throwing resources away for not enough value is not something the Allies can do and still win.
-
@thedesertfox I have posted a standard J1 opener that is an exact copy of Cow’s final version. I would like to see what moves you propose for USA1 through Anzac 1 for your super amazing and effective China strategy. Feel free to ignore the European theater portion of the strategy, although it would be nice to see the units that you would place as the United States for the Atlantic side.
You talk in so many hypotheticals, but let’s see what it means in practical terms as you will quite often see good players have moves similar or identical to those that I posted. If your plan has gaping holes after just 1 turn, it will age even worse by the mid-game.
-
@andrewaagamer Throwing resources away for not enough value doesn’t work in a TripleA match but can sometimes work in face-to-face match against poor opponents. I have a feeling most of this strategy is designed for people who eventually make mistakes when faced with threats in multiple locations.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
@andrewaagamer Throwing resources away for not enough value doesn’t work in a TripleA match but can sometimes work in face-to-face match against poor opponents. I have a feeling most of this strategy is designed for people who eventually make mistakes when faced with threats in multiple locations.
I think there is something to be said for that though. A perfect A&A player doesn’t exist and being that this amazing game originated from the good old fashioned person-to-person board game on the table, it’s not like people to have battle calculators in front of them either, especially when they’re playing the actual board game in person. That ultimately leaves a margin of error in play at all times for both sides that essentially forces them to eyeball with RNG in mind and the ‘rough’ averages that rolls can give in terms of analyzing the probability of winning and losing battles. Just like this strategy isn’t universal in all scenarios, it’s just meant to counter Japan when they so choose to do a J1 DOW. Atleast, that’s what I think.
I’d be find with posting my own response to the J1 DOW with my America and ANZAC turn 1 and maybe turn 2 as well depending on what you wanna see. I also do understand the concern for what’s being put on the Atlantic so I can include that to, but I dont think the moves over in the Atlantic will be super necassary with America. Plus I’ve been meaning to get some input on my starting Pacific build anyway.
-
Just the USA Atlantic purchase on turns 1 and 2 is necessary. No need for detailed troop movements there as frankly the game is mostly scripted for the first few turns on that side of the board.
-
@thedesertfox still waiting for your response to the standard J1 opener I posted.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
@thedesertfox still waiting for your response to the standard J1 opener I posted.
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll give it a try:
Low luck, 6 IPC Pacific bid, J1 COW opener. All units moved or purchased could be going against Japan. Feel free to change up the J1 NCM.
-
@govz why is your game low liuck? I feel nobody plays that way?
-
That certainly is a reasonable response and will require Japan to be more conservative in the next rounds. Yunnan likely will trade hands on J2, and then be held in China hands on China 3 if stacked. By turn 4, Japan can decide whether to focus on kicking the Allied stack out of Yunnan (India will last for a long-time) or simply go after India while letting China run amuck for the mid-game.
I personally try winning the map on the European side of the map and would be happy if Russia was 100% focused on helping out in Asia on R1-3. Stinks for Japan but increases the chance of victory overall.
-
@theveteran certainly reasonable to use low-luck to demonstrate a strategy. I actually prefer it as the board will reflect the most-likely outcome.
A few people play low-luck which is their personal choice. It is different; not good or bad.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris yea i just thought low luck was unrealistic because not many play with it.
-
@theveteran Low Luck allows consistency which is important when testing out a strategy as you don’t want the variable of the dice effecting the results.
-
@andrewaagamer sure :+1:
-
@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
@govz why is your game low liuck? I feel nobody plays that way?
What they said. Plus, my 1st attempt to produce that file ended with the US getting 4 hits defending the Philippines. It wouldn’t be reasonable to use such an improbable outcome as an example. Using low luck seemed lazier than reloading until I got a non-stupid result.
-
@govz sure, no problem.
-
@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll give it a try:
R2.tsvg
Low luck, 6 IPC Pacific bid, J1 COW opener. All units moved or purchased could be going against Japan. Feel free to change up the J1 NCM.- I don’t like the 4 bomber buy for the USA. The key for the US is to get a comparable fleet in the water against the IJN and that is not happening with bombers.
- I would only bring one ground unit to Brazil, that way your transport can empty Brazil in two Turns.
- I don’t like bringing the US fleet to Midway. I assume you are doing this to try and put pressure on the IJN in SZ6. Having the fleet in Hawaii versus Midway is the same threat against SZ6 since Hawaii has a Naval Base and Midway does not. The advantage of being in Hawaii vs Midway is that when the Japanese move a large portion of their fleet to SZ6 to counter the US threat the US can move their Hawaii fleet to Queensland and try and overpower the portion of the IJN that is in the south. This ploy is not doable from Midway.
- China move looks reasonable to me.
- Going to disagree with a aircraft carrier buy for UK Pacific. India needs ground troops, not a fleet. India has no hope of competing against Japan in the water. They need every ground troop they can lay their hands on to hold, trade or make Calcutta expensive for the Japanese. Taking the UK Med Fleet out of the Med to go against Japan is giving the game to the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
- You placed a sub in India with the Bid? Sub, Ftr vs CA. Not the greatest of battles.
- I don’t like taking Sumatra. Going west is more important and you don’t lose the transport.
- I don’t like Java with ANZAC. Dutch New Guinea provides more money for ANZAC and it is less likely to be attacked by Japan.
Suggested Topics
