It isn’t always possible to retake it J2.
Consider the following scenario: J1 DOW, successful Yunnan attack. Yunnan retaken C1 with no defensive hits. 2inf from Siam now in FIC but hit with the 3 UK planes. 2 planes lost but both troops gone. 10 Chinese inf can be placed on Yunnan. Stalingrad mech/inf can reach Yunnan with 3 starting USSR planes. Remaining UK plane can also sit there, plus 2UK inf from Burma.
No ground troops are in range but perhaps all the starting air force.
While such an air strafe is 99%, we are assuming every Japanese plane survived and is also in range. It’s also still a negative TUV expected value. Losing all those planes would not be worth it for Japan IMO. USA would smack them around so easily after that massive hit to their forces.
@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:
I go back and forth on the Yunnan question
Not following. It’s one of the least close calls in the game.
@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:
I often burn through all of my land units and wind up with nothing to hit Yunnan with on J2 except for the 2 infantry that start in Siam
Which are vulnerable to being taken out by UK air. That’s the main merit in keeping an inf back from Yunnan J1. You’re pretty sure to have a land unit to attack Yunnan J2. The downside is that there’s a only about a 60% chance of taking the territory with your art & planes intact without bring in bombers.
@simon33 I think maybe your preferences are so different from mine on this one that we’re having trouble communicating.
Sure, literally, it is possible for the Allies to make it impossible for Japan to take Yunnan J2 after a normal J1 opening, regardless of whether you hold an Japanese infantry back in Kiangsi. In practice, I think Allied players would very rarely want to fly the entire Russian air force to Yunnan, because holding Yunnan is worth 4 to 7 IPCs of income (depending on whether you’re playing Balanced Mod) and the ability to purchase 3 artillery instead of 4 infantry (useful, but not utterly game-changing; the entire Chinese stack shifts from an attack of about 12 punch to 17 punch, and it is slightly worse at defending).
If you stack Yunnan with literally everything that can reach as the Allies, that exposes you to strategic bombing in Russian factories on G3 and in India on J2, it makes your R3 trades much weaker and might even allow the Germans to stack one space deeper into Eastern Europe, and it makes a Japanese harbor purchase in Formosa on J2 stronger because there are no longer enough units defending India and Burma. In my opinion, these disadvantages outweigh the extra Chinese income and the extra Chinese punch.
I hear you saying that you’re somewhat interested in the question of whether to attack Yunnan with 3 land units or 4 land units on J1, but that you are pretty sure it’s wiser to attack with 4 land units when declaring J1 because without your bombers, 3 land units doesn’t give you a strong enough attack. That’s fine. I mostly agree with you about that specific point, especially if you’re insisting on taking Yunnan, rather than just clearing it.
What I’m interested in is whether it makes sense to try to capture Yunnan at all on J1 during a J1 DoW. I go back and forth on that question. I like attacking with 3 land units and 2 planes and then retreating when you are down to 1 infantry or so – you might get lucky and capture the territory, and on average you will kill more infantry than you lose. Together with a small attack on Hunan, you can bleed the Chinese pretty dry on J1 and keep Kwangsi safe for a while.
It may seem clear to you that a full J1 attack on Yunnan is obviously a good idea, but it’s not clear to me. If you want to explain more about why you’re so passionate about capturing Yunnan on J1, I’m genuinely interested to hear more about your opinions, but just declaring that “it’s one of the least close calls in the game” isn’t helpful to me.
Why would you waste Japanese lives for Yunnan? Japan starts with lots of air but very few infantry and they are all spread out. Better consolidate those guys at honan and meet up with other japanese units and taking it next turn for sure.
@DessertFox599 said in We need an allied playbook.:
Why would you waste Japanese lives for Yunnan? Japan starts with lots of air but very few infantry and they are all spread out. Better consolidate those guys at honan and meet up with other japanese units and taking it next turn for sure.
What extra units does Japan bring? When I’m doing my J1 I’m using all 3 transports on Borneo and Philippines.
@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:
What I’m interested in is whether it makes sense to try to capture Yunnan at all on J1 during a J1 DoW. I go back and forth on that question. I like attacking with 3 land units and 2 planes and then retreating when you are down to 1 infantry or so – you might get lucky and capture the territory, and on average you will kill more infantry than you lose. Together with a small attack on Hunan, you can bleed the Chinese pretty dry on J1 and keep Kwangsi safe for a while.
Right. I read your comments as you not being sure about whether to attack Yunnan at all. The Yunnan stack is one of the strongest bids so I was very confused by your comments.
Strategic bombing on Moscow can’t start G3 unless there’s a G1 DOW. You do open Calcutta up to bombing from J2, but this isn’t a strong Axis move anyway unless the allies are likely to defer the fall of India. Makes much more sense with a J3 DOW. Anyway, a G4 unescorted bombing raid is something that is likely to need to be countered. Escorts can only make it if Belarus, W Ukraine or Ukraine fall I2. British fighters may be available for intercept, but may not too.
Ok, so if you’re just questioning whether to strafe, I still wouldn’t plan to do that. I can accept the idea of holding back an infantry in Kwangsi for reasons already discussed, but only in the case of a J1 DOW. If the battle goes badly enough, you can never rule out a retreat. I wouldn’t retreat one artillery and leave alive one Chinese inf. It puts you in a really bad tactical situation turn 3. China will stack Szechwan C1 and build artillery. Then turn 2, are you going to put your artillery into Yunnan? Doesn’t make sense given you wouldn’t do that turn 1. So China gets two turns of building up in Szechwan. By J3 you need to move into Yunnan or India can keep living too long. But China may be able to kill your stack on its own. Your choices become really bad unless you’ve taken India somehow (refer to my thread on stopping the J3 India crush). All this to save (usually) one artillery? Terrible decision. Still terrible if China got no hits on you.
If you aren’t doing the J1, my go to plan is to send the Kwangsi artillery to Hunan. There are two reasons for this. firstly just to keep the artillery alive for extra punch and an extra hit in later battles. Secondly, if the 2inf in Hunan get a double hit in the first round (1 in 9 chance) or a second hit in an improbably later round, then a Chinese counter attack is on and will probably succeed. Now, back to Yunnan, if I do indeed lose all my ground troops, I’ve never lost a plane to take the territory. I’m pretty sure I can attack it J2 in that case.
It’s massively different in a J1 DOW or later. In a J1, every ground unit is that much more precious. I can accept leaving Yunnan Chinese in a later DOW because you can that much more easily occupy it later.
Wow, that was a lot of ink spilled over Yunnan. The National Objective and artillery bonus are legit reasons for taking and keeping Yunnan. I have to admit that in reading VDH, there was a consensus view that the Allies wanted to avoid a Verdun or a Sommes. So I am extremely hesitant to stick a British fighter there for the duration of the game to garrison the territory. Not my style.
Doing some play testing, mechanized Russia is mixed results. Against a disciplined, methodical German player, I think it might buy you 1 extra round before Moscow falls. Better results against a careless player, that’s for sure. I’ll be trying out some variations, like all artillery R1, then mechs/tanks after that so that your counter stack is available R4 from Belarus.
For the U.S., I’m thinking IF J1, buy only bombers for the Pacific. The goal is the U.S. fleet and planes at Hawaii US1, ANZAC US2 along with bombers bought US1, and hit any Japanese fleet at the money islands on US3. A bomber buy is the only thing that can reach in time to join the original ships. This leaves US2 buy for the Atlantic OR, if Japan is sending its entire navy south, keep buying for the Pacific on US2/3 to seize SZ6. Any fighters that survived and landed on Shan State, if they’re allive US4, can help keep Yunnan/Calcutta, or can be in Moscow in time for G6
Also means UKPac/China NEED to keep Shan State or Malaya as a landing spot for planes. As a bonus this potentially gets 8 fighters/tacticals up to help UKPac/China
If that’s the move, I’m thinking ANZAC just needs its most efficient attack navy possible, but I’m wondering if destroyers would be preferable to subs since the destroyers can help defend any remaining U.S. navy from Japanese air and help act as blockers to prevent Calcutta crush.
On the other side, that means the UK needs to do enough to keep London and Cairo, and everything else is fighters dumped on Russia. Planes from England can take off from Scotland and land in Novgorod or Archangel, then on to Moscow UK2 or 3 OR help defend an aggressive Russian player in Karaelia. More UK planes can arrive in 1 move via a factory in Persia built UK2, so 3 UK fighters arrive in Moscow a turn starting UK4.
So questions, start with the end first. If you get all that navy off the money Islands and land the planes in Shan. Where are the Axis’ economies, give or take 5? Best case? Worst? Balanced mode or OOB? And conversely how is your and your allies’ economies effected by said strategy?
btw, for Russia I like 3 men for both forward bases and mech/tank combo for rear. If mechs gave you another turn, what turn is that?
@crockett36 For mechanized Russia, I mean to say it delays Germany’s attack on Moscow by about a turn. So you spend more on units (4 for mechs instead of 3 for infantry stack), but get an extra buy.
For the U.S./ANZAC bit… Japan NEEDS the money islands to keep up with the U.S. Deny them that, its a big win. So a strong J1 means J2 they can take the last 3 of the 4 money islands, but if the U.S. is aggressive, you can sink a chunk of their fleet and retake an island. That would slow down their money, slow down their expansion. Make taking India much, much more difficult. So, using BM3, J2 they usually collect 52, and J3 60.
Sinking Japan’s ships and retaking Java or Celebes, etc. can keep them down around 50 ipcs for an extra 2 turns (1 to retake what you took, another turn or 2 recovering the troops/ships you sank)
@weddingsinger let’s say you attack on US3, that gives you 2x Ftr’s and 5x Bmbrs (4x Bmbrs bought on US1 and now stationed at QL, the rest don’t reach).
That gives you zero chance on 2BB, 1CR, 1DD 2CV and 2Ftr2TacB. of the IJN.
I think you need a better plan 😉
@aequitas-et-veritas said in We need an allied playbook.:
@weddingsinger let’s say you attack on US3, that gives you 2x Ftr’s and 5x Bmbrs (4x Bmbrs bought on US1 and now stationed at QL, the rest don’t reach).
That gives you zero chance on 2BB, 1CR, 1DD 2CV and 2Ftr2TacB. of the IJN.
I think you need a better plan 😉
It gives you 4 or 5 fighters, 1 tactical, 4 bombers, 1BB, 1CV, 2CR, 2DD, 1 sub. All planes that US starts with can reach. And then another 3 fighters, 1 CR, and either 3 subs or DDs via ANZAC
And if it forces Japan to keep its entire fleet together and choose between losing transports or not, that’s the point… To either be able to hit Japan hard or to force Japan to slow down. If they slow down, India survives, they make less income. If they’re careless, you can kill some Japanese fleet.
@weddingsinger you may not count any US ships in since they can simply be blocked.
Two more Ftrs don’t change much in that scenario.
What if, instead of the money islands, you went for the throat. 100 % PAC build. Original pieces plus 2 round of sub building, one round of bombers. Turn 1 huddle off o
San Fran, t2 Hawaii, t3 Midway or within 2 spaces, 4 Tokyo bay? Might accomplish same goals.
@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:
What if, instead of the money islands, you went for the throat. 100 % PAC build. Original pieces plus 2 round of sub building, one round of bombers. Turn 1 huddle off o
San Fran, t2 Hawaii, t3 Midway or within 2 spaces, 4 Tokyo bay? Might accomplish same goals.
I’m trying a game with a harbor on Wake Island. Gives you almost unblockable access to sz6, can make Guam from there…Can still get back to Aleutians (but not Alaska) and, unlike Midway, can make it down to ANZAC in 1.
But I’m not sure it really accomplishes much beyond very aggressive posturing. Next stop is either wiping out sz6 or setting up a bomber haven on Iwo Jima
So clearly I have no issue with pummeling sz6. My main question always revolves around which way works best. The other idea is to hopefully sink a Japanese fleet group and some transports. Japan without transports is one you can block from a LOT of money…
Don’t get me wrong @weddingsinger , I like your idea(s).
It is just very hard to accomplish even when it sounds so easy.
But one thing you will def. achieve. You create an immense threat on the Pac. Theatre with a Bmbr swarm.
You are also able to snipe out further away positioned TT’s.
Bmbrs makeing it hard to position your self as Japan, but i suggest to buy and bring an additionl BB or CV.
After J3, Japan will spend more on Navy and focousing on a 50/50 Land units/Naval units buy startegy.
@aequitas-et-veritas While sniping poorly defended transports is one goal, mostly its to slow down Japan.
Even if they block you, you hopefully force them to keep their fleet group together or risk having it sunk. So if they split up at all or head over to Calcutta, they put themselves at risk to lose more significant assets since it leaves them out of position.
1st game test of naval base at Wake is going well. Russia eventually took Korea so the U.S. could bomb Japan, fighters landed to help protect Korea, and U.S. navy retreated to Hawaii using blockers. This leave the money islands for ANZAC and Japan is only making in the 40s on J3/J4/J5
@weddingsinger @aequitas-et-veritas After a year of designing new KJFs, I feel our energy is better spent on KGF, because that is the only way to disrupt the basic game dynamic (Germany goes for a quick moscow kill).
Still, without a bid, it cannot develop quickly enough to stop Germany–the pieces needed to kill Moscow are already built before USA joins the war.
I’ve just started playing AA50, and the dynamic in that game is completely different because of 2 things–
there is a double-shuck to the UK: 1 turn direct from USA and units can be handed from fleet to fleet via the UK land square so transports don’t need to cross back to reload.
AND
The Russian income and geometry means a quick, pat, “all in against Moscow” strategy will fail because Germany has to dedicate major resources to defending France and Germany (without the benefit of the canal rule/Denmark)
If Japan has China, the Middle East and perhaps much of the Soviet Far East and yet the Allies have control of much of Europe, who will win the game? Have you just reset the game to a struggle between East and West or won the game in extra innings?
@taamvan i agree that more often Ally Players, go after Germany first.
So the question will be:
What is the approbiate approach??
@taamvan @crockett36 I like the way you’re framing the problem; it’s interesting to think about whether the USA can actually prevent Germany from taking Moscow. I think Germany needs at least four turns of building to take Moscow – something like mechs and tanks on G1, G2, and G3, followed by bombers on G4. If you send all of that directly at Moscow, with no relevant Allied bid, then with normal dice you can take Moscow on G5 or G6.
The earliest the USA can arrive in a way that forces Germany to pay attention is what, US4? Even with a J1 DoW, the USA doesn’t start the game with enough of an Atlantic fleet to be a serious threat, so they have to build one on USA1. On USA2, that fleet can usually move to Gibraltar. On USA3, that fleet can move to the English Channel if you’re serious about KGF, but is probably still not strong enough to move to the North Sea, so you need to wait until a second turn of US Atlantic fleet builds can arrive before you to move to the sea zone outside Western Germany and Denmark, which would be USA4. Germany has to pay attention to that because if you take Denmark then the UK can hit Berlin on UK4.
If you have a J3 DoW, the USA can build up its Atlantic fleet on US1 and US2. You can’t move to Gibraltar until US3, but if you invest heavily enough in the Atlantic then your fleet is big enough that you can probably still move the fleet outside Western Germany on US4.
So our intuitions are different somewhere, I think. It seems to me that if the USA and UK go hard-core in the Atlantic, they can pose an existential threat to Germany on turn 4, but Germany needs to buy bombers on turn 4, not defense for the western front. I guess if Germany is rich enough then they could potentially do both, but a competent Russian player normally shouldn’t be letting Germany collect more than about 50 IPCs on G3.
Where do we disagree? Do you think Germany can knock out Moscow with only 3 turns of builds? Do you think the USA can’t build enough fleet to take the W. German sea zone on turn 4? Do you think Germany can sort of split the difference, buy some fighters on G4 and G5, and take Moscow on turn 6 or 7?
