USA Pacific strategy?

[TG Moses VI]

TexCapPrezJimmy,

Not saying I agree with your strategy, but if you want to make the most out of it, I suggest those subs should be sent to the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.  You have much more chance of your subs catching Japanese transports off guard, then if you were to shuttle your subs to Alaska.  You have the net effect of the Japanese player having to extend precariously.

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

@Woodstock:

Is that better then “it didn’t work”?
Pleas elaborate on what went wrong.

Personally, I can see where you are aiming at, but just subs are easy to ignore for Japan IMO. Just make sure you have 1 or 2 Destroyers in your Japanese fleet, and the subs become pretty much worthless, whilst Japan is island hopping or heading for Africa.

Well I only partially committed to it. I spent resources on other (more expensive) things in the Pacific and then couldn’t get my act together in Europe. When I play again I am going to see the effect of a full commitment to sub-deterrent strategy.

I see your destroyer point, but I guess my point is a big stack (think of 12 total after a few turns) would have such cannon fodder that most destroyers would be hit first round or so unless a) they bring a ton of destroyers (great, not spending money on mainland) b) they take hits on ships other than destroyers (fine by me).

Anyways, it was just a thought.

In another thread someone mentions buying lots of subs on the West coast and spreading them all out around the pacific, forcing Japan to buy lots of destroyers and really wrecking havoc. (see link from Admiral T above)

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

@Perry:

The problem with subs , imho, is that they defend on a measly ‘1’.
That means that as soon as subs move into striking range of an enemy fleet, they will be crushed…

I think the idea is more of a defense, or deterrent. The subs would never be moved within range of a substantive attack (a dramatic limitation I know), but by placing a big stack (say just of a coast or over near Australia) then an enemy fleet would be deterred from moving within a radius of two of that stack of subs.

Now that I think about it, there’s an obvious way the sub stack can be neutralized. An attacking fleet would need only to send “leader” destroyers in front of their main fleet (one space between sub stack and main fleet) to prevent a sub attack on the main fleet. The subs would have to retreat because they don’t defend at all.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

TG Moses,

I like it. I will test sub-based strategies and come back to report.

[TG Moses VI]

Now that I think about it, there’s an obvious way the sub stack can be neutralized. An attacking fleet would need only to send “leader” destroyers in front of their main fleet (one space between sub stack and main fleet) to prevent a sub attack on the main fleet. The subs would have to retreat because they don’t defend at all.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

God don’t be too hard on yourself.  Destoryers cost 8 IPCs, Subs cost 6 IPCS.  Even if both fleets destroy each other, you’ve won!

[Gallo Rojo]

USA Pacific strategy?

move the fleet to the Atlantic!  :lol:

well… ok… problem is that I’m a sucker for historical gaming, so I just can’t stand the idea of leaving the Pacific just like this (plus, there is a lot of pressure in my war cabinet, especially from the Navy, to stand and fight the evil Japanese Empire).

so, I think I’ll follow your advice and start building some Gato Class subs  :-D

[MP84]

I’m not sure that a surefire USA pacific strategy exists. If you are lucky enough to make it out ok from initial japanese attacks, you still need to build many transports and destroyers to even threaten the pacific. It sure seems like fighting a delay action in the pacific while pushing into Africa or massing for Overlord is the only successful strategy.

If anyone has found a way for the US Navy to be a consistent threat in the pacific while picking off island IPC’s, I would be very interested to learn from you.

[Comassion]

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

@Perry:

The problem with subs , imho, is that they defend on a measly ‘1’.
That means that as soon as subs move into striking range of an enemy fleet, they will be crushed…

I think the idea is more of a defense, or deterrent. The subs would never be moved within range of a substantive attack (a dramatic limitation I know), but by placing a big stack (say just of a coast or over near Australia) then an enemy fleet would be deterred from moving within a radius of two of that stack of subs.

Now that I think about it, there’s an obvious way the sub stack can be neutralized. An attacking fleet would need only to send “leader” destroyers in front of their main fleet (one space between sub stack and main fleet) to prevent a sub attack on the main fleet. The subs would have to retreat because they don’t defend at all.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

Spread out and swarm with the subs in response.  Send 2 in to attack the separate leading destroyer(s) to take them out, and then spread out the rest of the sub fleet into different zones around your target fleet.  The target fleet can then only hit as many small sub stacks as they have destroyers (which likely won’t be all, or even many of them), and even if he does hit more than one he has to spread his own fleet out.   When your turn comes up next, all your remaining subs can re-form into a single fleet attack stack.  This is also how you can get close enough to a cornered fleet to attack it without it moving to smash your whole stack of subs defending on 1s.  Present too many spread out targets for him to hit.

One bonus here is that people won’t see it coming the first time you do it.  Who the heck splits up their naval forces?  But with the sub rules meaning that only a destroyer-equipped fleet can attack a sub, I think it will actually work.

The other thing you can do if your enemy does bring a whole pile of destroyers is to split your subs into two stacks - one to move within range of the target fleet, the other to simply be in range of the first stack.  Your opponent either needs to take the attack from the first stack, or he’ll attack it and take the attack from the second stack.  This won’t be as cost-effective as spreading your subs out, but that strategy can be countered entirely by having lots of destroyers.

[Gallo Rojo]

Comassion: sounds good
just two questions:

one

@Comassion:

One bonus here is that people won’t see it coming the first time you do it.  Who the heck splits up their naval forces?  But with the sub rules meaning that only a destroyer-equipped fleet can attack a sub, I think it will actually work.

it is my understanding that any ship can attack submarines (be it a destroyer, a cruiser, battleship, carrier, or another sub).
but subs have their first sneaky attack and can submerge if there are not destroyers present with the enemy fleet.

the units that can not attack subs without a destroyer present are aircraft.

Am I right?

two: how many subs do you need to make that strategy workable? what about combining subs with other ships?

[DarthMaximus]

@Gallo:

Comassion: sounds good
just two questions:

one

@Comassion:

One bonus here is that people won’t see it coming the first time you do it.  Who the heck splits up their naval forces?  But with the sub rules meaning that only a destroyer-equipped fleet can attack a sub, I think it will actually work.

it is my understanding that any ship can attack submarines (be it a destroyer, a cruiser, battleship, carrier, or another sub).
but subs have their first sneaky attack and can submerge if there are not destroyers present with the enemy fleet.

the units that can not attack subs without a destroyer present are aircraft.

Am I right?

Correct.

For example 6 cruisers could attack 4 subs, but it is likely in this case the 4 subs would just submerge (before dice rolls), to potentially set up an offensive counter on their next turn where maybe they can bring in not only the 4 submerged subs, but additional ships and any air within range and take out the 6 cruisers.

Edit:
You’d still want at least 1 dd around to prevent the subs from submerging prior to combat.

[DarthMaximus]

As for the US Pac strat, I certainly think it might become necessary given the type of monster Japan can become.  In Revised you could keep Japan under 50 if you held Afr, but here with NO’s and Japan getting close to 60, leaving them alone may prove to devestating, maybe even with the loss of Italy or Germany.

My early thoughts are, to spend UK/US 1-2
a)  making sure Geramny can’t blitz to Moscow
b)  set up to take out Ger/It ships
c)  set up UK to Afr (or Nor/Fin/Kar) with minimal US help (1-2 trns)

Then shift the US to the Pacific while you continue to provide some support to the UK in Afr or Europe.

My concern about spending overwhelmingly in the Pac in rds 1-2 is, Ger/It overrun Russia or reduce them to Moscow before the US can really push back on Japan.

My thinking that the US must shift to a mid game Pac strat at the very least is that a monster Japan can cause a bit more trouble for the US then they could in Revised (even without the direct landing into Wcan) given their early fleet adv and added cruiser bombardment.

[Cowboybob]

Well im haveing a few friends over and i think i shall use this strat in the Pacific.

[Comassion]

Let us know how it goes.  Good luck!