The Kwangtung Maneuver

[Guest]

This is a UK1 move I have both used and had used against me many times over the years.  It flies in the face of what many have posted here about “UK Priorities” so I post it for your review.

The “Kwangtung Manuever” is a UK pre-emptive strike on Kwangtung following a Russian taking of Manchuria.

The India transport takes 2 India INF to Kwangtung for naval landing.  The India fighter flies in as the primary offensive strike.

About half the time, UK actually takes Kwangtung.  Another 30%+ of the time, Kwangtung is still in Japan control, but empty.  If the fighter survives, it is flown to either Sinkiang or China to provide US defense strength, or as a sacrifice defense of India.

This leaves Japan with only French Indochina-Burma populated with forces on the continent in round 1.

Now Japan can counter this move pretty easilly.  The transport is a sitting duck.  If the UK took Kwangtung, they can be easilly booted out.  India is a “freebie” for Japan or an easy win against a lone figther but tying up the few land forces Japan has in Asia, and the best the UK can now do to defend central asia is to move the Syrian INF to Persia.

But the move has a few advantages.  Japan can only place a defended industrial facility in Vietnam on J1 (if they want one on the continent).  If UK took Kwangtung, it reduces Japan IPC’s and forces them to divert forces to re-take it, slowing down any assault on Russia.  It also leaves the US well defended in Asia, able to build a factory defended by a minimum of 2 fighters and 4 INF if they choose, or to make one hell of a nice assault against a new Japan factory in Vietnam, with navy moving along the south pacific islands to be there in 2 moves.

In general it really screws up an all-out attack on Russia by Japan and slows it down by at least 1 round:  allowing the UK and US an extra set of moves to bring down Germany.

Has anyone else seen this move used and/or have any thoughts on it?

[Guest]

I think it is usually called “Kwangbang”, and one of the accepted strategies especially for a KJF ( Kill Japan First).

[aaFiendish]

I thought in the other post you said that russia taking manchuria was a really bad move? I guess maybe you aren’t advocating this move in particular, just mentioning.

It any event I really like the move, but I rarely do it because it has worked out immensely NOT in my favor quite a few times. I have lost all attacking forces with no losses on the other side too many times.

But yes, it is a good move to slow down the Japanese assault, as the US can potentially counterattack manchuria delaying japan one more round, and giving more breathing room and more IPCs. Okay, it’s really the extra round that is important. One more round means another ~14 troops into karelia, more than germany can build most certainly. Note that I specified another round to bring troops into karelia, instead of taking down germany :) . I certainly won’t do the move if germany has taken AES, because I like to counterattack germany from india and end that threat/cashcow immediately.

I would argue that you could use it even when you aren’t doing a KJF strategy.

[gerard]

anyways this move dosent work on a russia restricted game…

[aaFiendish]

@gerard:

anyways this move dosent work on a russia restricted game…

Is there anything, anywhere in these posts that leads you to believe we are talking about a RR game? Since we OBVIOUSLY are not, why bother bringing it up?

[Guest]

@aaFiendish:

@gerard:

anyways this move dosent work on a russia restricted game…

Is there anything, anywhere in these posts that leads you to believe we are talking about a RR game? Since we OBVIOUSLY are not, why bother bringing it up?

There is no reason why it would NOT work even on an RR restricted game.  The question is WHY would you WANT to use it if Japan still held Manchuria and had forces there?  The problem using it then would be Japan forces on BOTH sides of Kwangtung, easilly wiping out the advance, and giving Japan India on the cheap or free.

The point to doing the Kwangtung Maneuver (or Kwangbang as others called it) is to help boot Japan off the continent faster; which means Russia takes Manchuria, Britain Kwangtung and (if Japan plays poorly) the US French Indo-china Burma.

Now, another part of the reason I brought this move up is, even if everything is 100% successful, the short-term outlook is not good for the Allies.  Sure, Japan is off the continent (and Russia will stand a LOT longer because of it), but Japan is a naval power to start, and can quickly and easilly counter with transports supported by major air power AND battlewagons.  UK and US have no replacements for losses in Asia and quickly are wiped out, allowing Japan to spread rapidly back onto Asia and sweep through southern Asia gaining a lot of IPC’s.

So, while it slows down the Russian advance initially, a round or two later when it does happen, Japan has a LOT more money to support it, and no non-Russian forces to contend with along the way.  Russia faces trying to defend a 3 territory front, and later a 4 territory front once Japan moves into Persia.  And unless the allies are played VERY skillfully and Germany plays lousy, that degree of threat simply spreads Russia too thin to hold:  Japan is going to break through somewhere, and do so in force.

[cystic crypt]

I like the Kwangbang.  It’s a bit of a surprise sometimes, and it can upset the German strategy a bit.
Also i agree that i am not sure why it would not work with Russia Restricted.  If anything, it slows down the Jap advance more handily by forcing the direction of forces “down there”.  Note also that taking that UK trn is not always a guarantee and the Japs may send in a bomber to deal with it, thinning their attack on US forces at Pearl.

[aaFiendish]

I think that Japan generally sweeps southeast/northeast asia pretty rapidly. The problem is that it slows Japan down by 1, and probably 2 moves. The key is that the initial attack is weaker than it normally is, so it can be counterattacked closer to russia when it arrives. Either that or japan waits. Those one/two moves are typically enough to allow the allies to win. Time is to the allies advantage, not the axis. An old quote I see thrown around a&a a lot is from napoleon - “Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the latter than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never.”

[OpTorch]

@aaFiendish:

Time is to the allies advantage, not the axis.

I think this is true for the opening and the beginning of the midgame. If the game takes ~15+ rounds, the game will start to favor the axis again. Id gues that at least 75% of the 20+round games will be won by the axis.

[Guest]

@OpTorch:

I think this is true for the opening and the beginning of the midgame. If the game takes ~15+ rounds, the game will start to favor the axis again. Id gues that at least 75% of the 20+round games will be won by the axis.

I am not sure it would take THAT many moves to shift the balance; assuming a well played Axis.

Many have posted about the need to kill Russia quickly for the Axis to win.  The same holds true of the Aliies needing to kill Germany quickly (No matter your strategy, Japan can hold out a LLLLOOONNNNGGGG time against even a total effort against it by the Allies:  distance simply makes the “Big Gulp” (as a friend calls the naval build up needed to  invade Japan sans heavy bombers) take too long.  UK has to either build an IC and then start a build up (best it can hope for is 3 units a round from this forward base), OR trasnport from UK proper (5 rounds to Japan).  The US has the same problem needing to move at least 2 rounds from IC to combat location.  And we won’t even consider Russia offering any help against Japan (other than continental).  If they even THINK about major forces headed for Japan, Germany takes Russia.  And if the UK and US divert large effort to Japan early on, that really weakens support for Russia, essentially leaving a 32 IPC power facing a 25 IPC power; and time only makes the problem worse.

In the games I have played, if the Allies have not either taken one Axis capital, or at least smashed one of them back to capital plus only 1 or 2 territories, by about round 8 or 9, then the Axis probably has the IPC’s to win a war of attrition.

The core concept of A&A rules here:  The Axis has more pieces to start, the Allies more money.  Pieces are quickly lost, money determines what comes back.  To start the Axis has 57 IPC’s, the Allies 90.  Shift a mere 18 IPC’s from Allies to Axis (China, Sinkiang, India, Australia, New Zealand, Soviet Far East, Yakut, Novosibirsk, Persia, Syria and Egypt, and you have already shifted more than 18) and time favors the Axis.  The Axis has to strike and expand while they have the pieces in order to counter the Allies IPC.  If they do so, they win.  The Allies have to use those early rounds of massive economic superiority to maximum advantage.  If they fail to stop expansion by BOTH axis powers, their lead slips away before round 10 (again excluding capture of an enemy capital).

That is why “Economic Victory” was added to the game, because once the Axis reaches 84 IPC’s, the allies are so badly out classed economically that it is just a matter of “playing it out”