Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.
Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can’t hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?
I am thinking about this for my next game…
- Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard.
- Carrier destroys transport.
- Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense.
- US factory in Sianking.
In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.
Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.
It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?
In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.