Can the US have naval superiority?

[Guest]

Not quite true… if Japan is building DEFENSIVELY, then yes they can.

Japan can get 11 points on Naval defense with a single AC build and land based FIGs, FIGs that can still be used in Bury, China or even India depending on the location of your AC’s.

From then on out, Japan can get 11 more points of defense for 36 IPC’s.  Spread over 2 rounds, that still allows about $25 IPC to be sent to Asia, with the TRNs to support Asia adding to your defensive fleet.

To get 11 points on attack with navy, you need to spend a LOT more than $36.
2 BB and 1 DST is 11 points and costs $60
6 SUBS gets you 12 points and costs $48, but must be protected with surface ships or they are sunk by Carrier based FIGs before they even get to attack.
4 DSTs costs $48 for 12 points of attack
And with AC’s and FIGs, you have to spend $62 for 2 AC’s and 3 FIGs.

Against that kind of IPC outlay, it will take many turns for the US to be able to punch through a consolidated Japan navy… turns which are used to reduce US income in China and Sinkiang, and start making more IPC’s in India, Bury, etc.

Meanwhile, Germany has only 2 opponents, and for 3-4 turns they can keep the UK navy at bay with startig navy, an AC and their air power… that leaves Russia outspent 2-1… gates of Moscow before UK even has the ability to land forces…

[Flagstaff]

The only case when US can have a confident surperiority is when Japan is very aggressive in Asia and the US is nearly 100% comitted in the Pacific. Even though there are many ipcs to have in the Pacific it is better to Support your allies in Euope.

[Guest]

One other factor for the US fleet…

Japan land based FIGs

If Japan has a defensive fleet that can withstand a US attack, then with the addiion of land based FIGs and BOM, Japan CAN attack the US fleet on any round they get within range of both the fleet and the land based AF…

And remember, from Japan’s perspective, all they have to do is kill the TRNs, preventing units from being moved to take islands.  All the BB’s inthe word can;t take an unoccupied territory…

So… STRAFE… then interdiciton of the new trannies being shipped forward (or to pretect new trannies, the US has to sail back to California, get the TRNs, and sail back again… 3 TURNS WASTED…

[U-505]

The point that Switch is trying to make is that the US will be operating in Japanese controlled waters. Once the US moves beyond the Solomans they are subject to having naval reinforcements from the Western US cut off from the rest of the fleet in the Pacific.

Switch knows that by strafing the US fleet and trading TP’s the US will be unable to take any more islands. His reasoning is that after trading TP’s, Japan can strategically position their fleet to rebuild their navy and transports safely while at the same time threatening the oncoming US reinforcements which will force the US to retreat their advanced fleet back to protect their reinforcing units. Newly built Japanese warships and transports are immediately useful while newly built US ships are not. A transport trade sets the Japanese back 1 turn but it sets the US back 2 or 3 turns. And Japan can perform this action as many times as is necessary until Russia falls. It’s very effective and I agree with him completely.

[Jennifer]

But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose.

[newpaintbrush]

"But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose."

Are you saying that KJF is a good strategy?

[Jennifer]

@newpaintbrush:

"But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose."

Are you saying that KJF is a good strategy?

Wouldnt really know, but I wouldnt discount it off hand.  I’m sure it is a way to go, at least a new flavor!

[Guest]

Jen, you missed part of the point…

Japan only “turtles” with navy, and only agianst the US.  Not like Japan can ever make a serious hard-core strike at Western US early in the game anyway!

So, they turtle with navy… lots of AC’s and FIGs… and TRNs for fodder.

But those TRN’s can bridge land units to Asia just fine in NCM movement.  Those carrier based FIGs can attack a LOT of Asian territories and still fly back to their carriers when they are through.

So Japan has NOT done a full blown turtle… they have only consolidated their fleet and massed against a US strike while still sending forces to Asia…

You also forget that by the time the US can even get a good fleet int he Pacific, they are down to $38 IPC’s of income (losing Sinkiang and China) and Japan is collecting MORE than that via India, China, Sinkiang, Bury, SFE and Yakut ($40 total IPC’s for Japan right there…)

[Jennifer]

In a KJF strat, Japan should be loosing islands while they turtle the mainland.  Sure, they can send forces in land, but Russia should be moving troops at them as well while UK does what it can to help defend Russia’s western front.

Once you can sink that Jap fleet, everyone can go for Germany while the US baby sits the two sea zones around Japan with some fighters and carriers.

[Guest]

If Russia is focussing THAT heavilly on Japan to prevent Japan from making progress, then Germany will be in Moscow on G4 ish.

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

If Russia is focussing THAT heavilly on Japan to prevent Japan from making progress, then Germany will be in Moscow on G4 ish.

Russia’s objective is not to fight Japan.  Rather their objective is to be Stallin (pun intended) the Japanese forces as they attempt to enter deep into the Soviet Union.  2 inf at a time to go keep Japan occupied is enough to buy time and to let the US and UK mess up Germany bad.

[Guest]

2 INF won’t do it, not against the 11-14 units that Japan is sending toward Moscow starting in J3…

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

2 INF won’t do it, not against the 11-14 units that Japan is sending toward Moscow starting in J3…

Im not saying USSR can do it by itself.  It is after all Axis and Allies.  :wink: US and UK intervention in Asia is needed for Russia to survive.

[Guest]

But the US is buildign Navy in the Pacific, and the UK is screwing around with a South Africa IC… that means that Russia is FRACKED.

[Axis4life]

The UK and US would have to either heavily reinforce Moscow or push hard in Western Europe to keep the Germans at bay.  Russia cannot take the chance of sending the bulk of their force east when all the early pressure comes from the west.

[Guest]

But tha tis not what Jen posted… she has the USA 100% against Japan in the Pacific in a Naval Showdown…

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

But tha tis not what Jen posted… she has the USA 100% against Japan in the Pacific in a Naval Showdown…

If US is 100% against Japan in a naval showdown, then Russia is F’ed in the A.  Theres no way UK can help out Russia if Germany can wield all their navy against them.  Thats why US has to be balanced.  They can anyways, with all that cash.

[Axis4life]

I have been in many games where the US goes 100% Pacific and it never works out so well for Russia.  The UK loses control of the Africa quickly and if the US doesn’t help they don’t get it back.  Russia just can’t compete with Germany in production so if the US goes 100% Pacific then the bad guys win.

[Guest]

In most cases, I would have to agree.

KJF is POSSIBLE, but the risks are extremely high, and there is no room for error… or bad dice.

In fact, were you to establish a set of KJF House Rules… rules that required say 2/3 or more of US production went to the Pacific, then you would probably also need to institute an ALLED bid to keep the game even.

[newpaintbrush]

I would never try a KJF in Revised.  Japan’s navy is just too big.

If KJF strategy is used, Japan can see it coming a mile away, and it switches to infantry/artillery/fighter production instead of infantry/tanks.

If the US attacks early, the US has to overcome 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5 transports, 7 fighters, and 1 bomber (possibly a destroyer too).  The ONLY thing Japan has to worry about is the location of the US transport.  Until the transport starts threatening (which won’t be for a couple of turns at least), Japan can focus on Asia.

if the US attacks late, the US has to overcome 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 transports, 1-2 destroyers, 1-4 subs, 10-12 fighters, and 1 bomber.  And this assumes most of the US is directed at Japan.  If the US even tries to divert to Africa, Japan will be just about impossible to take down.