Japan kills China mid '41

[TeaLeaf]

I'd say Japan must be (annoyingly) lucky to pull it off, but when it happens it is unstoppable and unavoidable. Like in my current game, Japanese attacks should have failed about 50% of the time (average drm of +6), but did so only in about 10%. Result: China will be dead before '41 is over. Unless Japan starts rolling very low from now on but I have little to no faith in that.

Historically implausible ofc, but that's not my problem. What I don't like, is that it's unstoppable and if it spells doom to the allied cause, it should not be so easy (not even with a lucky Japan) IMHO. Because mid '41 (or even at the beginning), the game isn't even halfway and who likes the prospect of playing 50+ hours (WiF), or even half a year (MWiF) knowing victory already is an impossibility.

So what is the grand strategic damage to the allies if Japan destroys China well before the US enters the war (say, mid '41). I'm afraid it causes a cascade effect which is very bad for the allies because Japan no longer needs a lot of forces in China and so they can all be moved against the other allies. What do you guys think?

[Centuur]

The last thing is not entirely true. Partisans can be a real nuisance in a conquered China, since the country is so big, that there is always a factory, key railroad or resource which gets blocked by them. Getting rid of those guys also isn't easy, so a large garrison is needed to make sure Japan gets their money back which they have invested to conquer China and garrison it.

But you are right that Japan can conquer China if they go all out against them in MWIF. The only thing capable of stopping the Japanese when they are lucky is Uncle Joe. It's very important for the Soviets to get a good garrison at the Manchurian border to prevent the Japanese from going all out against China. So: no way Uncle Joe should agree on a neutrality pact with Japan at start of the game.

[tom730_slith]

In most of my solitaire games the Japs do go all out to conquer China, and usually are successful. Why would Stalin wage war against the Japanese just to protect China? In a 2-player game it would make sense I guess, but if each country is played according to their political needs/desires why risk it? A large Soviet army in the Far East could make life VERY miserable for the Japanese, BUT that leaves a much smaller force in the west to repel the Germans and their "friends." Since moving across Siberia takes so long it could be fatal.

[Orm]

Because protecting China protects USSR?

[paulderynck]

China being conquered is not an auto-win for the Axis. Russia being conquered? - For the Axis: Perfect!

[TeaLeaf]

I guess Paul's reply was what I was hoping to see: China being dead doesn't mean the allies should give up.

Regarding Uncle Joe's options against Japan, what (if anything) is there that he can do without ensuring Germany will destroy Russia?
Is there a number of units Russia can Safely use in Asia?
I usually have 2 to 4 Russian corps in Asia plus maybe 2 divisions and that's it. Hardly a force to make Japan sweat but I'm not sure if I can keep Germany from destroying me if I send more. Even the players' notes in the scenarios booklet say that: "Every action you (Russia) perform must be made with a view to countering German efforts to destroy you. In particular, you must employ a tight building strategy to ensure that every land unit possible is on the board before Barbarossa is unleashed."

And I guess they mean that every land unit must be used against Barbarossa. Or almost all. I can't think any1 would advise to leave Vladi completely empty [;)].

[Centuur]

I tend to keep at least 6 corps at the Manchurian border with the USSR. Just enough to make sure that Japan doesn't empty Manchuria of all forces and use those in China in the first year of the war.

You don't need those units in the west immediately. The USSR should be able to leave those units in the Far East for a long time. And if the Japanese are stupid enough to empty Machuria and Korea, I will deploy a big bad TB-3 bomber at Vlad. The effect of bombing factories together with a good attack on Manchuria can be very, very damaging to the Japanese war economy. I tend to switch Zhukov for Yeremenko and keep the latter one in the Far East until war with Germany starts.

I only declare war on Japan, when the Chinese are really starting to struggle. Not sooner and certainly not when the Chinese are doing allright.

Consider this also: what if Germany decides to Close the Med and builds for it? No way I'm going to allow Japan to slaughter the Chinese while the Wehrmacht is fighting in Spain.

[TeaLeaf]

I'll try that next time, Peter. I like it.
It is more commitment than I am used to, but (around) 6 corps still sounds few enough to easily relocate back to Europe once Barbarossa starts.

I take it you seriously increase Soviet commitment against Japan if they are doing well against China and Germany goes south (Med).
Well, that is something I still am not sure about (for me to do it).
I think if Russia does not build enough pressure on its Western borders, Germany has too many of its hands free against the CW and will more likely succeed.
Plus, a '42 Barbarossa seems to be more dangerous to me if Russia has quite some commitment in Asia.

[Centuur]

If the USSR needs to start a war with Japan, they get a couple of extra corps out of the reserves. Those units will increase your army in the Far East enough to make a punch against the Japanese. But no other reinforcements should go there, so Yeremenko should know that he can't affort losses.

And war with Japan also gives the USSR the opportunity to build MIL units. And those are very cheap units to maintain the garrison value against Germany.

[paulderynck]

The Peace option would fix all that.

[michaelbaldur]

dont think that taking out china is worth it.

the us entry effect is to big.

is it better to kick them hard, and leave then with a few factories. then you get 90% of the ressources, and USA dont get a 35 roll, and 1 extra chit a turn

[TeaLeaf]

I guess you're right Michaelbaldur, although a heavy USEntry penalty may be a little late by then (depending on the excact moment of conquest).

I think RAW7 surrender rules are better for China, because in RAW8 China will never be able to surrender if (for example) all they have left is Kunming with a unit in it. Japan can indeed leave China crippled/practically out of the game without any repercussion from the USA.

[paulderynck]

In RAW8 you can surrender if the enemy takes your capital.

[TeaLeaf]

Ah that's better.
Apparently I've read only the part that says "you may surrender the current home country of your major power if any of its hexes are enemy controlled and you have no in-supply land units anywhere inside the home country."

That did raise one of my eyebrows when I read it .

[paulderynck]

That last one has some issues, IMO... "Hmmm, it behooves me to surrender so I'll move my units so they are all out of supply..." Next you see the enemy running away from any of your cities he had ZoCs on...

[CanInf]

In the game I am playing China will be gone by late 41. While this is a problem for me as the allies, it is far from a decisive Axis coup, and it certainly does not put the game out of reach. US entry is sky high. When Japan does win, it is combined impulses only after that, which means it will be very hard to get into position for the first war impulse since the army is deep in China. I believe there is also a boost to the USA ability to declare war on Japan, which very well might happen (denying Japan those zero-strength notional landings is hugely valuable). And as people have pointed out occupying China is far from a simple matter in of itself.

[TeaLeaf]

You guys give me a little hope.
I haven't seen China go down three times in about 25 years that I play WiF.
Most of the time Japan failed the +6 drm (or 2:1 odds if playing 1d10) attacks that China could force. But sometimes they get bloody lucky and I must confess I have never been able to play it out when China fell. Not that I was very eager to, but perhaps I was wrong >.<