A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

What about the 2 Siamese infantry that move to FIC? They can hit Yunnan on J2.

The battle results are not the issue.

Your map shows no Japanese ground troops able to hit Yunnan on J2 which is inaccurate. If you are going to present a strategy it should include all factors.

As for leaving an infantry in Siam why not just land that fighter on the Jap carrier moving to SZ36?

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

With the risk of losing a large portion of Japan’s aircraft along with it? I’d be more than happy to have Japan throw away their 2 infantry and half their air force in the name of China not getting the Burma Road.

Ummm, a large portion of the Japanese air force? You greatly exaggerate.

You have 6 Chinese infantry sitting there. You can add 2 additional UK ones from Burma for a total of 8 infantry.

Your map does not show it but the Japanese can hit it with 8 fighters, 8 tactical, 2 bombers and 2 infantry.

Average battle results are 2 infantry and 1 fighter lost by the Japanese to clear Yunnan. I would certainly pay ONE fighter to take out that stack of 8 infantry. Not only strategically is it worth it but tactically too from a TUV perspective as it is plus $8 for the Japanese.

Why is it that as soon as a point is made about something you post you do not answer that point but instead switch to another completely different scenario?

Your original post declared that the Japanese would be foolish to attack Yunnan, based on your original scenario, as they would lose a large portion of their air force. That declaration was false as shown by my response.

If you are now switching to a different scenario that would provide a different response.

In your new scenario I would agree that with a significantly greater amount of Chinese infantry defending Yunnan the Japanese would not attack Yunnan on J2 and would wait till J3 to do it. This is by far the most common Chinese defense I see.

and on top of that their 2 fighters and their tac bomber that you neglected as well

I didn’t neglect anything. I purposefully left the UK 2 fighters and 1 tactical bomber out of your original scenario Yunnan defense as I figured only a fool would put the 3 priceless UK planes at risk for such a minimal gain.

Adding in the 3 UK planes to the original battle, instead of killing 0.7 Japanese planes with a +8 TUV for Japan, the Japanese lose 3 planes with, basically 2 more planes lost, a TUV increase to +18 insead of the +8. Only a crazy person would trade those 3 UK planes for 2 Jap fighters.

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

(Edit: Sorry, I forgot as well that if you wanted to actually take Yunnan from China then that would cost you an extra 10 or 11 IPCs due to having to keep the infantry alive, so it’s actually a 10+ IPC negative trade)

Why would Japan lose a fighter to take Yunnan? It is worth only $1 to them. The only possible time would be if the Chinese had no way to retake it to deny them the $6 NO plus $1 for the territory, which is not the case in your original scenario.

@thedesertfox you have a link to the video of the Corporal?

Sigh - Why am I wasting my time with you? I know, because I care about the community, and I do not want people putting out bad advice without it being pointed out it is bad advice.

I do not need any “recognition” from you, what I want is good advice that people can follow to be better players so when I see someone putting out bad advice I chime in to rectify that. And I expect if you say A, and someone else points out A is not good advice then yes, I want you to acknowledge that the A advice was incorrect before moving on to something else.

Your resume for providing advice so far is pretty dismal… In the last 2-3 days you have a) have thrown out the idea of a Floating Bridge strategy which will not be viable against any decent player, b) you buy a battleship for the USA which is a no-no, c) you have NEVER seen Japan in the 70s which is a common occurrence and d) now a China strategy that was sure to fail without my input. So excuse me for taking the time to counter your bad advice. When you do provide good advice I have agreed with you; I wish you would provide more good advice and far less bad advice.

In other regards…

@thedesertfox said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer

Andrew I’m someone that’s willing to adapt and overcome. Since you want recognition here you go. You were right. Yes, you were right in your original statement that an attack with 2 infantry and a butt ton of aircraft would do the job well against 8 infantry on Yunnan. The partiality in what you neglected though was the fact that the 2 British fighters and Tac bomber would also be defending that as well, something you completely left out and something I very clearly stated would happen at the end of my original post… so don’t get on my neck about changing things up man.

As I already stated I did not neglect the 3 UK planes; I left them off on purpose as it would be silly to add them into the defense of Yunnan with only 8 infantry to accompany them.

If you think the Allies are “foolish” for forcing Japan to take loses then I suppose it makes sense why you don’t have a hard time steamrolling them and collecting 70+ IPC’s a turn. It’s because all your opponent does is turtle up on Calcutta and keep his planes grounded there not doing anything or sending them to the West where they aren’t needed…

If your idea of a good strategy is to trade 3 UK planes for 2 Japanese planes than that is not being aggressive; that is being foolish. Any statement that it is a good idea to lose MORE TUV than your opponent when you are on defense is a sure way to lose every game, every time.

In addition, I didn’t say those planes were not doing anything; I said in your silly original scenario that it would be foolish to add them. In your second scenario, with 13 infantry, then I did agree that would work with the additional 3 UK planes in holding the Japanese so quit misquoting me.

This strategy of mine involves them sending their aircraft in to defend Yunnan. I, in all respects, could care less if you think it’s foolish for the Pacific Allies to “play aggressive” by sending their planes in to defend vital territory. You can think its foolish for the Allies to take initiative, I see it differently than you do because I’ve seen the success it can have in the past. And now you opt to agree with my new proposition of putting 13 infantry down on Yunnan. Is it because you and I both know that Japan would suffer a heavy amount of casualties if they went through with that attack? Part of what it means to play the Allies is to be able to react to what your opponent does. Seeing as some people seem willing to throw in their entire airforce toward taking out Yunnan, thus calls for an alteration in strategy and tactics.

Andrew, people tried turtling on Moscow, they tried turtling on London, and they tried turtling on Calcutta and Honolulu, and it didn’t work. Every single time the Allies found themselves losing because they never thought to take the offense and take the initiative and force the Axis to actually commit to taking loses in battle.

Again, do not put out statements I never said. I have not once talked about turtling being a good strategy. What I have said is throwing your valuable resources away for less value than they are getting is not a strategy that works and it should not be followed. Being aggressive with China, UK Pacific, ANZAC and the US is definitely the best strategy out there to keep Japan at bay. Japan will still get into the 70s but they will not win the game in the Pacific. But, there is a vast difference in being intelligently aggressive in your play and being foolishly aggressive in your play as you espouse.

@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.