@aardvarkpepper Bombard casualties fire back eh? I see that in the rulebook now. That drops the probability down too far for me. Thanks for pointing that out
Can U.S.A play a balanced game ?
-
In you’re group games has any one had success with America playing a balanced approach vs the Germans and japan it looks to me they need to go 100% KGF or KJF if any one has a good balanced approach let me know please
-
well, most of the people will say no, but… you never know- i mean, there are thousands of strategies that were not tried by anyone.
-
I think its hard to win if you completely ignore one Axis power to focus on the other. In Revised it was easier to go 100% one direction and race against the clock. In 1942.2 it takes a round or two longer for the Americans to cross the Atlantic, and for the UK to set up on Europe. Russia is weaker too, because of all the German tanks they have to face down, and because their own tanks are more expensive. I think its important for the Western Allies to cover the center of the game board with air. Whether its British fighters and bombers, or American fighters and bombers, either way, its important to hold the line at Caucasus, which invariably brings you into conflict with Japan in KGF, or Germany in KJF. If you have enough air at the center to keep Japanese ships from controlling Suez, or launching fighters out of sz 34, its easier to manage the drop on Europe in KGF without Russia collapsing. Similarly, having air at the center is key to holding the line in KJF, since you need to keep Japan restricted on fleet movement, without giving up the canal zone and the center to G. So in either game, I think you need to at least manage one side, while you focus on the other, completely ignoring one theater for the other, seems more dangerous here than in previous games.
The kind of strategies I see that seem effective, are the ones where Americans push air early into areas of the board where they can cover multiple sea zones or territories at the same time. Bombers are especially effective when used like this, to put the shock/stall on one theater early, and then rapidly move to the other theater where they can concentrate or coordinate for a break out maneuver.
USA is probably the most challenging nation to play, because you have to plan everything a round or two out. This board is somewhat different than the boards that came before it too. Here, in the Atlantic crossing for KGF the US leads and UK follows (whereas before it was the opposite). UK also has to focus more energy in support of India/Russia, which stalls their drops on Europe by several rounds. This makes it harder to just throw everything against Germany, because if you don’t put any pressure on Japan they can race to the center faster than the Allies can. Likewise, in a KJF game, the UK alone doesn’t have a whole lot of options when it comes to propping up Russia or covering Africa.
I think where the Allies run into problems, is if America tries to push out an expeditionary force before they have enough airpower to cover it, or enough air to make the ground units truly effective once they land, or if Allies cede the overall air advantage to Axis at any point. Magnified bomber builds are probably the easiest way to get the USA into the fight across both theaters and start pressing the advantage early. The Americans begin the game with 5 fighters and a bomber. Which means that if you magnify the air purchases over just a couple builds, you could potentially have a massive bomber armada (along with the 5 starting fighters) to close out the third round. Alternatively you could have about a dozen or more fighters. With an air force like that moving towards the center, you can threaten air attacks across a pretty broad area of the gameboard (both on land and at sea) which lends itself somewhat towards a more balanced or dual-theater game.
Its not impossible to make a late game push in two directions at once, if the center is secure, and the Allies are collecting enough IPCs. But you have to set up some kind of logistics train out of USA first. Trying to do something in two theaters at the same time, at the very beginning of the game usually just invites disaster, since you won’t have enough power projection to have much effect in either theater. Axis will see it coming have too much time to build up their defenses.
In the most concentrated bomber build strategy, the Americans could have 7-8 bombers on placement in the third round. You could have potentially 10 bombers on placement by the fourth round! Its hard to overstate how effective an armada of 10 American bombers can be. Combined with the American starting fighters, this air force alone is large enough to destroy basically any fleet that Japan can drop, almost anywhere on the gameboard. Combined with US starting ships it makes it almost impossible for Axis to achieve overall naval superiority in the endgame, and restricts the movement of any fleets they do have so severely, that control of the center becomes much harder for Axis to orchestrate. The magnified attack power of 10 bombers makes it much trickier for Axis to push small stacks of infantry to the front, stalling their forward movement, or ability to trade territories with light infantry. Perhaps just as important, they can rush 10 defense fodder to almost any territory on the board in a flash, saving the day on a critical defense.
And of course, if there are no easy enemy units to destroy, then the 10 bombers could always start bombing Germany back into the stone age, Potentially cutting German production/purchasing power in half, especially during a key round where it might make a difference. 1 or 2 bombers alone can’t really accomplish this, but 7-10 bombers grouped together in a bomber stack, can be crushing. I think if you want to try a balanced theater game, you might consider them as an alternative early game purchase, once you have the clear air advantage, its relatively easy to start dropping transports and pushing ground. Part of this is because Germany will have to stack much deeper on defense, for fear of bombers on amphibious assault.
You can do similar things with fighters, if you magnify the air build that way. Concentrated fighter builds usually take a round longer to set up, and here its helpful to drop them directly onto a carrier deck in sz 56 or 11 so you get the movement advantage on placement, so the cost of setting up is a bit more too. Fighters can also be used to cover Axis fleets, or to defend transport trains on allied carrier decks, but they have the advantage of being able to defend key territories at the center as well. 10 American fighters on Moscow, and becomes very challenging for Axis to bring enough force to take.
-
Wow I really love that strategy with the USA. I never thought of it so many different ways. I can’t wait to try this in my game this Saturday if I pull the U.S. dice out of the hat. What is the largest stack of infantry you recommend trying to attack with your bomber fleet before turning your eye from it?
-
A large bomber fleet is an interesting proposition. At 36IPC, you can get 3 bombers with 12 points of attack. Japan’s best response with naval is to buy carriers. 1 Carrier and 2 fighters provides 10 points of defense for 34IPC. Based on this, heavy US bomber purchases can threaten Japan’s navy IF left exposed.
As a Japan playing against this US tactic, I would make it difficult for the bomber fleet to reach the Japan navy. Without US carrier buys, US can’t secure aggressive (such as borneo, east indies, FIC) to threaten Japan’s naval. US can’t reliably field land units in Asia. My bet is that heavy bombers will work if Japan makes a mistake and exposes the navy. Otherwise, US will make a big investment and end up camping 6-15 bombers in Australia or India not doing much while japan continue pushing inland through safe landings near Japan.
-
It depends, I am risk averse with air and don’t like to risk naked fighters or bombers unless its really critical. But those 2 infantry in Szech at the start of the game, can have a much bigger impact if you save them in a safe location until they have overwhelming air support. In that case it may be worth it hitting a small to medium stack of inf or artillery (say 2-4 deep) with a massive air strike, on the assumption that they will get wiped and most probably only get a hit or two. Sometimes the balance on the eastern front or around kazakh and china can hinge on whether a small stack of Axis ground is allowed to hold the line after an attack or push forward on the center. This is where fighters can come in handy, even as fodder if need be, to score a critical win for allies in some minor battle that Russia probably wouldn’t be able to handle alone, and the British might be stretched too far to deal with. The early rounds near the center can swing one way or the other depending on who gets an early foothold. American air might be the difference between turning back the Axis in a key round, or watching a front collapse to infantry pushes.
I think about it like this, an infantry unit in North America costs 3 ipc, plus the 7 ipcs needed to transport it (since transports have to launch now instead of shuck) and then add onto that two to three turns to get in effective range. If you buy 2 inf units that’s 13 ipcs spent, to get 2 pips into the fight several rounds out. All this assuming you have enough naval strength to protect the transport that is launching. For that same cost you could have a fighter or a bomber, that can get out twice as fast and deliver a heavier hit (admittedly at greater risk to itself than if the same air was covered by ground fodder, but still) the speed advantage makes it attractive. And there is an incentive to do this earlier rather than later, because anything that stalls the Axis from reaching income parity by linking at the center, buys Allies more time to set up their endgame. Once you have enough air, its easier to push carrier decks and large stacks of infantry out of multiple transports from sz10, or sz56.
In the KJF game, fighters are probably more important long term than bombers, but the nice thing about bombers in W. US is that they can still reach London in one move, Moscow or Caucasus in 2. Or if crossing the Pacific Australia to India transit is fairly quick.
What’s nice about pushing Air towards the center early, is that it forces the cautious Axis player to start grouping their units (whether on the ground, or at sea) which may help to stall their advance from being as fast as it would otherwise. If you can maintain the wedge at the center, its much easier to retain control or quickly recover India/Africa in the earlier rounds, and prevent Axis from linking up to maximum effect. One goal I always try to keep in mind when deciding where to push fighters and bombers, is to keep Japanese carrier based fighters from launching to Berlin. If you can keep them tied on the carriers, or at least push the carriers far enough away from the center, it take J more rounds to set up a fighter launch on European defense. Similarly, if its KJF and you’re trying to contain a monster Germany, having a ton of fighters and bombers near the center can definitely be helpful, in case you need to rush back and prop up Russia or for attacks of opportunity against G. USA also has the advantage of being able to drop a sub stack in either ocean if they need to, to hold an Axis fleet from moving or try to chase it into a corner. If you drop subs before air, they are far less effective than if you drop subs after you already have a massive air force to make them effective. Either way though, if you are going magnified bombers in the Pacific you have to be careful. Unlike in Europe, if they don’t have any good attacks to destroy units, they can’t be used to bomb like they can when transiting over Germany towards the center. I think if the goal is the pacific islands, you probably have to make some bold plays at the outset with UK, otherwise Japan can build a pretty formidable defensive fleet and tie down a lot of American purchases, while Germany gets a free hand in Europe
-
I just tried bomber strategy it worked well game took shape when I had 8 bombers in uk and 9 in Russia and the English have 8 figs in west Russia it ended allied victory I took japan out
-
I find the concentrated bomber strategy very interesting as an approach for the US, for the reasons outlined here - the cost of getting US infantry into the action is incredibly high, so much so that Air power compares much better vs. land forces for the US than for other nations.
How many bombers is too many? I was picturing maybe 2 US bombers on US1, but for the purposes of strategic bombing, the early IPCs denied will be magnified throughout the game, so perhaps a US1 buy of 3 bombers makes sense?
Unless Japan was posturing in range of a US attack, I imagine I would build the bombers in western US and then send them directly to the UK for use in SBRs vs. Germany (or sinking/deterring a German fleet). Would you agree?
Suggested Topics
