A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

@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?

1. If you want an example of a orthodox COW J1 opener, here is a save file against an opponent who spent his bid in Europe so gives a perfect reference for Pacific allied strategy. About average luck overall in the battles.

J1 dow example.tsvg

How are you preventing Japan from getting the rest of the money islands next turn? Sure you could stack everything on Java and Japan takes Malaya J2 and then Java J3… not a big distraction for how much the Allies have to sacrifice. You can prolong the game with constant sacrifices, but eventually the Allies will find themselves down hundreds of TUV.

2. Germany needs to be laser focused on getting troops East during the first few turns as supply chain becomes too lengthy. I do inf+art on G1, mech+tanks on G2. Then pivot to mostly planes as they can simultaneously project power in multiple directions. Dark Skies is overpowered and will wreck the Allies if they don’t have an amphibious landing by turn 6. Skip the Med fleet unless you are truly a top player as overbuilding Axis ships is the most common reason that side fails.

Taking Java with 2 infantry does not deter Japan at all in this save file. The allied troops in Java get killed on J2 at the cost of perhaps a Japanese infantry. Allies gain 4 PUs and lose 13 TUV. Axis loses 3 TUV. Not a great trade compared to the other options of heading west with the India transport and to New Guinea with the ANZAC transport. This is my complaint about your strategy. Same for Andrew. You post suggested moves that make absolutely no sense.

In this match that I posted J1, the Allies stacked Java with 3 infantry, 1 AA, and 2 fighters. That was sufficient that I took Malaya on J2. Minor nuisance for so many resources spent.

My opponent traded away too many units to start the game, making it easy for the Japanese to stall the Allies while Germany cruised to victory in Europe. Moscow feel on G6 and there was insufficient Allied forces to stop the march onwards into the Middle East and then Egypt.

Now check out the games of top players who win as Allies. They don’t need to make significant sacrifices and don’t get into risky battles. See this match that Andrew is playing where Moscow is holding firm on turn 8 and the Allies are out-earning the Axis by a significant amount. Still so much to happen in the game, but it certainly is a reasonable position for the Allies to be in at this point. 27 Allied planes in the European theater, giving them considerable flexibility to project power in multiple directions. That stack in Greece is a major nuisance.

2022-oob-playoffs-r1-andrewaagamer-x-vs-oysteilo-a-60 (10).tsvg

@thedesertfox you arent spamming cruisers - they are too expensive a unit. also you shouldnt ever purchase a single cruiser anyways - they are very much not the best unit for the cost. subs and destroyers should be the backbone of your navy while your loaded carriers do the heavy hitting. Also Andrew is correct about battleships not ever being a great purchase either.

@andrewaagamer i think the (except for turn 1) is a big point you cant gloss over. as Japan if you are stacking amur turn 1 with the russians i am going to wipe out your army in one big attack when i have the units in position and then can gobble up your territories immediately following the big attack. also the russians can keep units in Tsaka to project a threat if the Japanese want to grab SFE for free with a sinlge transport turn 1.

@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer i think the (except for turn 1) is a big point you cant gloss over. as Japan if you are stacking amur turn 1 with the russians i am going to wipe out your army in one big attack when i have the units in position and then can gobble up your territories immediately following the big attack. also the russians can keep units in Tsaka to project a threat if the Japanese want to grab SFE for free with a single transport turn 1.

Yeah, I admit I was tired of typing and I probably should have gone into more detail as to why you can’t be in Amur on R1 for all the newbies out there that have not learned that yet the hard way.

I am not crazy about going to Sakha with the Russians. Buryatia is the spot for me. If you go to Sakha the Japanese can get 17 ground troops into Amur and their entire airforce into position to wipe you out since you are trapped there. As Japan I would forego an early DOW on the rest of the Allies and go after Russia if my opponent did this.

Should also add there is no guarantee even 20 can stay in Amur the whole time. If Japan ever has enough units in position to wipe out that stack they have to pull back to Buryatia until the danger passes.

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer

Then I suppose it accomplishes its mission fairly well in stopping a J1 attack from happening.

Which would be great if the Axis had to win on both sides of the board, but they don’t.

After wiping out the Russian stack Japan can push through the now almost empty Russian eastern flank and gobble up Russian income which makes an early Moscow take a certainty. Since the ground troops they lose are not that much more than what would be pinned anyway in Korea they can still go for a J3 DOW that a) limits the US response to a hard charging German Moscow push and b) have enough of a threat that they can force India and the US to combat them and still stalemate China.

If Moscow goes down on G7 that is bad news for the Allies.