Refer to page #38, optional rules, us marines, attack at a 2, first combat cycle!
How to use America effectively in KGF?
-
If Alaska’s taken early, or if Russia’s really pressured late game, US ought then to put up some sort of defensive build in W. Canada.
That is, I think the proper US route is Eastern US to Eastern Canada, and from there either taking two fleets of US transports (fleet one transports to London, fleet two transports from London to Europe), OR taking a single large fleet between Algeria and Eastern Canada. It’s very difficult to secure the Algerian route in a timely manner; if the Axis manage to control Persia early on, the US has a hard time breaking through; conversely, if the Allies manage to secure Persia, that probably means an easy Allied victory.
The route ncsswitch refers to; W. US to W. Canada to E. Canada makes the U.S. player look a lot better, and allows the US to be more responsive to Japanese moves. However, I am of the personal opinion that it wastes a turn that could be vital to the Allies.
-
The observation made by Switch is correct regarding efficancy in utilization of land units.
Really the need for doing that is related to the metagame. In my playgroup games Japanese player completely ignore USA West Coast, aiming at RUssia, Australia and Africa, that are mor eeasy to conquer and only after may try to take a shot to the USA.
In such scenario building in WUS is one turn more to estabilish shuck move for ECAN.
As newpaintbrush said it may be a waste of a turn.
However, in ssome scenario US landing in Europe has to be delayed, in such case it may be useful to use the WUS-WCAN-ECAN route.Indeed, the real problem of US logistic is not route for lands units but buying the land units to fill the TRNs (avoding to have empty TRNs) and to having the TRNs to load all the units (avoiding units left in ECAN) at same time.
-
I’m in the building in EUS camp myself.
There’s a definite psychological factor in this game where people tend to over-value territory and under-value units.
Consider: Building in EUS leaves the territory of WCan empty (although I usually just leave the UK Inf there as a picket). That’s a 1 IPC territory.
Now, if Japan is willing to commit a loaded transport (16 IPCs) and possibly more to take that 1 IPC territory, I’m all for it as the US player. I will still be able to re-take it right away with Inf in ECan + possibly armor from EUS. That’s the real damage inflicted by the move - it draws off several IPCs of units from the march on Europe. I care much less about the 1 IPC that Japan gains than the fact that 8+ IPCs of units have now been drawn away from where I wanted them to go. However, it’s still a net loss for Japan because it has committed at least 11 IPCs of units (TRN + Inf) and I get to kill the Inf right on my doorstep. Japan has traded an active 3 IPC unit for 1 IPC which will go into production that gets placed back in Japan at the END of the next turn - that’s why units are more valuable than territory.
However, if you start building in WUS from the start, you give Japan that advantage for free - you have delayed a whole turn’s worth of production (40 IPCs) without Japan having to lift a finger.
If Japan lands a big force in WCan or Alaska, that makes me even happier - they will need to outpace me in terms of ground units in order to gain further territory, PLUS a lot of naval units will be tied up to support the effort. Russia’s life just got a lot easier!
-
It takes 1 round longer for INF to get to ECan, but once established, building in WUS allows the US to defend against an raiding Japan forces in WUS or WCan for no additional cost in units.
True, but misleading. It takes inf 2 turns longer to be able to be transported early in the game, because early on you build a tran in E. US and want to immediately load units from E. US to go somewhere, but if you build the tran in E. US and the units in W. US, then the inf will take 2 turns to get to E. Canada, then on the third turn you can finally transport them somewhere. That’s quite possibly too many turns if you’re waiting for your full builds to arrive from Western, so are you build partially in Western or what?
-
Only if you do not execute the WUS shuck correctly does it take 2 turns.
By using the WUS, Alaska, and CUS forces, as well as shucking via SZ9 (and a PORTION of your land builds in EUS in US1 while the shuck is established) you will have an unbroken chain of forces hitting North Africa from the start.
-
I think that the real challenge of US Logistic is to match perfectly Transports with units.
The manoeuvre proposed by Switch have sure advantage. But it his a tactic for masters!But for a newbie as me, being able to transport troops in Europe without having empty transport in Sz 1 or execess of land units in ECAN it is already a good result to aim for! :-D
If Japanese want to land in Alaska or somewhere else, I see them coming one turn in advance and then may prepare and adequate welcome party!
-
@ncscswitch:
Only if you do not execute the WUS shuck correctly does it take 2 turns.
By using the WUS, Alaska, and CUS forces, as well as shucking via SZ9 (and a PORTION of your land builds in EUS in US1 while the shuck is established) you will have an unbroken chain of forces hitting North Africa from the start.
I’m a bit confused by your statement.
IMHO, there is going to be a 1 round break in the American shuck no matter what. It might be a break by not shucking on round 1 or, more commonly,a break on Round 2 while you get the 5 infantry from Alaska/C. USA/W. USA to W. Canada then E. Canda and have builds following from there. But it’s still a break, no?
-
I prefer the WUS builds and the US forces in Africa. It has the effect of moving US forces quickly to contest Egypt and Persia as well as keeping the UK IPC total up by keeping Africa out of Axis hands. This means that the UK and Russia, with some US fighter help can counter Germany, while the US/Russia can counter Japan throught Africa and Persia.
SS
-
Done correctly, the WUS does not sacrifice any time at all.
You just can’t buy 2 or 3 trns in US1 which is no big deal, and if you need to send US troops to London for protection on a potential Sealion it works out perfect.
I like to send US troops to Alg, so right there I cut my need for US trns in half for the Atlantic. I can survive with only 3 or 4 total in the Atlantic, which means I only need to buy maybe 1. Then I’ll gradually add trns for a possible Med move.
I like to buy an AC/ftr (or 2) or ground units on US 1. Place the new ground units in WUS and you’re set. No delay at all. You land heavy in Afr in Rd 2 and then UK shifts to Nor and US covers Afr while threatening the Med.
Any US player that doesn’t place in WUS is asking for trouble in the mid game.
Japan always has trns to spare and needs one to pick up Aus, NZ, and can then move to HI anyway. At this point it costs Japan nothing to invade Canada and with only 1-2 additional trns in Sz 60 they can be quite an annoyance since they should already have their ICs on Mainland Asia and a full 2-3 turns of reinforcements before the effect of the Canada move is even felt (if it is even felt).
As an Axis player I’d much rather mess with the US shuck-shuck in round 5,6, or 7 then have the US prepare for it in rd 1 or 2.
-
For the shuck moves, yesterday playing as US in a 5 player game I experimented the following .
US1: build 1 AC, 2 TRN, 2 Tank = 42 IPC.
Move to Algeria to reinforce British landing there.
Move fig from WUS to sz10
Move fig from EUS to sz10
Move 2 inf from CUS to EUS
Move DD from sz20 to sz10
Deploy all land units in EUS, all naval units in sz10US2: 1 TRN in EUS, 4 inf 2 Tank, 1 fig = 40 IPC.
and so on, increasing to 3x3 shuck to Algeria.
After, I plan to build other three trn, when needed to switch landing in norway, without interrupting land units flow, or for landing in WE or SE.
I have still to reach this next stage, we played only three rounds, and “saved” the game to continue next time. -
I think no matter what you do, it takes turn 5 to fully stabilize a 3x3 or 4x4. You can easily maintain some flow of units in each turn, just not fully loading all transports and/or not having the “right” number of transports until 5 or so?
So what’s the thoughts on 3x3 vs 4x4?
I like 4x4 for more defensive/offensive punching power, but 3x3 with fighters seems handy too. You spend 16 IPCs less on transports (making it more flexible to deal with whatever German navy is running around) and those fighters can amass in many territories. I don’t think I’d go lower than 3x3 though or the US has too little land fodder to assault Germany with.
-
I’ll have a 3x3 up by Turn 3.
Round 1: Buy 3 Transports
Round 2: Buy units and move fleets around.
Round 3: 3 Transports East of England, 3 Transports West of England. -
3 x 3. 4 x 4 no good.
3 x 3 leaves you the economy for early tanks. You can use tanks to reclaim Africa quickly, then send the tanks back up through Africa to hit Persia. I usually do the E. Canada to Algeria route too, then switch to 3 x 3 if necessary.
-
I prefer 3X3 to Asia and 2X to Africa.
That’s 30 IPC a round in infantry to fill all transports. Leaving America with 7 or 8 depending on Hawaii (or more if you were mean and didn’t let England have Algeria and Libya.)
-
I think no matter what you do, it takes turn 5 to fully stabilize a 3x3 or 4x4.
Wes, you have been away too long. Darth (and others) have already perfected the 4X4 LONG before USA5.
-
How long? By like USA2? :-D
What does 4x4 mean? 16 TRNS?
-
4 x 4 is 4 by 4…
This means 8 TRNs for the US that can move units forward to UK or Algeria (4 TRN) and then into Africa or Europe using 4 more TRN.However, in common usage, it is any 4 TRN direct offload set-up, so that only 4 TRN are required to get 8 units into Algeria per round, but that is still called a 4x4 TRN, though the same 4 TRN are doing the “out and back” into Algeria.
-
The US can actually produce 10 ground units / turn, so why not a 5x5?
-
5x5 would limit you to Algeria insertions, and no additional AF.
3x3 or 4x4 allows for AF/Naval purchases in addition to the land units being transported.
-
I don’t see how that follows - you can have 5 TRNS going ECAN - UK, and 5 TRNs going UK - Mainland. or split of 2-2 to go to Algeria. All kinds of options.
Suggested Topics
