A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Overall TUV is -36 for the Allies.

Not sure of your definition of a trap since the Allies lost more than the Japanese. The US Navy is sunk and the UK lost all their planes plus the bulk of the Med fleet.

java-trap-response.tsvg

I’m good with that trade. The strategic value of sinking the IJN is almost impossible to quantify in terms of TUV.

I also learned another lesson - it’s better to keep up the pressure on Japan for a turn too long than to move to the Atlantic a turn too early. Would Japan have bought ships if the US had built a bomber stack instead of Atlantic boats US3? I probably still would attack SZ6. I’m guessing that ends up being a tilted AC vs a sub, but there are so many more OOL questions. I’m happy to continue, but we are getting well into the mid-game now.

I’m still waiting for this strategy to fall apart, but with the improvements suggested in this thread, I feel I can claim that going into the mid-game:

Current method: India crushed & Japan making $70+/ turn and rising.
Stooges method: India alive & Japan contained to around $60/ turn and falling.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Current method: India crushed & Japan making $70+/ turn and rising.
Stooges method: India alive & Japan contained to around $60/ turn and falling.

I am not sure that is as much the strategy as it is throwing everything at the Japanese including the kitchen sink. I don’t think that there is any disagreement that if the Allies focus on Japan then Japan cannot win the game. The issue is how much can the Allies throw at Japan and still win on the Europe side of the board?

We have not played it out but the situation is dire on the Europe board.

• Russia is down at least 6 infantry and up 1 armor if we assume the two extra Russian fighters came from the Bid. Otherwise it is worse than that. They are also down 2 mechanized for a total of 7 units down in the defense of Moscow. None of the eastern Soviets came home so Moscow is most likely going to fall on G6; G7 is a certainty. Plus with all those fast movers in China, Germany overran Russia’s money easily and turtled Moscow without even breaking a sweat.

• The Med is a mess. UK pulled out its entire Med Fleet plus all the Med planes plus the bomber from London. Italy is wreaking havoc in the Med. How much is unknown but it is a certainty that UK is not sending enough fighters to Moscow to stave off the German hordes.

• The US contributed exactly nothing on the Europe side of the board for Turns 1 and 2. In fact, the transport and cruiser abandoned Europe as did every single plane. That means Italy again is going hog wild and Germany has felt zero pressure on their Western Front.

• Because of this the US, with a Turn 3 build, will move off Africa on Turn 4 and then to The Atlantic Wall on Turn 5. This means Germany will be able to focus 100% of their Turn 1, 2, 3 and 4 builds against Russia. That is a disaster. Starting with G5 Germany will be able to build units in captured Moscow industrial complexes and spend the rest of their money defending the Western Front which means there will be zero advancement by the Allies against Germany.

This was an interesting exercise. I think you could have done better by focusing on ships instead of bombers with the US. Taking the UK Med Fleet and planes out of the Med and sending them against the Japanese is a losing play. You should try your strategy without doing that.

Let me make a couple of detailed illustrations using 2 of your recent games as examples. First, let’s look at India’s income through turn 8:

Karl: 10 + 10 + 6 + 6 + 7 + 6 + (-4) + 4 = 45
oysteilo: 10 + 7 + (-6) + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 11
stooges: 14 + 11 + 10 + 11 + 14 + 14 + 14 + 14 = 102

This doesn’t account for the effect on Japan’s income, other than the amount they steal (the negatives above). It also doesn’t count the +8/ turn for recapturing Kwangtung at some point. That’s a big total difference that will only grow each turn.

Next, let’s look at US Atlantic builds through turn 8:

Karl: 8 + 38 + 20 + 26 + 50 + 32 + 81 + 34 = 289
oysteilo: 22 + 22 + 40 + 32 + 20 + 27 + 9 + 26 = 198
stooges: 0 + 0 + 0 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 = 320

This assumes the US spends all the US3 income keeping Japan down - thanks for teaching me a lesson the hard way. After that, it spends 18 in the Pacific per turn. The stoogely method has already more than caught up by turn 8. Without Japan to worry about, this difference should continue to grow.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I am not sure that is as much the strategy as it is throwing everything at the Japanese including the kitchen sink. I don’t think that there is any disagreement that if the Allies focus on Japan then Japan cannot win the game. The issue is how much can the Allies throw at Japan and still win on the Europe side of the board?

Agreed. To take it another step, we both think the Allies need a bid - I did use $6 in the Pacific. Our real disagreement is on how much of a bid, and I really don’t know the answer that gives an equal chance of winning to both sides.

We have not played it out but the situation is dire on the Europe board.

Probably, but isn’t that usually the case? It really comes down to the bid.

Also back to the kitchen sink. A good bit will survive to move back to fight Germany. In our example it’s the SA subs, the Brazilian boats, and all but 2 Russian units. Other times, there is a full British fleet moving to the eastern Med or an extra set of boats for the US in the Atlantic. It just depends on what forces were needed to KJF.

• Russia is down at least 6 infantry and up 1 armor if we assume the two extra Russian fighters came from the Bid. Otherwise it is worse than that. They are also down 2 mechanized for a total of 7 units down in the defense of Moscow. None of the eastern Soviets came home so Moscow is most likely going to fall on G6; G7 is a certainty. Plus with all those fast movers in China, Germany overran Russia’s money easily and turtled Moscow without even breaking a sweat.

There was no bid used in Russia. While a good many units went into China, all but 2 trucks can get back to Moscow before G6, so Russia is down $8. Agreed about the far east troops, but you need to account for the effect on both Russia & Japan’s incomes.

We are getting into end-game Russian tactics here. It’s impossible to project the specific situation. I also think it’s beyond this conversation. In general - (1) I think Germany, if it wants to, will take Moscow by G7, unless the Allies go to ends I’m not willing to go to. (2) I’ve been known, in certain specific situations, to make my stand in Caucasus.

• The Med is a mess. UK pulled out its entire Med Fleet plus all the Med planes plus the bomber from London. Italy is wreaking havoc in the Med. How much is unknown but it is a certainty that UK is not sending enough fighters to Moscow to stave off the German hordes.

This completely depends on the bid. To be consistent with the game comparisons above, here is my response with a $60 bid: govz-alliedopener-60bid.tsvg I’m not worried about the Med with that bid.

• The US contributed exactly nothing on the Europe side of the board for Turns 1 and 2. In fact, the transport and cruiser abandoned Europe as did every single plane. That means Italy again is going hog wild and Germany has felt zero pressure on their Western Front.

• Because of this the US, with a Turn 3 build, will move off Africa on Turn 4 and then to The Atlantic Wall on Turn 5. This means Germany will be able to focus 100% of their Turn 1, 2, 3 and 4 builds against Russia. That is a disaster. Starting with G5 Germany will be able to build units in captured Moscow industrial complexes and spend the rest of their money defending the Western Front which means there will be zero advancement by the Allies against Germany.

This was an interesting exercise. I think you could have done better by focusing on ships instead of bombers with the US. Taking the UK Med Fleet and planes out of the Med and sending them against the Japanese is a losing play. You should try your strategy without doing that.

I covered the US contribution to the Atlantic at the top. Also my projections were a turn off because I’m spending US3 fully shutting down Japan.

This thing falls apart without the Med boats and I while I don’t know if it’s a winning play, the current Allied thinking isn’t producing many wins anyway.

I’m not claiming to be able to stop Germany, but I do think this method gives the Allies a better chance.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Let me make a couple of detailed illustrations using 2 of your recent games as examples. First, let’s look at India’s income through turn 8:

Karl: 10 + 10 + 6 + 6 + 7 + 6 + (-4) + 4 = 45
oysteilo: 10 + 7 + (-6) + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 11
stooges: 14 + 11 + 10 + 11 + 14 + 14 + 14 + 14 = 102

This doesn’t account for the effect on Japan’s income, other than the amount they steal (the negatives above). It also doesn’t count the +8/ turn for recapturing Kwangtung at some point. That’s a big total difference that will only grow each turn.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers for India. India is collecting $10 and might get $11 with Siam if they are willing to trade it without any air power. When the Japanese navy comes back and takes Sumatra then they will be getting $6. Also, there is no way UK is taking Kwantung; that is a pipe dream.

Next, let’s look at US Atlantic builds through turn 8:

Karl: 8 + 38 + 20 + 26 + 50 + 32 + 81 + 34 = 289
oysteilo: 22 + 22 + 40 + 32 + 20 + 27 + 9 + 26 = 198
stooges: 0 + 0 + 0 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 = 320

This assumes the US spends all the US3 income keeping Japan down - thanks for teaching me a lesson the hard way. After that, it spends 18 in the Pacific per turn. The stoogely method has already more than caught up by turn 8. Without Japan to worry about, this difference should continue to grow.

What you are not taking into account is when the resources get there. Under your new plan you are not putting any resources into the Atlantic till Turn 4. That means they will not make any attacks against Italy or Germany till Turn 6. That is too late to make any difference. Germany will easily have an Atlantic Wall prepared, and Italy will still be fighting UK for the Med which means there is little to no UK help going to Russia.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I am not sure that is as much the strategy as it is throwing everything at the Japanese including the kitchen sink. I don’t think that there is any disagreement that if the Allies focus on Japan then Japan cannot win the game. The issue is how much can the Allies throw at Japan and still win on the Europe side of the board?

Agreed. To take it another step, we both think the Allies need a bid - I did use $6 in the Pacific. Our real disagreement is on how much of a bid, and I really don’t know the answer that gives an equal chance of winning to both sides.

We have not played it out but the situation is dire on the Europe board.

Probably, but isn’t that usually the case? It really comes down to the bid.

Also back to the kitchen sink. A good bit will survive to move back to fight Germany. In our example it’s the SA subs, the Brazilian boats, and all but 2 Russian units. Other times, there is a full British fleet moving to the eastern Med or an extra set of boats for the US in the Atlantic. It just depends on what forces were needed to KJF.

• Russia is down at least 6 infantry and up 1 armor if we assume the two extra Russian fighters came from the Bid. Otherwise it is worse than that. They are also down 2 mechanized for a total of 7 units down in the defense of Moscow. None of the eastern Soviets came home so Moscow is most likely going to fall on G6; G7 is a certainty. Plus with all those fast movers in China, Germany overran Russia’s money easily and turtled Moscow without even breaking a sweat.

There was no bid used in Russia. While a good many units went into China, all but 2 trucks can get back to Moscow before G6, so Russia is down $8. Agreed about the far east troops, but you need to account for the effect on both Russia & Japan’s incomes.

As I already said it is more than the two Russian mechs. It is the lost opportunity of building fast movers and planes instead of infantry. Since your Bid does not place the two Russian fighters you are down… 4 infantry due to building 12 mechs, 2 mechs left in China, 2 infantry vs 1 armor, 6 infantry vs 2 fighters. That is 14 infantry down and 1 armor plus 2 planes up. 14 Units with DFP of 28 vs 3 Units with DFP of 11. Moscow is so toast.

We are getting into end-game Russian tactics here. It’s impossible to project the specific situation. I also think it’s beyond this conversation. In general - (1) I think Germany, if it wants to, will take Moscow by G7, unless the Allies go to ends I’m not willing to go to. (2) I’ve been known, in certain specific situations, to make my stand in Caucasus.

• The Med is a mess. UK pulled out its entire Med Fleet plus all the Med planes plus the bomber from London. Italy is wreaking havoc in the Med. How much is unknown but it is a certainty that UK is not sending enough fighters to Moscow to stave off the German hordes.

This completely depends on the bid. To be consistent with the game comparisons above, here is my response with a $60 bid: govz-alliedopener-60bid.tsvg I’m not worried about the Med with that bid.

Based on this Bid you made a mistake with the Germans on G1. They will kill both UK fleets in 111 and 110. After Italy kills the lone UK cruiser and French fleet there will be no surface ships left in the Atlantic, with the exception of maybe the DD in 109 and perhaps 106. Certainly not enough to control the Med which means Italy is going to get good money while Germany rolls over Moscow.

• The US contributed exactly nothing on the Europe side of the board for Turns 1 and 2. In fact, the transport and cruiser abandoned Europe as did every single plane. That means Italy again is going hog wild and Germany has felt zero pressure on their Western Front.

• Because of this the US, with a Turn 3 build, will move off Africa on Turn 4 and then to The Atlantic Wall on Turn 5. This means Germany will be able to focus 100% of their Turn 1, 2, 3 and 4 builds against Russia. That is a disaster. Starting with G5 Germany will be able to build units in captured Moscow industrial complexes and spend the rest of their money defending the Western Front which means there will be zero advancement by the Allies against Germany.

This was an interesting exercise. I think you could have done better by focusing on ships instead of bombers with the US. Taking the UK Med Fleet and planes out of the Med and sending them against the Japanese is a losing play. You should try your strategy without doing that.

I covered the US contribution to the Atlantic at the top. Also my projections were a turn off because I’m spending US3 fully shutting down Japan.

This thing falls apart without the Med boats and I while I don’t know if it’s a winning play, the current Allied thinking isn’t producing many wins anyway.

I’m not claiming to be able to stop Germany, but I do think this method gives the Allies a better chance.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Let me make a couple of detailed illustrations using 2 of your recent games as examples. First, let’s look at India’s income through turn 8:

Karl: 10 + 10 + 6 + 6 + 7 + 6 + (-4) + 4 = 45
oysteilo: 10 + 7 + (-6) + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 11
stooges: 14 + 11 + 10 + 11 + 14 + 14 + 14 + 14 = 102

This doesn’t account for the effect on Japan’s income, other than the amount they steal (the negatives above). It also doesn’t count the +8/ turn for recapturing Kwangtung at some point. That’s a big total difference that will only grow each turn.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers for India. India is collecting $10 and might get $11 with Siam if they are willing to trade it without any air power. When the Japanese navy comes back and takes Sumatra then they will be getting $6. Also, there is no way UK is taking Kwantung; that is a pipe dream.

The $11th is Shan State. The 2nd Russian truck then takes Malaya - that’s the reason it stuck around. That gives $14.

Kwangtung - once China & India can safely stack Yunnan, a Indian fast mover can retake it after China clears Kwangsi.

Zombie IJN - I still would attack SZ6 in our example game, and it would be a OOL mess. I assume you wouldn’t build that fleet J4 with an extra 4 bombers in western US. My calcs assume this change of no Atlantic boats until US4.

Next, let’s look at US Atlantic builds through turn 8:

Karl: 8 + 38 + 20 + 26 + 50 + 32 + 81 + 34 = 289
oysteilo: 22 + 22 + 40 + 32 + 20 + 27 + 9 + 26 = 198
stooges: 0 + 0 + 0 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 + 64 = 320

This assumes the US spends all the US3 income keeping Japan down - thanks for teaching me a lesson the hard way. After that, it spends 18 in the Pacific per turn. The stoogely method has already more than caught up by turn 8. Without Japan to worry about, this difference should continue to grow.

What you are not taking into account is when the resources get there. Under your new plan you are not putting any resources into the Atlantic till Turn 4. That means they will not make any attacks against Italy or Germany till Turn 6. That is too late to make any difference. Germany will easily have an Atlantic Wall prepared, and Italy will still be fighting UK for the Med which means there is little to no UK help going to Russia.

I get the idea of tempo, but I don’t think the situation is as bad as you describe. If you look at little closer at my US numbers, they are actually basically equal on turn 5 - 142 to 136 to 128. And do many attacks against Germany happen before turn 6 now? The scripted G6 take down of Moscow has Germany building slow movers, fast movers, fast movers, tacs, & bombers the first 5 turns.

An Atlantic Wall? Good. That’s less money being spent going toward Egypt. I’m good with a war of attrition to land in western Europe. My goal as the Allies is to stop Japan, then get into a money game with Germany. The longer the game goes, the better I like the Allied chances.

As I already said it is more than the two Russian mechs. It is the lost opportunity of building fast movers and planes instead of infantry. Since your Bid does not place the two Russian fighters you are down… 4 infantry due to building 12 mechs, 2 mechs left in China, 2 infantry vs 1 armor, 6 infantry vs 2 fighters. That is 14 infantry down and 1 armor plus 2 planes up. 14 Units with DFP of 28 vs 3 Units with DFP of 11. Moscow is so toast.

Got it - you are comparing it to an infantry buy. Some people like to buy artillery to add offenive punch to Russia. I like the mobility of the fast movers.

I agree that Moscow is probably toast. Unlike prior versions, that’s not an automatic L for the Allies in global. I think the Allies can stalemate Germany before it can get to the 8th VC. The real question is how big of a bid they need. I don’t know the answer.

Based on this Bid you made a mistake with the Germans on G1. They will kill both UK fleets in 111 and 110. After Italy kills the lone UK cruiser and French fleet there will be no surface ships left in the Atlantic, with the exception of maybe the DD in 109 and perhaps 106. Certainly not enough to control the Med which means Italy is going to get good money while Germany rolls over Moscow.

Sorry, I thought you used the same G1 in both games I looked at so I just used that. My UK1 north Atlantic opening would also change.

I’m good with no Atlantic boats after the opening. I’m the Allies and I like building boats. Seems like a match.

I’m not sure what you would do It1, specifically with the transport, but the Med is clear of Axis boats turn 2. At some point soon, the subs will be parked in SZ97 cutting both Italy’s & Germany’s income. More subs are coming. The remaining Italians in Africa will be slowly hunted down. US fast movers landing in Morocco finish them off.

So many resources were poured into the Pacific theater during the first four rounds. I am certain that the European theater will be a massive success for the Axis with Moscow falling easily on G6, and a large column of tanks backed by planes heading towards Egypt that should fall around G10.

If you want to try a complete game with Low Luck, let me know and we can get back to the beginning.

Thanks PM incoming.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

So many resources were poured into the Pacific theater during the first four rounds. I am certain that the European theater will be a massive success for the Axis with Moscow falling easily on G6, and a large column of tanks backed by planes heading towards Egypt that should fall around G10.

That’s the gist of it. I think I can at least slow it down to G13 by throwing up some roadblocks. Meanwhile, Rome must be defended, landings in western Europe threaten Paris, and the combined forces in the channel are setting up a killshot on Berlin.

The question I’m asking is what bid allows the Allies to stop Germany 50% of the time using this method?

In terms of bid, I offer you three options: 1) Allies + 60 which Andrew thinks is balanced. 2) Allies + 69 to account for a bit of bad luck during the first couple rounds of rolls. or 3) Allies +100 which I think you will need to make the game balanced for this strategy
.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

69

Noice.

This started as an experiment to see if a J1 COW could be stopped with a minimal +6 Pacific bid (I’m still amazed it works as well as it does on Japan; that it has a theoretical chance of stopping Germany is insane). Since we are testing that, I’m going to spend all but 6 of the bid on the Atlantic side. In a real game, with a 100 bid (and maybe at 60) I would be tempted to spend 24 in the Pacific to blow up SZ20 on R1.

For 100:
UK subs (36): 39, 91, 98, 106, 110, & 111
Fighters (20): Scotland & Malta
Bombers (24): Gib & Alex
Tank (6): Egypt
Art (4): Sudan
Transport (7): 71
Inf (3): Moscow

100?!?!?!?

Why in the world are you testing 100? No one is going to give you 100 in a real game.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

100?!?!?!?

Why in the world are you testing 100? No one is going to give you 100 in a real game.

ABH made the offer. My thinking is that if this doesn’t work at 100, there is no point wasting any more time testing at a lower bid.

What’s your opinion of using 24 in bid money to blow up SZ20 on R1? How high would the bid need to be before you considered the Russian bombers?

You asked what I thought would be a 50/50 match with this strategy and 100 PU bid is my honest answer.

Here are the bidding rules FYI. Standard from League play:

• Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone.

• The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

• China is limited to bid units of: Infantry

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

What’s your opinion of using 24 in bid money to blow up SZ20 on R1? How high would the bid need to be before you considered the Russian bombers?

I guess with 100 you could do that. I see some value of killing that transport. Is it worth $24 in the Bid? Both bombers would die in the counter attack. Is killing that transport worth 8 infantry in Russia? I doubt that.

@TheDesertFox

Last I heard from you, you were going to do some testing regarding Japan and the Floating Bridge strategy. Not sure how much progress you have made with that.

Thought I would pass on a recent game I had that had a strategy similar to the Floating Bridge Strategy you mentioned.

In it my opponent set up a 6 transport shuck-shuck to Spain. This was accomplished by invading the Neutrals. He then built infrastructure in Spain to allow a total of 9 US units a Turn advancing against Germany. This was very similar to the Floating Bridge Strategy in both cost and units being sent towards Europe:

• Initial infrastructure - 6 transports, Minor IC, Airbase and Harbor = $90 VERSUS 12 transports = $84
• Ongoing expenditure - 9 units VERSUS 8 units

The strategy certainly worked in Europe. Germany was stalemated and could not take Moscow and were declining as the US and UK built up significant forces in Spain and trading Normandy and Southern France.

However, in the Pacific, as I theorized during our discussion, Japan became too powerful and won the game for the Axis. With the US sending so many resources towards Europe they were not able to build a fleet capable of stopping the IJN and the game was over once Japan took Hawaii. Japan’s upper limit in income was $84.

@andrewaagamer why don’t you please describe for us a game in which the Allie’s DID win?

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Do you have a save game file with India collecting $26 that you would share with us?

Well my 1st attempt to produce an example ended in spectacular failure: Stooges-Test#1-F6.tsvg

I did learn some lessons -

• Don’t get cute with Russia.
• The US can use planes to threaten SZ6 and then send them on to Moscow in time.
• Let ANZAC’s 3rd wave do its job of finishing the IJN and retreat with the British to save some planes and the sub.
• Keep the Stooges in their lanes: Moe (India/China/Russia) kills land units and keeps the focus in SE Asia; Larry (US) locks down SZ6 and sends in subs to cut income; Curly (ANZAC) builds transports to take islands.

My 2nd test run with a 60 bid got me this: Stooges-Test#2-F5.tsvg

I think I played a fairly standard Axis game, but I’m sure I made mistakes on both sides. Please let me know if you see anything I’ve overlooked. That seems like a good position for the Allies to be in.

FYI - My pipe dream of retaking Kwangtung is still viable. It will take 8 more turns, but there is a plan.

Side note - It is several orders of magnitude more difficult to protect Egypt vs taking Japan. If I played a popular home rule version, I would make that trade and try to stop Germany from getting the 9th VC.

Round 2: Japan captures 3 out of the 4 of the following territories: Malaya, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes. In your game you only captured Malaya.

Everything goes down the drain if you don’t have a strong J2 turn.

@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer why don’t you please describe for us a game in which the Allie’s DID win?

Here is JDOWs victory over me with a Bid of $58 in the 2020 2nd Edition OOB Playoffs

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36361/2020-playoff-andrewaagamer-x-vs-jdow-l-58-oob?page=1

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Round 2: Japan captures 3 out of the 4 of the following territories: Malaya, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes. In your game you only captured Malaya.

Everything goes down the drain if you don’t have a strong J2 turn.

I’m not a fan playing against myself - it can make you go blind and miss obvious moves. The J1 was Cow, and J2 - 3 were Andrew’s moves from our mini-test.

The real problem is turn 3. The Allies have mid-sized fleets off both India and Queensland. As for as I can tell, Japan has 3 options for J3:
*Option #1 - Put the IJN in between the Allied fleets. This is what Andrew did, and is probably the least bad option. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for both Allied navies.
*Option #2 - Attack one of the fleets. Face the multi wave counter attacks ready on either side. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for only 1 of the Allied navies.
*Option #3 - Retreat north. Allow the Allied fleets to merge into a fleet bigger than the IJN. I haven’t played against this yet, but it feels like Japan is turtling.

Note - the absolute best realistic outcome Japan can hope for in the first 2 options is wounded capital ships limping back to a NB while facing another turn of Allied attacks.

I really hope I’m missing something and there is a 4th option.