Notation used: WUS=Western US, CUS=Central US, EUS= Eastern US, sz= sea zone, DD= destroyer
I’ve posted a few USA first strategies for OOB. When play testing the American response to my earlier strategies, I found central US to be vital. Basically, if West US is threatened, I pull back to central US, build there, and that way I can redeploy to either coast. If Japan takes West US, I trade it as needed. I usually pull back the starting navy to W.US turn 1, from there if Hawaii is a no go zone on turn 2, I send fleet to east side of panama(sz89) canal to link up with the ships bought in central US sea zone turn 1.
With this conservative play, when Japan moves to sz64(west of canal), I move the whole US fleet(from sz 101+sz89) to sz89(east of the canal). The central US land units move to E.US, I build mechanized as defenders for East US, so I can still trade W. US if needed. I only lose the game if Australia falls, before I liberate Hawaii in this scenario.
There is a danger, that your fleet will die in sz89 from a German navy/air, Japanese air one two punch, but it is a setback, and London survives this scenario.
It may be radical to trade West US. However, I favor a play style that seeks not to put my pieces out of position trying to defend multiple fronts. It seems optimal to concentrate forces, and force the opponent to “pull the trigger” and place his pieces out of position first, then I respond and simple logistics gives me the edge against a protracted Japanese assault.
In this threads scenario, here are my builds for U.S.:
Turn 1: 2 carriers(wus/cus), 1 transports(wus), 1 Destroyer(wus), 1 infantry(cus:because I run out of infantry filling Hawaii-standard play)
Turn2: 1 carrier(wus),2 transports(wus/eus), 2 destroyers(wus/eus),2 infantry(cus) (Hawaii gets abandoned as both fleets can hit it)
Turn3:(threat detected-German fleet at 91) 3 infantry(cus),3 fighters(eus), 1 inf(wus) save 10 IPCs
Turn 3: defensive moves (assume worst case scenario: I am caught flat-footed) Units pulled out of Hawaii last turn into WUS simply move to CUS, with all air units stacking EUS. WUS fleet moves through peaceful Japanese fleet to sz 89 to link fleets. 1 DD attempts a feeble block in sz102 to force Italy to clear for German invasion. CUS land units move to EUS (I keep all excess land units unable to fit on Hawaii bound transports here, this should be your starting land forces(-3 land units[art,2inf] sent to WUS turn2, tank and mech can reach EUS) + 5 built infantry (as 1 built turn 1 is in WUS bound for CUS this turn.)
EUS turn 4 defense (alpha+.2)= AAgun, 7 infantry(5 bought), 4 mechanized infantry, 1 armor, 8 fighters(3 bought), 1 tactical fighter, 1 bombe r+ 1 uk inf and artillery from [Ontario turn1/Quebec turn2] Note: US is at war on UK’s turn 3, thus UK may enter US.
CUS = 1 artillery, 7 infantry(3 bought, 2 from Hawaii,2 from WUS) 2 UK fighters (moved to Newfoundland turn3 when pressure lifted off capital)
WUS= 1 infantry
sz 89= 1 Battleship, 3 Cruisers, 4 Destroyers (2 bought), 2 carriers (1 bought), 5 transports (3 bought), 1 sub
sz 102= 1 Destroyer(bought turn2)
sz 101= 1 Carrier(bought turn1) 2 UK fighters. This permits US to stramble 3 air, if German’s try to hit CUS.
The above is sub-optimal, as Japan could win with 6 cities if they take Kwangtung,Phillippines,Hawaii,and W.US turn 4, with a German capture of CUS-US land unit take back force destroyed. If this is a possible outcome, it would make more sense to stack all units in CUS and trade EUS capital for 1 turn or place more air units in CUS and make EUS a gamble, or split fleet if able. Note: as stated, this is sub-optimal and a result of being caught flat footed turn 3. Or…position India/Anzac for a city liberation/defense turn4.
Note: Go back one page to read my detailed response to this threads topic.
This strategy could use a slight tweak to keep maximum pressure on Australia, instead of moving to Midway turn 2, move to Caroline islands and keep the allies focused on Anzac and Hawaii and not the WUS and EUS.
To keep UK honest, I usually amass 9 German transports and this threat will put the screws to US when you redeploy.
If you focus South, you might encourage a sloppy US to build west coast and be less prepared.
Make sure the transport off Quebec lives so you don’t have the UK infantry and armor in EUS turn 4 as they will want to stack them in UK turn 1.
Just something to think about.
@mantlefan:
Note: Go back one page to read my detailed response to this threads topic.
This strategy could use a slight tweak to keep maximum pressure on Australia, instead of moving to Midway turn 2, move to Caroline islands and keep the allies focused on Anzac and Hawaii and not the WUS and EUS.
To keep UK honest, I usually amass 9 German transports and this threat will put the screws to US when you redeploy.
If you focus South, you might encourage a sloppy US to build west coast and be less prepared.
Make sure the transport off Quebec lives so you don’t have the UK infantry and armor in EUS turn 4 as they will want to stack them in UK turn 1.
Just something to think about.Good look at the US buys. I really don’t know anyone whose first or even second USA buys would be for the defense of the Continental USA with a careful axis attack.
The issue with the carolines, for the Japanese, is that they can’t get within 1 SZ of W USA from there. Japan can go from 6 to 9. In the carolines, USA can just block when Japan moves from the carolines.
It’s far from Guaranteed, but a kill usa strat is quite possbile to hide (at least the first time you try it against a player) until G3. Your USA strat sounds pretty typical and decent for what the usa is capable of once the realize it’s not a sealion or a J4 SE asia steamroll.
In my suggested builds, I typically build some infantry. This is because the US starts with so many non-infantry land units, that in order to fill my early transports, I need early infantry builds.
When I first read the alpha changes regarding the limit on US builds, I thought the US was too vulnerable to defend itself from an early determined joint axis attack, that is also why I build a token infantry here and there.
My initial thoughts were that I could declare my intentions and still capture Washington by turn 5, however, since then I haven’t arrived at the right plan to justify that sentiment.
I am still left wondering why this change was suggested, as the US simply lacks the funds to construct a navy to rival Japan’s prior to entering war, and this now exposes the U.S. to possible capture, unless they voluntarily upgrade a complex.
Off Topic: The best thing about 1940 is the amount of choices the axis players have when planning.
I like the fact that USA first is potentially successful, for when axis players get board winning with London/Sydney first strategies. I found a way to deliver Sydney to Japan, without having to place the whole fleet out of position. It permits the use of the Japanese air force to achieve this. It also permits the US to remain neutral for the full three turns and forces a Pacific first response from America to keep the game going. Executed properly, India may be sacked suddenly, or if guarded, then Hawaii can be taken later at your convenience to end the game. The best part is, for a Japan, the naval deployments are graceful and sweeping like decisive sword thrusts. Seizing India for the win is simply a Chiburi stroke.
Chiburi - “Removing blood from the sword.” In Iaido, a sharp downward stroke of the sword done in such a way as to shake off the blood accumulated from previous cutting actions.
@Idi:
except OOB rookies which are the only opponents you play
That…doesn’t really make sense. Also known as “wat is this i dont even”.
This whole strategy rides on that UK player is a rookie and does not scramble, and you dice rolls are Perfect. No way Germany can sink all the royal navy like that unless his dice rolls are 100% perfect.
This whole strategy rides on that UK player is a rookie and does not scramble, and you dice rolls are Perfect. No way Germany can sink all the royal navy like that unless his dice rolls are 100% perfect.
His whole strategy rides on playing his son and his rookie friends after school
Dude. Are you attempting to accomplish something in this thread, Idi? Hoping that, if you simply denigrate the strat enough times, we’ll recognize you as a brilliant strategist and start calling the OP (who’s been here considerably longer than you) a fool for having the audacity, nay, the hubris, to suggest a somewhat novel surprise-attack strategy? That by tearing other people down, you’ll elevate yourself in the opinions of others?
It’s not working. You’ve lost (at least) my respect in this thread. One would assume that means nothing to you, but, given that you like to post on the board, it seems you attach at least some weight to your opinion and appear to be attempting to convince people you are “right”. That’s a lot harder to do when much of your audience thinks you’re a douchecanoe.
Talk game here. Save the (poor attempt at) trolling for S.A. or FARK Politics.
whew, alot to catch up on, including another pm from the almighty idi himself.
nothing in this game is guaranteed, including this strategy. the beauty in it that i found is that it’s never been done before (at least in my group), in any incarnation of axis and allies, the us proper is NEVER attacked. i thought it would be interesting to see if it could be done and it could ONCE.
moving the italy fleet to sz 92 during I2 is a good idea. it allows for more OPTIONS, which is the key of this strategy and this particular game.
as far as trolling goes or whatever, i can say that some people make fun of what they don’t like or understand to feel better about themselves. I posted this idea cause it was exciting to plan out ahead of time and to witness it in action. the allies were like "Holy S**t!!, he’s going for the US and they had to scramble back out of their comfort zone, changing alot of what usually happen in this game…
Anyways i digress, other changes that i thought of :
more german transports (i bought alot of capital navy, thinking the US would have more capital ships in the atlantic by then)
Splitting the german fleet on G3 (moving some of the fleet (namely ACC to allow fighters and tacs to attack EUS would have helped also
@mantlefan:
Is it illegal for the Italians to move to 91 for some reason?
Not once they take Gibraltar. Seems like getting the Italian navy to 91 by the end of I2 (in place to attack I3) would be pretty tough, though, and even if you did get it there, it would be more likely to telegraph the attack on the U.S.
the beauty in it that i found is that it’s never been done before (at least in my group), in any incarnation of axis and allies, the us proper is NEVER attacked. i thought it would be interesting to see if it could be done and it could ONCE.
Agreed. It probably wouldn’t work more than once, but it might cause the U.S. to up defensive production in later games, which can be a boon in itself. As was mentioned, the U.S. could upgrade factories early, but, hey, twenty less bucks to spend. I’d be happy to fake the 'Murikans into tossing that cash.
When I was designing a USA first strategy, I overcame the Gibraltar issue by assuring it would be in axis control regardless of allied actions. I like to take away the roadblocks in the strategy design, as it sucks to spend 2 turns planning and moving and then see it all become pointless after an allied block.
This is accomplished by sending one of the turn 1 transports to Gibraltar on G2. That way, Italy can at the very least clear and non-combat move to 91(w. Gibraltar). This of course telegraphs your intentions a bit.
If you do not want to lose the transports, and you plan on a second carrier, send the turn 1 fleet with it for protection, the only counter I found that is not likely to be chosen is an UK air attack that lands in any of the UK,Dutch,or French territories off sea zone 88 (S. America)
russia seems like it’ll go down a bit quicker. who knows.
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
actually in this scenario, germany could take central US, Japan then takes WUS and the US has no way to retake WUS and then Japan could land aircraft there and place units there the next turn. so taking CUS could have strategic value.
i also failed to mention that during the US’s collect income phase on US4, they had convoy loses of 17 :-D
@Idi:
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
actually in this scenario,
What colour is the sky in your little world of KAF?
how does your last quote add to the discussion?
Lets settle down please!
@mantlefan:
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
How are 3 reinforcements a turn (Minor IC) “NO reinforcements”
Like I said, if USA takes C USA back, they might be susceptible to a severe japan counter.
How do you build out of a factory you have just taken? As for a Japanese counter attack: If WUS upgrades USA1 they would never even try to invade.
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
How are 3 reinforcements a turn (Minor IC) “NO reinforcements”
Like I said, if USA takes C USA back, they might be susceptible to a severe japan counter.
How do you build out of a factory you have just taken?
On G4, Germany takes CUS, on J4, Japan takes WUS. On US 4 , US takes back CUS. On G5, Germany lands aircraft on WUS. On J5, Japan builds 3 fighters for WUS and lands all available aircraft on WUS
@mantlefan:
Lol if USA upgrades USA1 I say mission accopmplished and laugh at their waste of 20 IPCs and pursue a more conventional strat.
Heck yeah.
@mantlefan:
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
@Idi:
@mantlefan:
USA also needs to be careful of retaking central USA outright from the Germans becuase this may open them to a japan counter, depending. It’s quite hard for the USA to defend BOTH W and E (much less all 3) if they don’t know what’s coming round 1 (or as will likely be the case, round 2)
Wow I can’t even believe your still going on about this No-win strat. At lease if you do Sealion you get the UK cash and stop them from building any new units. Taking central USA has ZERO strategic value and you don’t get the America cash not to mention you have NO reinforcements. With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS. Way go Noobkiller
How are 3 reinforcements a turn (Minor IC) “NO reinforcements”
Like I said, if USA takes C USA back, they might be susceptible to a severe japan counter.
How do you build out of a factory you have just taken? As for a Japanese counter attack: If WUS upgrades USA1 they would never even try to invade.
Lol if USA upgrades USA1 I say mission accopmplishedand laught at their waste of 20 IPCs and pursue a more conventional strat. If they know it’s coming it doesn;t work, obviously. Have any valid points?
I would gladly pay 20IPC’s to see you go on a more conventional mission. At least it would shut you up going on and on about your fantasy of invading the USA. This isn’t even your thread but you talk like you have been conquering America for years. Your just riding along on keplar galvin’s coatails trying to steal his thunder……
Why would you want your opponent to go on a more conventional mission, if the unconventional one is doomed to failure, as you seem to believe? Wouldn’t it be better to “sucker” the Axis into a (in your opinion) hopeless American ground war?
@Idi:
Your just riding along on keplar galvin’s coatails trying to steal his thunder……
Weird. I don’t see “Hey, that’s not a bad idea! Let’s explore it further!” as thunder-theft. I would think that would apply more to statements like, “What a worthless strat! That will only word on nooBs!”
