A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

@govz sure, no problem.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

You didn’t ask me, but I’ll give it a try:
R2.tsvg
Low luck, 6 IPC Pacific bid, J1 COW opener. All units moved or purchased could be going against Japan. Feel free to change up the J1 NCM.

1. I don’t like the 4 bomber buy for the USA. The key for the US is to get a comparable fleet in the water against the IJN and that is not happening with bombers.
2. I would only bring one ground unit to Brazil, that way your transport can empty Brazil in two Turns.
3. I don’t like bringing the US fleet to Midway. I assume you are doing this to try and put pressure on the IJN in SZ6. Having the fleet in Hawaii versus Midway is the same threat against SZ6 since Hawaii has a Naval Base and Midway does not. The advantage of being in Hawaii vs Midway is that when the Japanese move a large portion of their fleet to SZ6 to counter the US threat the US can move their Hawaii fleet to Queensland and try and overpower the portion of the IJN that is in the south. This ploy is not doable from Midway.
4. China move looks reasonable to me.
5. Going to disagree with a aircraft carrier buy for UK Pacific. India needs ground troops, not a fleet. India has no hope of competing against Japan in the water. They need every ground troop they can lay their hands on to hold, trade or make Calcutta expensive for the Japanese. Taking the UK Med Fleet out of the Med to go against Japan is giving the game to the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
6. You placed a sub in India with the Bid? Sub, Ftr vs CA. Not the greatest of battles.
7. I don’t like taking Sumatra. Going west is more important and you don’t lose the transport.
8. I don’t like Java with ANZAC. Dutch New Guinea provides more money for ANZAC and it is less likely to be attacked by Japan.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

1. I don’t like the 4 bomber buy for the USA. The key for the US is to get a comparable fleet in the water against the IJN and that is not happening with bombers.
2. I would only bring one ground unit to Brazil, that way your transport can empty Brazil in two Turns.
3. I don’t like bringing the US fleet to Midway. I assume you are doing this to try and put pressure on the IJN in SZ6. Having the fleet in Hawaii versus Midway is the same threat against SZ6 since Hawaii has a Naval Base and Midway does not. The advantage of being in Hawaii vs Midway is that when the Japanese move a large portion of their fleet to SZ6 to counter the US threat the US can move their Hawaii fleet to Queensland and try and overpower the portion of the IJN that is in the south. This ploy is not doable from Midway.
4. China move looks reasonable to me.
5. Going to disagree with a aircraft carrier buy for UK Pacific. India needs ground troops, not a fleet. India has no hope of competing against Japan in the water. They need every ground troop they can lay their hands on to hold, trade or make Calcutta expensive for the Japanese. Taking the UK Med Fleet out of the Med to go against Japan is giving the game to the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
6. You placed a sub in India with the Bid? Sub, Ftr vs CA. Not the greatest of battles.
7. I don’t like taking Sumatra. Going west is more important and you don’t lose the transport.
8. I don’t like Java with ANZAC. Dutch New Guinea provides more money for ANZAC and it is less likely to be attacked by Japan.

1. The key for the Allies is to sink the IJN. I love building boats, but clearing the Pacific of surface ships prevents Japan from ever winning the game. US bombers work real well for this - they can’t be blocked and can clear blockers for allies later in the turn order.
2. The 3 Brazil guys move north next turn to be picked up by future US transports. The other units can move off NZ on US 3.
3. Correct about SZ6, but think planes, not boats. All 11 US planes can hit SZ6 next turn. The IJN moving back to SZ6 on J2 is a line I haven’t played against in live games, but one I am worried about. I think the worst outcome is the US trades Hawaii for sinking the IJN on counterattack turn 4. Meanwhile, ANZAC & India are making roughly the same income as Japan.
4. The stack in Szechwan allows China to control Yunnan and Russia to control Shan State - denying Japan a landing zone.
5. You are correct that India alone cannot compete against Japan in the water. However, India, G.B., ANZAC, France, & Russia combined kinda can. India gets crushed by sea right now by buying troops. China & Russia can protect the ground approach. While the navy won’t survive a J3 attack by the full IJN, India should be able to survive the amphibious assault. The remaining IJN then faces a wave of US bombers followed by the British planes & the 3 subs.
6. Agreed, but the ship needs to be sunk. The DD can be used (if no bid), but it opens you up to a J2 attack sacrificing the 4 planes. That actually might still be the best move J2 from this position.
7. It annoys Japan and may make them waste some ground troops. India needs the $4 to buy a DD & sub In2.
8. It annoys Japan and may make them waste some ground troops. It’s $1. ANZAC built another transport to take DNG on A2.

Thanks for the detailed response. In chess terms, my goal is to fork Japan. In the north, the US holds SZ6 in check by air. In the south, the allies bleed both Japan’s income and it’s ground forces. If this gambit works, the IJN is sunk, Japan never makes threshold, and can be left to China and ANZAC to clean up.

So, whatever you do on the Pacific side of the board really makes no difference. Obviously, since you are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at Japan, Japan will not be able to get anywhere. However, the Axis is going to win easily on the Europe side of the board. With so much committed against Japan Italy is going to make life tough for UK in the Med which means little to no help is coming from UK to Moscow and since you have drawn off so many Russian resources to go against Japan Germany is going to steamroll Moscow.

That being said attached would be my J2 response to your Allied opener. This protects Korea and SZ6 from Russia and the US and stalemates China temporarily. Japan, amazingly, will take Sydney on J3; I actually did not think that was possible. Then with ANZAC out of the game they will be able to turn against the separated smaller US fleet and UK fleets and try and hold on as long as possible forcing the US to continue spending resources in the Pacific while the game is lost for the Allies on on the Europe side of the board.
GovZ J2 Response.tsvg

Oh, by the way, per your instructions I corrected the J1 opener to be a more reasonable approach.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

That being said attached would be my J2 response to your Allied opener. This protects Korea and SZ6 from Russia and the US and stalemates China temporarily. Japan, amazingly, will take Sydney on J3; I actually did not think that was possible. Then with ANZAC out of the game they will be able to turn against the separated smaller US fleet and UK fleets and try and hold on as long as possible forcing the US to continue spending resources in the Pacific while the game is lost for the Allies on on the Europe side of the board.
GovZ J2 Response.tsvg

Fantastic idea - one I haven’t seen before in live games. This is why I brought this to league players. I think my opening can be slightly tweaked in NCM to prevent this. Also you may need to tweak your response - I blew up your transports.
R3.tsvg

Yep, saw that the US could hit it but missed ANZAC. That is why you should always play it through. Would need to put more in defense of Caroline or just use Paulau which I contemplated but didn’t want to spend the $30 on the harbor and airbase.

The way to stop this counter would be by putting everyone in Hawaii instead of Midway. As I said before the US fleet should be in Hawaii.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Yep, saw that the US could hit it but missed ANZAC. That is why you should always play it through. Would need to put more in defense of Caroline or just use Paulau which I contemplated but didn’t want to spend the $30 on the harbor and airbase.

The way to stop this counter would be by putting everyone in Hawaii instead of Midway. As I said before the US fleet should be in Hawaii.

I like your idea of concentrating the IJN in the center. It allows Japan to keep the initiative, and it can retreat to SZ6 to build new ships. I don’t think Japan will have the income to threaten 6 VCs, but I’ll test it out.

You have convinced me to try trading one of the US1 bombers for a NB on Midway.

@govz why are you soo obsessed with midway turn 1? Hawai really is better and you don’t need to waste early income on a harbour .

Fighters from Midway can hit SZ6 on US2 and land in Russia. Fighters from Hawaii can’t.

@govz so land your fighters there …

You probably could, but I don’t like leaving the planes naked on Midway when Japan has transports in range. I doubt they would actually attack, but it’s my personal preference to keep all the units together.

@govz ever thought of going via Wake? A NB there gives you 2 ways to reach SZ6 and you can easily go back to Queensland.

@govz aren’t there normally no Japanese transports in range of midway on J2?

@cornwallis said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@govz ever thought of going via Wake? A NB there gives you 2 ways to reach SZ6 and you can easily go back to Queensland.

Fighters from Wake can’t hit SZ6 and land in Russia on US2.

@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@govz aren’t there normally no Japanese transports in range of midway on J2?

In SZ6. I think you are correct. The US puts 4 fighters and the tac on Midway, and the ships, bomber, & 5th fighter at Hawaii on US1.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

However, the Axis is going to win easily on the Europe side of the board. With so much committed against Japan Italy is going to make life tough for UK in the Med which means little to no help is coming from UK to Moscow and since you have drawn off so many Russian resources to go against Japan Germany is going to steamroll Moscow.

This is a gambit - Russia probably won’t hold Moscow. However, using our fake game as an example, the US is spending almost all its income in the Atlantic starting US3. Also, starting around In6, 5 mechs and a tank will be moving west out of India each turn.

It’s a race to 8 VCs. I don’t know if I can stop the Axis from getting the 8th VC, but I can make a game of it.

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

However, using our fake game as an example, the US is spending almost all its income in the Atlantic starting US3.

Really? The US contribution to the Pacific is 9 bombers and 2 subs? And then almost all of its income is going to the Atlantic on US3 going forward? How do you expect to control the Pacific? I will give you this, your 4 bomber build on US1 keeps Japan from building a carrier on J2. That is all it does. Even with 9 bombers the Allies still don’t threaten a consolidated IJN. Especially as Japan continues to build carriers and land already existing aircraft on them.

The real dilemma for Japan is the UK fleet coming out of the Med and Russian air and ground troops streaming into China. While Japan will not be able to push into China, or most likely take India, their fleet will still be big enough to blow up either the smaller UK or US fleets which means both Allied fleets will have to stay on the periphery allowing Japan to control the Money Islands and keep Japan safe. And, as I said before, with that UK and Russian commitment to the Pacific Theater Moscow is toast.

However, using our fake game as an example, the US is spending almost all its income in the Atlantic starting US3. Also, starting around In6, 5 mechs and a tank will be moving west out of India each turn.

$26 for India? Where is that coming from? I can see maybe $11 (West India, India, Burma, Shan State and Sumatra) assuming you are trading Sumatra. Even with Russian help Japan is going to hold Kwantung and Malaya and with a larger fleet, at a minimum, trade for the Money Islands. With no US fleet to threaten Japan the IJN can camp out in the south.

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

@govz I’m sorry but why and how is the US spending all income in the Atlantic starting turn 3? Do you expect to have destroyed the IJN or to have captured Tokyo guaranteed ?

First, thanks for the mini game. I’ve learned a lot from it and this ongoing discussion. I think it has improved me as a player, and has given me new lines to study.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Really? The US contribution to the Pacific is 9 bombers and 2 subs? And then almost all of its income is going to the Atlantic on US3 going forward? How do you expect to control the Pacific?

1. I said almost all. Also I’m not sure how to count duel use units. Example: I buy a US bomber intended for London that could be used in the Pacific if needed.
2. That was specific to our fake game, but in general yeah. As long as Japan’s income is roughly on par with China + India + ANZAC, the US doesn’t need to add much to equalize things.
3. To answer your questions - Yes. For the most part. Yes. Bombers, subs, & ANZAC. Looking closer at our fake game, I think Japan is beat:

• SZ6 is in check and convoy raids have started.
• Non US income was 40, Japan’s was 44 and falling.
• The IJN is scattered, well out of position, and only has 1 transport.
• Japan has 10 land units not stuck on islands or pinned in Korea.

I don’t see a path for Japan to get to 6 VCs in that situation.

I will give you this, your 4 bomber build on US1 keeps Japan from building a carrier on J2. That is all it does. Even with 9 bombers the Allies still don’t threaten a consolidated IJN. Especially as Japan continues to build carriers and land already existing aircraft on them.

The real dilemma for Japan is the UK fleet coming out of the Med and Russian air and ground troops streaming into China. While Japan will not be able to push into China, or most likely take India, their fleet will still be big enough to blow up either the smaller UK or US fleets which means both Allied fleets will have to stay on the periphery allowing Japan to control the Money Islands and keep Japan safe.

My fault. I wasn’t clear on my intentions: I want a naval battle. The Allied fleets aren’t staying on the periphery, they are closing a net around the IJN. I am looking for every opportunity to crash US planes into the IJN to soften it up for any British, ANZAC, French, & Russian forces that follow. The Allies can better afford replacements and an empty Pacific is a win for them.

And, as I said before, with that UK and Russian commitment to the Pacific Theater Moscow is toast.

FYI - The UK subs weren’t needed against Japan and went toward the Med. Most of the Russian forces in China can make it back to Moscow before G6. (Using the tanks in Hopei was one of several mistakes I made).

$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.

assuming you are trading Sumatra. Even with Russian help Japan is going to hold Kwantung and Malaya and with a larger fleet, at a minimum, trade for the Money Islands. With no US fleet to threaten Japan the IJN can camp out in the south.

I guess we are now talking about a different game because Japan never took Sumatra or Malaya in our fake game. Kwantung won’t hold out long with China & India coming for it - it will be out produced. Where exactly are you camping out in the south? That sounds like Java to me - I would consider Carolines the center. Any place in range of the Indian boats is a danger zone for the IJN.

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

Sorry no. I don’t keep the live game files that I play on TripleA. I could create one for you against the AI.

And I may have been off a turn or 2 with my turn 6 prediction, but long term Japan doesn’t have the land units to hold SE Asia.

I’ve been shocked at how well this seems to work. I get your reaction - I keep waiting for someone to do something new that proves to be a fatal flaw. Your response was the best I’ve seen so far, and could be viable long term with adjustments. It has at least made me make adjustments of my own. Bottom line is that this approach seems to work better than the current Allied approach.