Why are the allies so gimped lately? Why transports suck?

[oztea]

Aside from the kick to the nuts the US gets on G1 (losing so much material with no recourse) its balanced I suppose.

It just seems like the US should have some more units on the land to offset the fact it has to rebuild an Atlantic fleet, little by little, for the next 3 turns.

If it isn’t a lump sum of infantry, at least a 2nd bomber and artillery on the west coast. To free up some cash.
But honestly, its better to just have them start with like 6 more infantry so they don’t have to dig as deep into their pockets to load their first few transports.

[Most Holy]

This is a good point. USA had a shit ton of recruits after Pearl. Their weak ground force on set up is difficult to explain. building a new navy is fine but having to build ground forces as well is difficult. Our games of this, granted only 2, showed little US participation.

[Witt]

Hi Oztea. I know losing the fleet on G1 is not ideal, but the Germans cannot do it  twice and I have found the US can and does buy one again and land on US2. The one turn delay is not critical.
The Germans are stretched thin fighting on all fronts and cannot oppose the African landing without jeopardising their chances elsewhere.

[oztea]

Buying a “fleet” for the Atlantic on US 1 consists of what….a 2 Destroyers, 2 Transports and what…

Thats hardly a “fleet”. And leaves the Pacific tilted toward Japan.
The extra 6 infantry are really only to absorb the fact that the US has to buy transports constantly over the course of the game, and really should have a much larger economic advantage.
The allies really are on low side of the 40/60 split here.

Some say a bid for the allies would have to be at least 8 to get a 2nd destroyer in the water.
Well. 6 infantry is 18. But thats more like a bid of 6 IPCs spread over the next few turns because the US can’t plop these guys down instantly.
They are stuck in an almost purely defensive stance for the first few turns anyway, and the US really can’t put an ounce of resistance up against Japan as it should during the first few turns.

[Witt]

I hear you. The IPCs of the 5 nations being so close is wrong.
The US should be stronger (1940’s at war bonus is a start).
I am sure the original had a richer US compared to Germany if I remember rightly.
The US has to be patient. It was a long war after all!

[Most Holy]

That’s the point though Witmann. The long war doesn’t happen if it takes USA so long to get into it. In most games we see USA not even leaving port in the pacific until they have a good enough navy. And giving Germany 3 rounds of just dealing with UK and USSR without fear of USA reprisals gives them a huge advantage. USA can’t leave Washington until they have a fleet that won’t get sunk right away.

[Witt]

You have probably  played more than me, so I will not go on.
I suppose I hope a game is balanced because it is tried and tested.
I play a good Allied player and he can always see a way to beating me as the Axis.( I hate him. Ike is his hero. And he is English!)
Maybe I am a poor player.
I just do not like hearing how the Axis always win.

[Hobbes]

@wittmann:

You have probably  played more than me, so I will not go on.
I suppose I hope a game is balanced because it is tried and tested.
I play a good Allied player and he can always see a way to beating me as the Axis.( I hate him. Ike is his hero. And he is English!)
Maybe I am a poor player.
I just do not like hearing how the Axis always win.

My last game with the Allies was against an experienced 1st Ed/AA50 player with was playing it the first time.

I sent the Russian fighter to Egypt and did an SZ37 attack with the UK. Germany got a carrier for the Med. Japan killed the Russian stack on Buryatia and did a botched attack on Hawaii. US went Pacific.

Russia fell on round 5 but Japan’s navy was sunk on round 4 (even with 12 destroyers) and the US conquered East Indies/Borneo/Philippines while the UK had secured FIC, Malaya, Yunnan and Kwangtung. The UK had managed to retain control Africa and had build an Atlantic fleet on UK4.

We ended the game because he had to leave but I was confident that I could defeat Germany with the UK/US with Japan out of the play and Asia/Africa under Allied control. Allies were earning 100+ while Axis had only about 70 IPCs. This was also a Low Luck game, so there was no freaky dice results.

[Witt]

That’s good to hear Hobbes.
We just don’t use bids in our group, so it is a new thing for me.
I do accept Anniversary is Axis biased and something should be given to an inexperienced Allied player if that is played, otherwise not convinced about the others (1941 excepted, for the obvious reasons!)

[bryanbr]

@Hobbes:

I sent the Russian fighter to Egypt and did an SZ37 attack with the UK. Germany got a carrier for the Med. Japan killed the Russian stack on Buryatia and did a botched attack on Hawaii. US went Pacific.

It sounds like the Japanese player was just incompetent.

Under no scenario do I see Japan attacking Hawaii if the US is putting the right amount into the Pacific.  If in KGF, the US needs to support the pacific with enough to prevent the loss of Hawaii.

[Hobbes]

@bryanbr:

@Hobbes:

I sent the Russian fighter to Egypt and did an SZ37 attack with the UK. Germany got a carrier for the Med. Japan killed the Russian stack on Buryatia and did a botched attack on Hawaii. US went Pacific.

It sounds like the Japanese player was just incompetent.

Under no scenario do I see Japan attacking Hawaii if the US is putting the right amount into the Pacific.  If in KGF, the US needs to support the pacific with enough to prevent the loss of Hawaii.

He decided to attack SZ52 on J1 with 1 FTR, 1 BMR, 1 cruiser and 1 submarine. That’s 73% odds with LL, enough to make the US lose the carrier but my sub got lucky and hit with a 1.