Yes i agree. Ive played this game on triple a as the axis vs allies on easy AI, and it took me awhile to subdue usa (the only allied power left). I eventually did, just for the fun of it, (i think around turn47)(probably never going to do that again!) :-D But it took a painstakingly annoying lot of time and build up, even though axis controlled almost everithing. The japanese built a factory in brazil and just kept bombing the us, while germany built up ,took eastern canada, built a factory there, and eventually took Washington. With 63 fighters , 27tanks and 21 infantry, and 12 bombers. Then planes flew to canada, and a german tank took West usa and west canada on next turn by blitzing. The one thing i dont like about playing this game against AI,(i dont know about other ones yet, havent tried playing them), i had to built up a HUGE force as germany cuz i wanted to be sure to take usa. Because it seems like to me the computer is trying to “hack” almost every single roll for his favor when he ends up in a predicament :-), and i end up losing battles as the axis that i should have won guaranteed, were it a normal table board game. Having the computer roll for you, and rolling dice yourself is not the same thing :-D
2 ocean USA strategies?
-
Are there any viable 2 ocean strategies for the USA?
-
Hi @8d88 - if by “viable” you mean “potentially game-winning at a high level of competitive play” then I believe the short answer is “no” and the long answer is “nope.” :)
Much longer and un-asked-for answer: It depends on your definition of “viable.” I like playing the US with a two-ocean strategy— particularly when I’m teaching the game—becuase it gives me the most control over the balance/fun ‘knobs’ of the game experience for the other players. If one player is dominating (or struggling), I can most effectively reach out and smack (or help) them with the US, and to do so requires two-ocean logistics (or some kind of “Green Skies” strat) to immediately get material where needed. My A1 purchase in these teaching games is definitely going to be two-ocean; enough carriers and transports to make up for any G1/J1 losses and to (lightly) defend and escort two oceans’ worth of shipping. My A2 purchase and moves will be more transports and escorts as needed, and the start of flowing material in whichever direction.
In many cases the two-ocean A1 purchase evolves into a normal one-ocean US strategy becuase it becomes quickly and painfully obvious which of the oceans is going to require the smacking (or helping) given dice, player skill, and other factors. This also depends on the kind and quantity of communication that is allowed/happening between the Allies.
While the two-ocean US strategy is mechanically very suboptimal for a dozen reasons which others here can explain better than me, the Allies will still often “win” teaching games where I play the US as a two-ocean power. In that regard, if winning = viable then I would say potentially yes—if you’re playing with new/poor players, particularly new/poor Axis players, and you want them to have a good time and come back next time—when you can crush them with an all-in Thorpe Thump, KGF, or whatever you like :)
-
@vodot That’s a nice tip for a teaching game. I’m pretty sure in classic I at least hassled the player in a given ocean a bit rather than completely abandoning it. In a 2 player game is guess it doesn’t matter as much but playing with 4 or 5 players it’s feels odd for the US just to fight on one side of the board.
An alternate setup might be interesting where the US player is forced to fight both sides of the map. Perhaps with a split economy and/or shutting down the Panama canal.
-
@8d88 said in 2 ocean USA strategies?:
An alternate setup might be interesting where the US player is forced to fight both sides of the map. Perhaps with a split economy and/or shutting down the Panama canal.
I wasn’t going to mention it since its a variant and your original post was leaning towards actual 42.2 strategy, but yes, and this can be super fun! When I used to play a lot of Revised in college I would occasionally get groups of 6 or even 7-8 players. After incorporating Italy and China from @Black_Elk’s ‘Pact of Steel + China’ modified setup, the next move (If we had 7+ players) would be to split the US economy at the board edges and give each half +5-10 IPC. The two halves could take turns together, but each could only build from the economy gained/lost on that side’s half of the board. Units could be flown across the US or shipped across the panama canal if desired, but not built directly at the other side’s factories. Pacific player would also control China (which in this version got a factory, a third territory, and kept a separate economy from the US). Super fun!
8 players and we would do the same for the UK economy with Canada (add a factory here) + London on one side, and India (add factory) + Australia (add factory) on the other, splitting any African money between the two. Japan had to play these games VERY differently and much more surgically than a normal game of Revised (which is typically KGF with a MONSTER Japan), and Germany and Italy were very tough to contain with the much more limited resources going into the Atlantic.
-
@vodot Yeah, definitely seems like the US would need some kind of economic boost if they have a split economy. I bet playing like this would be more historically accurate and more fun, especially with more than 2 players.
Suggested Topics
