A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

@thedesertfox your fighter cannot attack Hunan and fly to suiyan because in total that would be a total of 5 movements…

Item 1
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

You agreed with me on one point, that point being that you wouldn’t attack Yunnan on J2 if they had 13 infantry and 3 planes defending it because you realized the very apparent fact that Japan would lose a serious amount of planes as a result of it.

Actually I agreed with you on two points. The one you stated and the following…

@andrewaagamer said in Was KJF really that bad?:

If you want to say that Japan cannot do everything IF the USA provides sufficient resources into the Pacific then I agree with that 100%.

Item 2
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I know your passionate about your J1 take over the world strategy but at least try to make an effort to build on these ideas to better help the Allies lol.

It is not my J1 DOW strategy. COW was, as far as I know, the first one to officially put forth the J1 opener; so I give credit where credit is due. While I do not use his version exactly; 90% of my J1 DOW opener is his baby.

Also, I am trying to help the Allies against Japan. That is why I am trying to counter your less than stellar advice where I think it goes awry. Funny how you just thanked me for helping you improve your China opening and then state this.

Item 3
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I didn’t dismiss my floating bridge strategy, nor is buying a battleship a “no no” as the USA either. Granted buying lots of battleships is a big no no, I prefer buying strat bombers instead for the Pacific. Way more cost effective then battleships but it’s nice to have something that can take a hit.

Sorry, bad advice again. Buying battleships is a mistake. They have poor value for their cost. You should read my Warfare Principles of Axis and Allies article. In addition, buying bombers for the US in the Pacific is also a mistake. Yes, they have great mobility and project firepower but what the US needs in the Pacific is to control the Ocean and to do that they needs ships in the sea. (Kind of like boots on the ground)

Item 4
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Third and finally, you again missassume that I haven’t seen a 70+ IPC Japan when I have made 0 light to that. I have pal, its almost like I’ve done it myself AS JAPAN. You ought to keep yourself in check before mindlessly insulting me for made up crap.>

Well, I can only go by what you said previously. Both of these statements below sure made it seem you disagreed that Japan could get to $72.

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

Regarding the merits of how much money is being made/spent, in my test runs, Japan never got to the point where they were making 72$, and that’s all thanks to my combined British and Anzac strategy.

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

So I’ve counted out all the provinces and in order for Japan to control that much money, they need to have taken ALL of China, ALL of the money islands and ALL of Southeast Asia. That’s without Australia, Honolulu, and Russia. I’m not sure what you’re Allied player is doing to allow Japan to take over that much money but whatever they’re doing is wrong… just straight up wrong.

Item 5
@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Because for the past 2-3 days you’ve essentially done nothing but tell me “Japan OP, Japan destroy all, Japan make 70 IPCs and win, Japan crushes everything with unlimited resources”. I’ve at least offered some variation in what I’m saying.

Actually, I spent the past two days trying to rectify your bad advice. You are the one who continues to exaggerate what Japan can do in your sarcastic retorts about unlimited ships and resources. I have clearly stated that, IF the US spends enough money in the Pacific, Japan can be reigned in.

While I am not enjoying this conversation, if you continue to misrepresent my statements I will continue to reply so please stop fabricating what I say so I can spend my time on more fruitful pursuits. I take care to be very exact in my statements and I do not appreciate your trying to tarnish my reputation by misquoting me and misrepresenting what I am saying.

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

So then let’s start over, shall we?

Works for me.

So, the Allied strategy in the Pacific. BIG Topic! Let’s start high and work our way down.

10,000 foot view: Japan has the initiative and more firepower and can take out any one target (India, China, Hawaii or Sydney). However, with less money than her four opponents combined, the Allies quickly catch up so the goal of the Allies is to slow Japan down so she cannot take two areas, force her to spend money on retaking already captured territory and then overwhelm her with a superior US fleet. Japan’s Achilles Heel is that her capital is in the North and her main money is in the South. As you say, Japan cannot be everywhere at once. To win in the Pacific the Allies must get a larger fleet into the Ocean to force Japan to sit in SZ6. If the US fleet cannot be blown up, and the Allied Fleet is in The Caroline’s, than Japan has no choice but to move to SZ 6 and then the Allies retake all the Money Islands and Japan’s dream of conquest is dashed.

Japan Plan: We can assume Japan is gong to go for either India or China as those are the more logical areas to take. Reason being even though Japan can take Sydney or Hawaii with the US so close she cannot leave those possessions to go get the winning area without probably losing them to the US. Whereas, if Japan takes China or India the IJN protects those possessions from the US. Japan wants to take India and clear or stalemate China, so her coastal Victory Cities are safe, then turn to the Ocean to get Hawaii or Sydney for the win.

Roles of each Allied Power: There are three minor Powers (UK Pacific, China and ANZAC) plus one major Power (USA) to fight Japan. Since, the ultimate goal of the Allies is to have a superior fleet and we know the US is the only one that can achieve that due to money, the one and only goal of the US is to build a bigger and badder fleet than the Japanese.

US Step 1: Get to The Caroline Islands. From the Caroline’s the Allied fleet can send transports to Java, The Philippines, Celebes and threatens the China Coast. This gives the Allies more money to spend and forces Japan to spend valuable ground troops and transports retaking those already captured islands/areas. This game of attrition should be played by ANZAC if at all possible, with the exception of The Philippines for the US.

US Step 2: Have a fleet that can survive if it moves to SZ6. It requires a significantly larger flee to move to SZ6 safely than it does to move to The Caroline’s safely.

ANZAC: ANZAC is the one nation you want to use to trade the Money Islands with. As they can hit Java with any newly built transport and tucked out of the way they need to assume the cannon fodder role. With a large enough US fleet protecting Sydney ANZAC can go all out in costing Japan money. Nothing is more frustrating to Japan then having to retake the same islands over and over again and losing transports and ground troops too boot. Therefore, ANZAC wants to build transports and ground troops to trade islands and maybe some destroyers if the US needs assistance.

China: China’s one and only goal is to kill Japanese ground troops. There is a fine balance they have to achieve as they do not want to allow their stack to get over powered by a few Japanese ground troops and a ton of planes but they need to stay close enough to the front lines that Japan is forced to deal with them. As you already determined, they can trade or even hold Yunnan for 2-4 Turns depending on the Japanese strategy. Trading Yunnan denies Japan a much needed landing zone and the lynch pin for Japan is it is difficult for them to get enough ground troops consolidated to move next to the China stack without getting mauled. Once Japan can do that China must pull back.

UK Pacific: Like China UK Pacific’s goal is to kill Japanese ground troops. Having 2-3 mechs helps this greatly so UK firepower can still reach out to Shan State even when sitting in Burma is untenable. You don’t want Japan getting Shan State or Yunnan for as long as possible to deny them a cheap airport. Once Japan builds up a force large enough to take India cheaply UK needs to retreat to West India and trade India for as long as possible. Some reinforcements from the Middle East may be needed to extend this trading as long as possible. While it provides Japan with probably $3-$6 more IPCs per Turn the loss of troops, the inability to build in India and most importantly the pinning of Japan air power is well worth it.

So, there it is. That is how you contain Japan. The faster the US can build it’s fleet the faster the Allies gain control in the Pacific which is why I disagree with spending too much money on the Europe side of the board.

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer

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.

@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.

@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:

• All 20 to Moscow
• 6 to Moscow and 14 left behind
• All 20 stay in the east

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:

@andrewaagamer

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?