@Elrood:
Hm I don’t get why People think that US is easy to play… And think that Italy is difficult.������������������  :? Italy is most likely on the defense/awkward offense, so they don’t have many options usually. So whats hard to play here?
If you have inapt Axis players who fail to seriously threaten Moscow/London/Calcutta, then sure… US cannot do much wrong… sending troops here and there, grinding Axis forces down so that UK can finish the Job. But if German/Japan know what they are doing, then suddenly USA becomes the power it is supposed to be and is the only one who can tip the scales. At that point no wrong move is allowed for US and a single wrong placement/decision can cost the game.
Please take no offense in this, but I don’t want to put people on the wrong track.
In general my opinion is it should be stated that US is really hard to play.
Why?
1. Long term planning is needed - all routes to the the enemy are usually at least 2 moves away. So you need to know what you have to buy now to hit axis with 3 turns later.
2. Patience - I’ve seen (and as a beginner did myself) many a big US fleet or invasion force just blown away since they attacked prematurely, feeling bold and overconfident with all their mighty fleet. Even after DOW its mostly better for US to place itself in a threatening position to keep Axis on their Toes.
E.g. SZ 91 at Gibraltar to threaten Italy and Germany, hawaii or Queensland to threaten either Japan or DEI, or (if you can get it… Caroline: to threaten both!)
Playing the waiting game is really hard if allied troops in Eurasia getting decimized every turn, but just the fact that Germany and Japan will have to buy Forces to prepare a counter attack helps them. So its not really that obvious or rewarding feeling when killing some axis army or capturing some nice territory, but its nevertheless important.
3. IPC Distribution - the infamous “Kill Japan First” tactic is for sure something nice to begin with and even stick to, although I blame the unit bidding (UK Sub to SZ 98, Ari in Alex…yadda yadda yadda…) with Taranto attack for it, but thats a different story…������������������  8-)
But you never know how the game develops, may be a super lucky Italy gets MED and ME really fast, so USA has to observe closely what theater is getting the upper hand and where its IPCs are needed most. And since it takes long term planning (point 1.) that is not offhandedly done.
The decision where its IPCs should go to, and also into what (planes for fast defense, or Carriers / Transport for preparing invasion) is really not simple.
4. US is a Teamplayer - Where Japan, Germany, Italy and Russia pretty much fight alone, USA can not only REALLY good interact with UK and Anzac forces, but must do so.
e.g. US kills blocker / takes canal and UK / anzac grab DEI or important axis territory. One important example would be: US takes Denmark and UK moves in to get under defended Berlin - I am sure that happened to more than one here… but probably only once.������������������  :wink:
So US moves directly work together with US and ANZACs. And since a lot more possibilities arise out of these interactions, US is turn is getting even more complex.
Thats my 2 cent to that subject so far.������������������  :mrgreen:
Amen to that, Elrood.
The USA can also too easily screw up if they are in a False Sense of Security in the Pacific: if Japan is strangling Calcutta and the IJN is therefore far away and Japan is not buying any ships/aircraft to directly threaten Hawaii.
Some USA players then spend too much in Europe, indeed not understanding what you said about thinking 2-3 turns ahead: within 3 turns after Calcutta fell (J3-J5 if the USA is not going heavy into the pacific), Japan has turned around buying a lot of carriers and suddenly it is just impossible to defend Hawaii.
Like Nippon-Koku, I found that, assuming a J1, 2 turns of max spending in Europe is the limit for the USA if Japan is planning for this. Even if Japan is NOT planning for this, because it is very easy for an unchecked Japan to switch gears. This means USA does not have more than 153PUs active in the Atlantic (not counting the US’ initial land units).
For every turn Japan waits with their DOW, the USA can have more PUs active in Europe. For J1/J2/J3/J4 I calculated the maximum ‘pacific-proof’ European PUs from the USA at 165/196/214/214 PUs (not counting their initial set-up land units), during the first 2/3/4/4 turns respectively, without loosing the war in the Pacific and with the requirement that the USA spends 100% in the Pacifc after that till turn 7, to catch up. After that they need to re-evaluate the situation, i.e. at least match the Japanese naval and air production (together with their ally ANZAC). I’ll leave it in the middle if this Euro-scheme is a viable strategy for the USA. Too much controversy about that topic ;-).
About blaming bidding for the possibility to ‘KJF’ (with or without the ‘K’)… Correct me if I am wrong but I think without bidding, the UK will either loose both Egypt and India (which means game over for the allies), or if they realize this, weaken India even further because they bring over troops and particularly aircraft from india to save Egypt. Which hurts, but is not game over.
I have been no fan of bidding but I must admit that the past 1-1½ year has been an eye-opener for me. Bidding changes the opening battles, but does not seem to hurt axis chances of winning the game, although it definately narrows down their options (which is not the same). That is OK to me, since the allies do not have a lot of options as well.
