A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

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.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@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.

[TheVeteran]

@arthur-bomber-harris yea i just thought low luck was unrealistic because not many play with it.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@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.

[TheVeteran]

@andrewaagamer sure :+1:

[GovZ]

@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.

[TheVeteran]

@govz sure, no problem.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@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.

1. 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.
2. I would only bring one ground unit to Brazil, that way your transport can empty Brazil in two Turns.
3. 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.
4. China move looks reasonable to me.
5. 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.
6. You placed a sub in India with the Bid? Sub, Ftr vs CA. Not the greatest of battles.
7. I don’t like taking Sumatra. Going west is more important and you don’t lose the transport.
8. 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.

[GovZ]

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

1. 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.
2. I would only bring one ground unit to Brazil, that way your transport can empty Brazil in two Turns.
3. 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.
4. China move looks reasonable to me.
5. 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.
6. You placed a sub in India with the Bid? Sub, Ftr vs CA. Not the greatest of battles.
7. I don’t like taking Sumatra. Going west is more important and you don’t lose the transport.
8. 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.

1. The key for the Allies is to sink the IJN. I love building boats, but clearing the Pacific of surface ships prevents Japan from ever winning the game. US bombers work real well for this - they can’t be blocked and can clear blockers for allies later in the turn order.
2. The 3 Brazil guys move north next turn to be picked up by future US transports. The other units can move off NZ on US 3.
3. Correct about SZ6, but think planes, not boats. All 11 US planes can hit SZ6 next turn. The IJN moving back to SZ6 on J2 is a line I haven’t played against in live games, but one I am worried about. I think the worst outcome is the US trades Hawaii for sinking the IJN on counterattack turn 4. Meanwhile, ANZAC & India are making roughly the same income as Japan.
4. The stack in Szechwan allows China to control Yunnan and Russia to control Shan State - denying Japan a landing zone.
5. You are correct that India alone cannot compete against Japan in the water. However, India, G.B., ANZAC, France, & Russia combined kinda can. India gets crushed by sea right now by buying troops. China & Russia can protect the ground approach. While the navy won’t survive a J3 attack by the full IJN, India should be able to survive the amphibious assault. The remaining IJN then faces a wave of US bombers followed by the British planes & the 3 subs.
6. Agreed, but the ship needs to be sunk. The DD can be used (if no bid), but it opens you up to a J2 attack sacrificing the 4 planes. That actually might still be the best move J2 from this position.
7. It annoys Japan and may make them waste some ground troops. India needs the $4 to buy a DD & sub In2.
8. It annoys Japan and may make them waste some ground troops. It’s $1. ANZAC built another transport to take DNG on A2.

Thanks for the detailed response. In chess terms, my goal is to fork Japan. In the north, the US holds SZ6 in check by air. In the south, the allies bleed both Japan’s income and it’s ground forces. If this gambit works, the IJN is sunk, Japan never makes threshold, and can be left to China and ANZAC to clean up.

[AndrewAAGamer]

So, whatever you do on the Pacific side of the board really makes no difference. Obviously, since you are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at Japan, Japan will not be able to get anywhere. However, the Axis is going to win easily on the Europe side of the board. With so much committed against Japan Italy is going to make life tough for UK in the Med which means little to no help is coming from UK to Moscow and since you have drawn off so many Russian resources to go against Japan Germany is going to steamroll Moscow.

That being said attached would be my J2 response to your Allied opener. This protects Korea and SZ6 from Russia and the US and stalemates China temporarily. Japan, amazingly, will take Sydney on J3; I actually did not think that was possible. Then with ANZAC out of the game they will be able to turn against the separated smaller US fleet and UK fleets and try and hold on as long as possible forcing the US to continue spending resources in the Pacific while the game is lost for the Allies on on the Europe side of the board.
GovZ J2 Response.tsvg

[AndrewAAGamer]

Oh, by the way, per your instructions I corrected the J1 opener to be a more reasonable approach.

[GovZ]

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

That being said attached would be my J2 response to your Allied opener. This protects Korea and SZ6 from Russia and the US and stalemates China temporarily. Japan, amazingly, will take Sydney on J3; I actually did not think that was possible. Then with ANZAC out of the game they will be able to turn against the separated smaller US fleet and UK fleets and try and hold on as long as possible forcing the US to continue spending resources in the Pacific while the game is lost for the Allies on on the Europe side of the board.
GovZ J2 Response.tsvg

Fantastic idea - one I haven’t seen before in live games. This is why I brought this to league players. I think my opening can be slightly tweaked in NCM to prevent this. Also you may need to tweak your response - I blew up your transports.
R3.tsvg

[AndrewAAGamer]

Yep, saw that the US could hit it but missed ANZAC. That is why you should always play it through. Would need to put more in defense of Caroline or just use Paulau which I contemplated but didn’t want to spend the $30 on the harbor and airbase.

The way to stop this counter would be by putting everyone in Hawaii instead of Midway. As I said before the US fleet should be in Hawaii.

[GovZ]

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Yep, saw that the US could hit it but missed ANZAC. That is why you should always play it through. Would need to put more in defense of Caroline or just use Paulau which I contemplated but didn’t want to spend the $30 on the harbor and airbase.

The way to stop this counter would be by putting everyone in Hawaii instead of Midway. As I said before the US fleet should be in Hawaii.

I like your idea of concentrating the IJN in the center. It allows Japan to keep the initiative, and it can retreat to SZ6 to build new ships. I don’t think Japan will have the income to threaten 6 VCs, but I’ll test it out.

You have convinced me to try trading one of the US1 bombers for a NB on Midway.

[TheVeteran]

@govz why are you soo obsessed with midway turn 1? Hawai really is better and you don’t need to waste early income on a harbour .

[GovZ]

Fighters from Midway can hit SZ6 on US2 and land in Russia. Fighters from Hawaii can’t.

[TheVeteran]

@govz so land your fighters there …

[GovZ]

You probably could, but I don’t like leaving the planes naked on Midway when Japan has transports in range. I doubt they would actually attack, but it’s my personal preference to keep all the units together.

[Cornwallis]

@govz ever thought of going via Wake? A NB there gives you 2 ways to reach SZ6 and you can easily go back to Queensland.

[TheVeteran]

@govz aren’t there normally no Japanese transports in range of midway on J2?