A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

captured Tokyo

Allied Rule #1: You just have to stop the Axis from winning.

Unless Japan is giving you its capital, there is never a reason to invade it. Blow up the IJN, park a couple of subs in SZ6, and go fight Germany.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

$26 for India? Where is that coming from? I can see maybe $11 (West India, India, Burma, Shan State and Sumatra)

$17 original + $4 Sumatra + $5 bonus. And actually its usually $29 - I forgot about FIC & Siam.

Japan did a J1. India does not have Kwantung or Borneo any longer so it is not $17, it is $10. There is no $5 bonus because you don’t have Kwantung and Malaya. Once Japan takes Sydney and comes back India will not have Malaya either. There is no FIC though there may be a Siam. I could see $12 max.

I have attached a revised J2 response by not attacking the ANZAC DD I can fully protect the invasion force taking Sydney. Once you make a revision to save Sydney I will post a different scenario showing what it would look like not going for Sydney.
govz-j2-response-revised.tsvg

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Japan did a J1. India does not have Kwantung or Borneo any longer so it is not $17, it is $10. There is no $5 bonus because you don’t have Kwantung and Malaya. Once Japan takes Sydney and comes back India will not have Malaya either. There is no FIC though there may be a Siam. I could see $12 max.

I was taking back Borneo In3. The Chinese & Indian stack could take back Kwantung turn 5, depending on if you left planes there. It would probably take a couple a Chinese artillery buys to actually take it.

I have attached a revised J2 response by not attacking the ANZAC DD I can fully protect the invasion force taking Sydney. Once you make a revision to save Sydney I will post a different scenario showing what it would look like not going for Sydney.

I’ll take a look. This is fun. Did you make the adjustments you & @TheVeteran have helped me with in this thread? I’m assuming you didn’t make the ones you have made me think about, but not yet post. I’ll try to get you a new R2 file as soon as I can. Can I use the J1 with your edits?

@andrewaagamer said in

I have attached a revised J2 response by not attacking the ANZAC DD I can fully protect the invasion force taking Sydney. Once you make a revision to save Sydney I will post a different scenario showing what it would look like not going for Sydney.

The adjustments suggested in this thread prevent this. With US ships at Hawaii, I can attack SZ33 or SZ54. Maybe both. Or maybe soften Korea for Russia.

I also think the A1 transport gets traded for a guy & a truck. Plus the CA in 62, not 54.

Cool. I had not realized you had agreed to put the US ships in Hawaii. That definitely stops an attack on Sydney.

Please post a revised Allied Turn 1, using the adjustments I made with J1 and I will post a different strategy for J2 to see if you can really accomplish what you think you can.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Cool. I had not realized you had agreed to put the US ships in Hawaii. That definitely stops an attack on Sydney.

Please post a revised Allied Turn 1, using the adjustments I made with J1 and I will post a different strategy for J2 to see if you can really accomplish what you think you can.

R2 - Rev.tsvg

I think I made all the correct edits. I’m still not sure what the best use for the ANZAC CA. I can see arguments for putting it in 26, 42, 54, 62, or 63. Please let me know if anyone has any tweaks to suggest.

I really do hope you can find something I have overlooked - Japan used to be fun to play.

Tangent: With that J1, I would be tempted to attack SZ43 with a DD, CA, & sub - killing the sub last - instead of SZ37. It would change up to much for this discussion. Also the battle calculator crashed.

OK, here ya go.

PROS:

• Northern flank against Russia is secure.

• Western flank against China is stalemated.

• Southern Pacific is stalemated against UK India fleet.

• Northern Pacific US fleet cannot move to SZ6.

• I don’t see any immediate threats against Japanese territory already under control beyond normal trading.

• IC’s are placed to provide future ground troops against China and UK India.

CONS:

• Don’t see Japan pushing forward much in any area.

• Since the US fleet is in Hawaii it has choices like Queensland or Caroline Islands.

govz-j2-response-revised-again.tsvg

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

OK, here ya go.

PROS:

• Northern flank against Russia is secure.

• Western flank against China is stalemated.

• Southern Pacific is stalemated against UK India fleet.

• Northern Pacific US fleet cannot move to SZ6.

• I don’t see any immediate threats against Japanese territory already under control beyond normal trading.

• IC’s are placed to provide future ground troops against China and UK India.

CONS:

• Don’t see Japan pushing forward much in any area.

• Since the US fleet is in Hawaii it has choices like Queensland or Caroline Islands.

govz-j2-response-revised-again.tsvg

That file name is just missing a “Final #2” from being named like my spreadsheets at work.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

OK, here ya go.

PROS:

• Northern flank against Russia is secure.

• Western flank against China is stalemated.

• Southern Pacific is stalemated against UK India fleet.

• Northern Pacific US fleet cannot move to SZ6.

• I don’t see any immediate threats against Japanese territory already under control beyond normal trading.

• IC’s are placed to provide future ground troops against China and UK India.

CONS:

• Don’t see Japan pushing forward much in any area.

• Since the US fleet is in Hawaii it has choices like Queensland or Caroline Islands.

govz-j2-response-revised-again.tsvg

I agree with all of this. The Pacific ends up in a rough equilibrium with Japan making around $50/ turn vs $70+/ turn with the current approach. I still don’t know if that difference is enough to stop the Germans.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

I agree with all of this. The Pacific ends up in a rough equilibrium with Japan making around $50/ turn vs $70+/ turn with the current approach. I still don’t know if that difference is enough to stop the Germans.

I think it is going to be more like $60. On J3 Japan will take Celebes, Java and Sumatra and continue to at least trade them going forward. Therefore:

• Japan = $60
• UK = $11
• ANZAC = $15
• China = $15

Per your stated goal of even money the US would need to contribute $19 at a minimum.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

• Since the US fleet is in Hawaii it has choices like Queensland or Caroline Islands.

Moving everything to Queensland is probably the smart move, but I’ve been drinking so:

govz-R3-response-revised-again.tsvg

There’s some serious late Sealion / dark skies like invasion threat forcing Japan to waste money defending the homeland, but my real target is SZ19.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

but I’ve been drinking so

:)

Nice discussion you guys having. Like how it’s being playtested as well. Fun following along

Okay, here is what I think is a reasonable response. Japan collected $60.

Russia has sent 14 mechs, 3 tanks, 4 fighters and a tactical bomber to China. The Germans are drooling and sending congratulatory telegrams to Tojo Hideki.

govz-j3-response.tsvg

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Okay, here is what I think is a reasonable response. Japan collected $60.

But where are you going to build units?
govz-R4-drunkresponse.tsvg
I doubled down on the absurdity, but would never actually do this for real. The final FIC battle was a coin flip. It’s amazing what can happen when it’s 6 vs 1.

I do really like the idea of threatening a green skies invasion of Japan. It doesn’t really cost the US anything since they are already buying the bombers.

Russia has sent 14 mechs, 3 tanks, 4 fighters and a tactical bomber to China. The Germans are drooling and sending congratulatory telegrams to Tojo Hideki.

Germany is the final boss in this game. Honestly, I assume Moscow will fall no matter what the Allies do. The 8th VC is where I make my stand.

Anyway, here’s the US moving everything to Queensland: govz-R3-sober.tsvg

So the drunken response has been an abysmal failure.

The US fleet is sunk.
The UK fleet is sunk.
The Russians lost 7 mechanized infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters and a tactical bomber.
Japan still holds the Minor IC in FIC.
Japan still has a fleet that cannot be blown up by the 10 US bombers.
Japan will reclaim the China coast next Turn.

Total TUV lost by Allies vs Axis for the Round is:
Kiangsu (US) +17
FIC (UK) -32
FIC (Russia) +64
UK Fleet sunk -80
US Fleet sunk -59
FIC retaken -3
Total TUV Loss for Allies = -93

Ooops, missed that you attacked FIC with 2 ANZAC fighters. Additional - 16 for ANZAC FIC makes it a total of -109 TUV.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Germany is the final boss in this game. Honestly, I assume Moscow will fall no matter what the Allies do. The 8th VC is where I make my stand.

There is no hope of holding on to the 8th victory city on the Europe side of the board. Moscow will fall on G6. With Italy fighting for the Med UK will not have any significant defense ready by the time the Germans come a calling to the Middle East and then Cairo.

Plus Japan is now winning on the Pacific side. India is collecting $6, ANZAC $10, China $19 for a total of $35. Japan collected $55. Without US intervention the Axis wins in the Pacific too.

govz-j4-drunkresponse.tsvg

Okay, here is the sober J3 response. Japan collected $61. I like their position.

govz-j3-sober.tsvg

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Okay, here is the sober J3 response. Japan collected $61. I like their position.

Ahh, Java trap where I’ve seen so many IJNs go to die.
Java-trap.tsvg
Note: I ran the naval battle 6 times because there was some OOL questions. Depending on when the ACs take the free hits, Japan could end up with planes on Java, but the boats get sunk. Feel free to rerun it, and post a better outcome for Japan. On half my runs the IJN lasted until ANZAC attacked.

All Russian units, but 2 trucks, will be back to Moscow before G6.
The 3 subs from SA will be in the eastern Med next turn.
The US just built $52 in boats in the Atlantic - plus the bomber. They will be in the channel turn 5 threatening a swinging gate attack on Berlin turn 6.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

So the drunken response has been an abysmal failure.

True in general, and the wisest thing said in this thread.

The US fleet is sunk.
The UK fleet is sunk.
The Russians lost 7 mechanized infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters and a tactical bomber.
Japan still holds the Minor IC in FIC.
Japan still has a fleet that cannot be blown up by the 10 US bombers.
Japan will reclaim the China coast next Turn.

Total TUV lost by Allies vs Axis for the Round is:
Kiangsu (US) +17
FIC (UK) -32
FIC (Russia) +64
UK Fleet sunk -80
US Fleet sunk -59
FIC retaken -3
Total TUV Loss for Allies = -93

Ooops, missed that you attacked FIC with 2 ANZAC fighters. Additional - 16 for ANZAC FIC makes it a total of -109 TUV.

Totally. I think the drunken plan was to attack the factories to prevent you from building on the mainland. The Allies are much better off focusing on Japan’s fleet and income.

There is no hope of holding on to the 8th victory city on the Europe side of the board. Moscow will fall on G6. With Italy fighting for the Med UK will not have any significant defense ready by the time the Germans come a calling to the Middle East and then Cairo.

Plus Japan is now winning on the Pacific side. India is collecting $6, ANZAC $10, China $19 for a total of $35. Japan collected $55. Without US intervention the Axis wins in the Pacific too.

It’s wild the difference what the correct positioning of the US fleet can do. The drunk response has Germany and Japan racing to see who can win first. In the sober version, I think I can hold Caucasus.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Okay, here is the sober J3 response. Japan collected $61. I like their position.

Ahh, Java trap where I’ve seen so many IJNs go to die.
Java-trap.tsvg
Note: I ran the naval battle 6 times because there was some OOL questions. Depending on when the ACs take the free hits, Japan could end up with planes on Java, but the boats get sunk. Feel free to rerun it, and post a better outcome for Japan. On half my runs the IJN lasted until ANZAC attacked.

All Russian units, but 2 trucks, will be back to Moscow before G6.
The 3 subs from SA will be in the eastern Med next turn.
The US just built $52 in boats in the Atlantic - plus the bomber. They will be in the channel turn 5 threatening a swinging gate attack on Berlin turn 6.

You didn’t take casualties properly for the IJN versus the US Navy. Why kill a fighter and keep a tactical bomber? Why keep a hit AC and throw away a tactical bomber? That gives the IJN an additional fighter and one less hit AC in the UK battle. Based on the dice that provides one additional air hit on Round 1 by the Japanese. UK casualty is most likely a cruiser.

Based on dice rolled, Round 2 British attack and Japanese defense unaffected. British need to lose fighter vs cruiser as cruiser is already dead.

Based on dice rolled, Round 3 British get one less air hit since the fighter is not present. Final round Japanese have an additional fighter in defense. Japanese throw away both battleships since a sub is present.

Based on dice rolled battle is over with UK sub and 1 Japanese fighter surviving.

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

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

You didn’t take casualties properly for the IJN versus the US Navy. Why kill a fighter and keep a tactical bomber? Why keep a hit AC and throw away a tactical bomber? That gives the IJN an additional fighter and one less hit AC in the UK battle. Based on the dice that provides one additional air hit on Round 1 by the Japanese. UK casualty is most likely a cruiser.

Based on dice rolled, Round 2 British attack and Japanese defense unaffected. British need to lose fighter vs cruiser as cruiser is already dead.

Based on dice rolled, Round 3 British get one less air hit since the fighter is not present. Final round Japanese have an additional fighter in defense. Japanese throw away both battleships since a sub is present.

Based on dice rolled battle is over with UK sub and 1 Japanese fighter surviving.

Sorry, that last run was highly improbable and I got lazy. The US got 4 extra hits - usually all the ACs & planes survived the 1st wave. The British wave were deficient, so it ended up roughly the same.

I was so focused on the OOL of the subs & tilting the ACs, I never thought about taking the BSs before the fighters. The most likely outcome I had was the ANZAC subs sinking the last BS and the French DD killing the transport off Celebes.