Tweaking China for AAP40

@calvinhobbesliker:

Then why not take both at the same time?

Because, China is not worth it. Why waste units running around deep into China? What happens if your plan to take the DEI goes wrong or the Americans launch an unexpected offensive somewhere in the central pacific? You’ll need to react and reinforce yourself, but the more units you’ve got deep in China, the less you’ll have to react with and the harder it will be to reinforce yourself. There are 4 Chinese tt that Japan needs/should take
1. Yunan: this province is worth 1 to you but 7 to the Chinese, the burma road adds a 50% increase to China’s economy, it is a priority and must be taken
2. Hunan: it is centraly located and gives you interior lines against the Chinese and a buffer between the chinese and your costal holdings.
3&4. Charhar&Anhui, they are unoccupied and you might as well, they also have the advantage of interior lines.
Outside of that, there is no need to advance any deeper into China. With Japans air superiority any concentration by the Chinese can be swiftly destroyed if it becomes too threating. With only having infantry China has no real offensive punch. Its a defensive force, and holding/bogging down force.
Japan needs to hold 6 victory cities to win the game while holding Japan itself. The only VC in China is already under Japans control. So what value is a prolonged venture deep into China to Japan? 12ipc for 6+ turns and your forces taken away from the important fronts? Thats not a good trade off.

Americans going on the offensive(with 17 ipc’s on turn 1)? The DEI going wrong???  :lol:

All the DEI can be taken by turn 2, 3 if the Brits sac their navy to block Sumatra

China, with 12 inf and a fighter is not hard to beat and doesn’t waste much resources. Japan will have 27 planes after a J1 that can kill any chinese inf. Just attack with 1 inf and planes and kill planes. After China and India fall, you’ll be making 78. If you avoid 8 chinese tt, you make 70, the same as the allies.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Americans going on the offensive(with 17 ipc’s on turn 1)? The DEI going wrong???  :lol:
All the DEI can be taken by turn 2, 3 if the Brits sac their navy to block Sumatra
China, with 12 inf and a fighter is not hard to beat and doesn’t waste much resources. Japan will have 27 planes after a J1 that can kill any chinese inf. Just attack with 1 inf and planes and kill planes. After China and India fall, you’ll be making 78. If you avoid 8 chinese tt, you make 70, the same as the allies.

I dont think your stratgey is very sound. You cant take all of China in 1 turn, its not possible, the least amount of turns it would take is 4 or 5. Why would you ever take planes as casualties? That is a total waste of resources, all just to take a tt worth 1ipc. Why Would Japan use 27 planes just to the take 12ipc of China? Japan has the potential to get 20ipc from taking the DEI and southern areas, wouldnt that be a better use of those 27 planes? Also, China has only infantry, if you place 4inf in one of their tt, to take it back they would need atleast 8inf(12 would be better) to even have a chance of retaking it.
I suppose your one of those lucky players that never has a bad roll? Well, im not, and even the soundest plans are up to the dice in the end.
Anyway, the point of this thread is NOT to discuss J1 attack stratgey or other game tactics, there is plenty of that going on in the Pacific forum. This thread is for discussing ways to tweak China to make them a more fun/historical/viable power to play. If you have nothing to add with reguards to the topic please stop posting here.

Japan doesn’t need planes to take those areas.
Let’s look at the math: if I have a large plane mass vs 3 inf, they all die on the 1st round, and I lose a fighter. I lost 10, he lost 9, and I get 1 ipc from the territory. I’m saying to sac planes to take a tt so that you have ground units that China can’t counter.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Japan doesn’t need planes to take those areas.
Let’s look at the math: if I have a large plane mass vs 3 inf, they all die on the 1st round, and I lose a fighter. I lost 10, he lost 9, and I get 1 ipc from the territory. I’m saying to sac planes to take a tt so that you have ground units that China can’t counter.

Which is counter to what the purpose of this thread.
I think you’ve got some fuzzy math there too. You loose a fighter, which is 10ipc, your opponet has lost 9ipc, and you gained one. So not only do you lose a higher ipc value unit, and a more useful unit, but it will take 10 turns for you to recoop the ipc spent in taking the 1 ipc tt. Thats 9 turn 10ipc deficit, dosnt seem like that great of a trade off to me. I understand that 12ipcs seems like a lot, but there are better places to send those planes and troops. Im not saying never finish off China as Japan, but until Kwangtung, the Philippines, and India (tt with victory cities you need to win) are under your control, China is a low priority.
I played a game just last night, and the Japanese player didnt attack until turn 2 and didnt buy anything for 3 turns, just saved his ipcs, and he was still able to overrun India and be in a strong enough position to call the game by turn 3. So clearly, Japan dosnt really need the extra 12ipcs of China that badly, it wont massively change the game for Japan, or handicap them horrificaly.

Umm, China loses 9 ipc’s of units, I lose 10, and I gain 1 ipc from the territory. Thus, I’m even on that turn. Since Japan starts with more ipc’s of units, trading evenly won’t hurt them.

Kwangtung and Philippines are taken on turn 1. India can be taken with just 10-15 planes+land, while the other 10-15 are used against China or the US

Clearly, Math is not your strong point, as 10 is a bigger number then 9, if you hadnt noticed, and losing 10 for a gain of 1 is never seen as a good thing.

Also reading dose not seem to be one of you better subjects either, because for some reason you keep going on about J1 attack stratgies for pacific 1940, despite the fact that this is the house rules forum, and its a thread about house rules for China.

You’re the one who started talking about ignoring China.

I think you’re ignoring the 9 ipc’s the Chinese lose.

@calvinhobbesliker:

You’re the one who started talking about ignoring China.

I think you’re ignoring the 9 ipc’s the Chinese lose.

I was talking about changing our thinking towards China. China, historically, was an independent country and did what it saw as being in its best intrest. It was not, as the game has them, subordinate to an Allied power, and often times did things that effected or even hurt the western allied powers in the asia/pacific theater. I was orignaly suggesting that it would serve China better, to try and coax the Japanese player into attacking the west forcusing its main attack away from China. I think that Chinas objective to win the game should be to survive and hold onto 6 (or 4) of its tt, the allies be damed, which would be more historical then how things are currently.

China may be losing 9ipcs worth of infantry, but you lose a plane, and a plane is way way more valuable then 3 infantry. The plane attacks on a 3 or less, the infantry on 1’s. so according to odds, you have a 50% chance of hitting in combat with 1 plane, while those 3 infantry shouldnt hit at all on the attack, according to the odds. A Plane defends on a 4 or less, giving is a 60% chance of hitting, while the infantry hit on 2 or less, giving them a 20% chance of getting 1 hit between the 3 of them. Also lets not forget the planes abality to raise the attack value of the Tac bomber, which requires a 1 to 1 ratio. The fighter is more useful and veratile of a unit and should not be thrown away just to kill 3 infantry, it is a waste of resources.

3 infantry have a 42% chance of hitting, and they’re 3 unit so even if one dies, they still have a 11/36 chance in hitting again

@calvinhobbesliker:

3 infantry have a 42% chance of hitting, and they’re 3 unit so even if one dies, they still have a 11/36 chance in hitting again

Which is still a lower percentage then the fighter, making the fighter more useful. Also, a fighter can rapidly redeploy to other areas unlike infantry.

Either way, It is irrelevent to the point of this thread

On defense, they are even better, hitting 19/27 of the time, as opposed to the fighter’s 18/27.

Yes, a fighter can redeploy, but they’re not that valuable to Japan since it starts with 14 of them.

You very clearly dont get it, please stop spamming this thread, go post your fuzzy math and J1 attack stratgies in the Pacific forums, please let us get back on topic and talk about how to tweak China, and how to better the game from the Chinese perspective.

You’re the one who started the discussion by saying  that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.

How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.

@calvinhobbesliker:

You’re the one who started the discussion by saying  that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.

How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.

What I was talking about was in reguards to the Chinese NOT the Japanese. I dont believe Japan needs to focus on taking all those Chinese tt early on, its got better things to do. But this isnt really the place to discuss it at lenght. I made a passing comment, you are the one who turned this thread into another J1 attack fan boy rant. Also, anyone with a bit of sense would never make an attack with 6 planes and 1inf, if they can avoid it. Most people would better support their attacks so they wouldnt have to take fighters as casualities, which you can easily do in China as Japan. A  fighter is more useful, just because you have alot of them, dosnt mean you should be looking to lose them, its a waste of resources