Four battleship counter

@Gargantua:

Jennifer,

Please DIRECTLY answer these 3 questions, for all our benefit, followed perhaps by 1 SHORT explanation paragraph.

1. What turn do you attack the allies with Japan?

2. What Turn does Calcutta fall to you?

3. What turn does NSW fall to you?

4. and IF the Americans have committed NOTHING to the pacific, save defense, what turn does that put japanese forces back in China?  If Ever?

Japan 1:
Buy(26)

• 3 Transports, Save 5

Attack various Chinese territories
NCM units to KWA including fleet

Collect 29 TT + 5 Saved + 10 NO = 44 IPC

Japan 2:
Buy(44)

• 2 Transports
• Naval Base
• 5 Infantry

Move transports, Infantry, planes down to Hainan/Kwa
Attack various Chinese territories

Build naval base in Hainan
Build infantry in Japan (in case America is getting uppity)

If American equipment is in range of SZ 6, scratch transports and build more ground units.

Japan 3:

Attack Philippines, Attack India with 6 loaded transports, 12 planes and use fleet to sink SZ 39.

Best England can have: 23 ground units, 3 planes

In that case, move transports and equipment down and put fleet next to India to prevent blocking (sea zone adjacent to SZ 39)

Japan 4:
Attack India with 8 transports, 20 planes

End of J4 (either way) India is Japans.  From there put ICs in FIC, W. India and Malaya to assist in crushing Australia.  No big if America dumps ships in SZ 6, just keep Japan stacked to prevent it from falling.

NSW should fall two or three rounds later to Japanese forces.  Even if we assume I lost 6 of 20 planes in India and all but one of the ground units attacking, I should have enough replacements to overwhelm the Australians.

Say Turn 4 (latest for India) + 3 rounds (longest after) for a total of 7 rounds.  China is mostly ignored here except a round 1 attack on Yunnan and perhaps replacement attacks if it is not heavily stacked.  Other attacks are “walk in onlys” to preseve units to put on transports. (I need 16 ground units)

This is an adaption of the Kill America First strategy in so much it relies heavily on transports.  The naval base in Hainan is only if England does not block, if they do, just jump in closer and stack Burma/Sham State/Stay on Transports so you can attack on J4. (Gives you more transports since you dont need 15 IPC for the naval base.)

If America virutally ignores the Pacific, I am still putting forces back into China after India falls. (Due to lack of transports being needed, I can use complexes in india, w. india, malaya, fic, etc or any part there of to add forces to use in China.)  If America does go Pacific, I want to build up fleets to take them on.  With DEI, 5of7, India and NSW I should have enough cash to do this.

Not saying this is an “I win” button, just really powerful if you can pull it off.

So more or less, you are advocating ignoring china for 9 turns.

W O W !

@Gargantua:

So more or less, you are advocating ignoring china for 9 turns.

W O W !

No.  For 3 rounds assuming J4 invasion of India.  (Round 1 you attack China, after India falls, you attack China since you don’t need to dedicate 100% to Australia.)

So right now you’re saying…

No.  For 3 rounds assuming J4 invasion of India.  (Round 1 you attack China, after India falls, you attack China since you don’t need to dedicate 100% to Australia.)

Ok….

But what happend to this brainwave of yours from less than 24 hours ago?

Commander Jennifer: Ignore China, get India and Australia.  You can reclaim a coastal here ro there or just plain out right forget them entirely.

Any explanations?

Tell me please,  is your strategy to attack? or to “forget them entirely”?

And please tell me, what is the best Chinese  territory to attack/most important to hold?

A)  If you are not going to completely ignore China and help Germany win, then you have to invade and attack them sometime (ignoring them for 3 rounds won’t be too detrimental.)

B)  If you are going to to help Germany win, you don’t need China so you may as well ignore them to save money and time.

It’s a totally different mission.  If you are going to win with Japan, you have to smack China around for the VC’s in Hong Kong and Beijing.  If you are going to sap Russia and allow Germany to win, then why blow hundreds of IPC in China?

How do you blow “Hundreds” of IPC’s in china?  Hundreds implies more than 100 thus atleast two hundreds (200).

That’s 20 planes “Wasted”…  Explain more please? I don’t get it?

@Gargantua:

How do you blow “Hundreds” of IPC’s in china?  Hundreds implies more than 100 thus atleast two hundreds (200).

That’s 20 planes “Wasted”…   Explain more please? I don’t get it?

You’re making an interesting assumption there.  I think it’s really hyperbole.  Destroying 18 infantry and an AA gun isn’t that easy, especially if they pulled back to prevent bombardment and such.  It’s a large commitment in terms of turns, IPCs and the fact that it forces Japan to spend less, if not nothing at all, in other richer areas.  And the USA can make it a pain for Japan, especially if it isn’t going for the money farther South.  That has to be dealt with, too.  But really, Cmdr Jennifer makes sense.  If Japan is focusing on helping Germany win (not going South for the money, NOs, or VCs), there’s no reason to commit large forces to subdue China when it’s so limited in what it can do.  Sure, they may push Japan out of China entirely, but at that point it won’t matter, because Japan is fully committed elsewhere.

And if it helped to take out Russia and bring a German victory, it’s not money wasted.

I personally prefer for each Axis power to try to win in their respective area, rather than forgoing improving their own economy just to help out someone on the other side of the world.  In my opinion it makes for a more interesting and fun game.  But maybe that’s just me.

You start with 24 infantry, 6 artillery and 1 mechanized infantry on the mainland.  That’s 55 right there, and yes, they will probably all be lost in China one way or another (killed or stuck out of position to be used elsewhere.)

On top of that, I advocate +18 more mech and + 12 more armor for another 144 IPC worth of material being shoved into China via Russia (Timguska) bringing the total to 199 IPC.

Add just one plane (and you will probably need more than one) and you easily break 200 IPC worth of units in China or destroyed.

There is also replacements that you will probably need that I did not detail as well.

I think it is obvious that you are both right on different points. You cannot ignore China entirely, but there’s no point in making it the overwhelming object of Japan’s strategy. If you ignore it entirely, it will buy art and push Japan off the coast taking around 10 or 12 IPCs and two victory cities (1/3 of Japan’s victory requirement). If you make it your chief aim, you will waste a lot of time that Japan can’t afford to lose what with Calcutta building up defenses, ANZAC putting together a navy or air force or something, and USA bringing an economic hammer to bear. And that time will indeed be a waste as there are no victory conditions in China.

The good news for Japan is that China can be severely crippled from the first turn simply by taking Yunnan and a few other territories in the North. From that point on, if Yunnan is held, China can barely do a thing of importance in the whole game. And it only requires a couple infantry a turn and a few support planes for Japan to keep China under the boot.

@Cmdr:

On top of that, I advocate +18 more mech and + 12 more armor for another 144 IPC worth of material being shoved into China via Russia (Timguska) bringing the total to 199 IPC.

Um….
don’t do that then.

Hooray!  We’ve saved 144 IPCs!

Plus that much land force is waaayy more than what is needed.

@Alsch91:

@Cmdr:

On top of that, I advocate +18 more mech and + 12 more armor for another 144 IPC worth of material being shoved into China via Russia (Timguska) bringing the total to 199 IPC.

Um….
don’t do that then.

Hooray!  We’ve saved 144 IPCs!

Plus that much land force is waaayy more than what is needed.

Those units are designed to blitz through Russia and invade through China’s rear door in rapid fashion forcing them to split their build or lose significant resources.

You can win the game without a single Chinese territoriy.  Keep in  mind that no matter how many artillery they have, not a single chinese unit can go to Korea.

A fleet of 9 subs (54 IPCs) is sufficient to have the advantage over 4 battleships (80 IPC). It’s a 60%/40% in favor of the subs, not counting potential air support.

For the sake of it, increase this to 13 subs (78 IPC), and then the subs have a 99% chance of winning. All 4 battleships go down and on average only 3 subs are lost.

Pretty easy to see:

ww w.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

Yes.  What is your point?

@Cmdr:

Those units are designed to blitz through Russia and invade through China’s rear door in rapid fashion forcing them to split their build or lose significant resources.

My point was that the discussion was about Japanese victory in general, which does not require that Japan sink heavily into land forces against Russia.  So your assertion that China needs “hundreds” of IPCs investment wasn’t accurate.  It would be like saying France “required” the entire Luftwaffe to fall on G1 just because I like to save land forces.  :lol:
That’s all I meant.  Obviously putting that kind of mobile land force into East Russia is entirely viable.  It just isn’t needed to keep China in check.

If Japan intends to win on the Pacific map, then China requires no less than 200 IPC worth of units because you also have to deal with Indian units.  If Japan only wants to tie up the allies, then China can be ignored, but Russia still needs an investment and you may as well use overwhelming force.

Or skip all the bull-crap, and**just do what I said**.

Make the effort to take and hold Yunnan, and take anything else you can take for FREE.  Let the Chinese Devils attack YOU if they dare.  Within the first 3 turns, they will be relegated to uselessness, without investing ANYTHING more than what already starts there, and all whilst you are on your route to India, OR Russia, OR NSW.

Jennifer points out you can “Win the game” without a single chinese territory.  That’s like saying  “You can win the game without a single Japanese territory”

China affects 2 Victories

If you don’t relegate China whilst NOT at war with the allies, you will be forced to win by the following territories.

TOKYO
CALCUTTA
MANILLA
SYDNEY
HAWAII
SAN FRAN

Yes that’s right, either it’s China’s territories, or SAN FRAN and HAWAII.  Bad news.

I’ve played games - where the game was LOST - precisely because of this.

MORAL OF THE STORY

Don’t ignore China entirely.  Hit em hard enough to keep em down.

And

Ruanek, HYPERBOLE is the point I’m trying to make,  you cannot accept strategic advice when it’s provided in regular exxagerations.

No, there are two avenues.

1)  Attack China first and India/Australia second

or

2)  Attack India/Australia first and China second.

I am adovcating path 2, because it is FAR easier to obliterate the Chinese after you have India and Australia than it is to beat the Indians and Australians after you secure China.

@Gargantua:

MORAL OF THE STORY

Don’t ignore China entirely.  Hit em hard enough to keep em down.

A)  Hit Yunnan round 1 for sure, but don’t blow all your  cash trying to keep it.  China can only make Artillery and Infantry, it’s not exactly a “huge” threat.  Further, none of those units can get to Korea, French Indo China, Malaya, India, Kazakh, any of the Mongolian territories, Sham State or any Russian territories, so they are very limited and you can easily get a lot of firepower in range later to handle them.

B)  Hit Yuannan round 2 or 3 if it won’t jeapordize getting India, which is a higher priority. (Would you rather China have 18 IPC or India 20-30 IPC?)

C)  Main priority is to get India early to minimize defenses.  Secondary priority is Australia to minimize defenses and maximize income.  Tertiary priority is China, and even then, you might be better off going for Moscow or San Francisco.

Thank you for Agreeing Jen.

It’s interesting, then, that both of you have apparently agreed the whole time but still had to argue over it.