A Nameless but Effective China Strategy

Thanks PM incoming.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

So many resources were poured into the Pacific theater during the first four rounds. I am certain that the European theater will be a massive success for the Axis with Moscow falling easily on G6, and a large column of tanks backed by planes heading towards Egypt that should fall around G10.

That’s the gist of it. I think I can at least slow it down to G13 by throwing up some roadblocks. Meanwhile, Rome must be defended, landings in western Europe threaten Paris, and the combined forces in the channel are setting up a killshot on Berlin.

The question I’m asking is what bid allows the Allies to stop Germany 50% of the time using this method?

In terms of bid, I offer you three options: 1) Allies + 60 which Andrew thinks is balanced. 2) Allies + 69 to account for a bit of bad luck during the first couple rounds of rolls. or 3) Allies +100 which I think you will need to make the game balanced for this strategy
.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

69

Noice.

This started as an experiment to see if a J1 COW could be stopped with a minimal +6 Pacific bid (I’m still amazed it works as well as it does on Japan; that it has a theoretical chance of stopping Germany is insane). Since we are testing that, I’m going to spend all but 6 of the bid on the Atlantic side. In a real game, with a 100 bid (and maybe at 60) I would be tempted to spend 24 in the Pacific to blow up SZ20 on R1.

For 100:
UK subs (36): 39, 91, 98, 106, 110, & 111
Fighters (20): Scotland & Malta
Bombers (24): Gib & Alex
Tank (6): Egypt
Art (4): Sudan
Transport (7): 71
Inf (3): Moscow

100?!?!?!?

Why in the world are you testing 100? No one is going to give you 100 in a real game.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

100?!?!?!?

Why in the world are you testing 100? No one is going to give you 100 in a real game.

ABH made the offer. My thinking is that if this doesn’t work at 100, there is no point wasting any more time testing at a lower bid.

What’s your opinion of using 24 in bid money to blow up SZ20 on R1? How high would the bid need to be before you considered the Russian bombers?

You asked what I thought would be a 50/50 match with this strategy and 100 PU bid is my honest answer.

Here are the bidding rules FYI. Standard from League play:

• Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone.

• The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

• China is limited to bid units of: Infantry

@govz said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

What’s your opinion of using 24 in bid money to blow up SZ20 on R1? How high would the bid need to be before you considered the Russian bombers?

I guess with 100 you could do that. I see some value of killing that transport. Is it worth $24 in the Bid? Both bombers would die in the counter attack. Is killing that transport worth 8 infantry in Russia? I doubt that.

@TheDesertFox

Last I heard from you, you were going to do some testing regarding Japan and the Floating Bridge strategy. Not sure how much progress you have made with that.

Thought I would pass on a recent game I had that had a strategy similar to the Floating Bridge Strategy you mentioned.

In it my opponent set up a 6 transport shuck-shuck to Spain. This was accomplished by invading the Neutrals. He then built infrastructure in Spain to allow a total of 9 US units a Turn advancing against Germany. This was very similar to the Floating Bridge Strategy in both cost and units being sent towards Europe:

• Initial infrastructure - 6 transports, Minor IC, Airbase and Harbor = $90 VERSUS 12 transports = $84
• Ongoing expenditure - 9 units VERSUS 8 units

The strategy certainly worked in Europe. Germany was stalemated and could not take Moscow and were declining as the US and UK built up significant forces in Spain and trading Normandy and Southern France.

However, in the Pacific, as I theorized during our discussion, Japan became too powerful and won the game for the Axis. With the US sending so many resources towards Europe they were not able to build a fleet capable of stopping the IJN and the game was over once Japan took Hawaii. Japan’s upper limit in income was $84.

@andrewaagamer why don’t you please describe for us a game in which the Allie’s DID win?

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

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

Well my 1st attempt to produce an example ended in spectacular failure: Stooges-Test#1-F6.tsvg

I did learn some lessons -

• Don’t get cute with Russia.
• The US can use planes to threaten SZ6 and then send them on to Moscow in time.
• Let ANZAC’s 3rd wave do its job of finishing the IJN and retreat with the British to save some planes and the sub.
• Keep the Stooges in their lanes: Moe (India/China/Russia) kills land units and keeps the focus in SE Asia; Larry (US) locks down SZ6 and sends in subs to cut income; Curly (ANZAC) builds transports to take islands.

My 2nd test run with a 60 bid got me this: Stooges-Test#2-F5.tsvg

I think I played a fairly standard Axis game, but I’m sure I made mistakes on both sides. Please let me know if you see anything I’ve overlooked. That seems like a good position for the Allies to be in.

FYI - My pipe dream of retaking Kwangtung is still viable. It will take 8 more turns, but there is a plan.

Side note - It is several orders of magnitude more difficult to protect Egypt vs taking Japan. If I played a popular home rule version, I would make that trade and try to stop Germany from getting the 9th VC.

Round 2: Japan captures 3 out of the 4 of the following territories: Malaya, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes. In your game you only captured Malaya.

Everything goes down the drain if you don’t have a strong J2 turn.

@theveteran said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer why don’t you please describe for us a game in which the Allie’s DID win?

Here is JDOWs victory over me with a Bid of $58 in the 2020 2nd Edition OOB Playoffs

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36361/2020-playoff-andrewaagamer-x-vs-jdow-l-58-oob?page=1

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Round 2: Japan captures 3 out of the 4 of the following territories: Malaya, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes. In your game you only captured Malaya.

Everything goes down the drain if you don’t have a strong J2 turn.

I’m not a fan playing against myself - it can make you go blind and miss obvious moves. The J1 was Cow, and J2 - 3 were Andrew’s moves from our mini-test.

The real problem is turn 3. The Allies have mid-sized fleets off both India and Queensland. As for as I can tell, Japan has 3 options for J3:
*Option #1 - Put the IJN in between the Allied fleets. This is what Andrew did, and is probably the least bad option. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for both Allied navies.
*Option #2 - Attack one of the fleets. Face the multi wave counter attacks ready on either side. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for only 1 of the Allied navies.
*Option #3 - Retreat north. Allow the Allied fleets to merge into a fleet bigger than the IJN. I haven’t played against this yet, but it feels like Japan is turtling.

Note - the absolute best realistic outcome Japan can hope for in the first 2 options is wounded capital ships limping back to a NB while facing another turn of Allied attacks.

I really hope I’m missing something and there is a 4th option.