@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.
How to use America effectively in KGF?
-
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.
-
Wes, you have been away too long. Darth (and others) have already perfected the 4X4 LONG before USA5.
How does it work?
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.Maybe I wasn’t being specific enough. What I’m talking about is actually having it in full gear; i.e. there are 6-8 units in England ready to go and 6-8 units in W. Canada. Your shuck is ready on Round 4. I too can have the transports ready earlier than round 5 but it’s a question of having 4 inf 4 tank in both E. Canada and England before then and still having built a carrier and landed enough units in Africa to dislodge the Germans.
But let’s assume US has to buy a carrier?
-
Which the tactic I use the progression is:
US1: 2 TRN to Algeria + 2 TRN Bought
US2: 2 TRN to Algeria - 2 TRN back to sz10 + 1 TRN Bought
US3: 3 TRN to Algeria - 2 TRN back sz10 + 1 TRN Bought (Shuck 3x3 fully working)Buying;
US1, 42 ICC: 1 AC, 2 TRN, 2 tanks (move two units from CUS to fill the two TRNs)
US2, assuming 40 IPC: 1 TRN, 4 inf, 2 Tanks, 1 fig
US3, assuming 38 IPC: 1 TRN, 5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fig
US4, assuming 38 IPC: 3 inf, 3 tank (24), 14 IPC for saving and/or spending: in Atlantic and/or Pacific, or to aim for another set of 3 TRN in order to switch landing to Norway or toe threaten WE or SE without disrupting 3x3 shuck move.I have discovered the hot water and I am calling it “not cold water” (in the sense that seldom I have optimized my move someone else already done this)
:-D
Moreover, it is viable shuck move? Or it sucks completely?
:? -
If all your stuff goes to Algeria, you surely have secured Afr for UK, Romulus.
The logistics will come naturally, more games, and this will be routine.By rnd 5 US should have 8 trans, at least.
This is a good strat, but this may not be the most effective use of US resources.
It depends on the map. If G does not try to take Afr, then UK moves to Italy and kills the German fleet.
Not often G player let you do this, but if…
And Afr may be secured by rnd 2, and if allies make a stand in Anglo, or Persia, then it’s better for
US to land in Norway or Kalia.
From EC to UK/Nor both UK and US threaten Berlin.
I think US should take SE asap, without losing messing up logistics to Algeria.
That could be rnd 4-5, if G is strong…
UK should trade WE, and move stuff from Norway, or to/from Kalia.
Most conservtive players do this as UK.
3x3 with pure inf+ftrs may secure whatever TT’s Russia and UK can occupy.
Suggested Topics
