Can the US have naval superiority?

[trihero]

There’s a pretty funny thing you can do if you send a UK fighter to defend Pearl and both it and the carrier lives: double island hopping. On turn 1 the US can take Solomon Islands, then on turn 2 the UK can take New Guinea using the tran from under Australia+ the fighter on the US carrier. The US follows up by taking East Indies on turn 2 and on turn 3 then the UK goes and takes Borneo. This of course assumes that Japan is merely playing defensive with its navy and is not concerned about taking the initiative and attacking you.

[Guest]

In a bad counter situation, Japan is only sendeing INF to Asia, and is building Navy from the start… first TRNs to maintain Asia and add defense as well as re-deploying AF from Asia to surviving AC.  Form there you can count on DST’s, SUB’s, extra TRNs to raid remaining INF from islands to re-take lost islands (supported by BB and AC based FIGs).

Germany is on its own against Russia/UK, and will have to make their gains via Africa (which will be easier with the US engaged in the Pacific).  Without a triple threat against Germany, Germany can consider thigns like a 2nd TRN for the Med, and sailing the Baltic Fleet out to meet the UK fleet.

[frimmel]

My personal experience is that a US Pac fleet is a bad idea. It is a worse idea if you don’t get any hits at Pearl. It is a less bad idea if Japan ignores Pearl and leaves that FTR and AC and sub that is because the competition isn’t up to snuff or is trying something new for the heck of it. Perhaps it was my executions of the plan. But to me you need a lot of TRNs to effectively take islands and TRNs need cover. And there is a lot of ocean.

A US Pac Fleet is easily countered even with below the averages dice because all you have to do is kill the US TRNs to make the whole fleet impotent except to go after Japan’s heavily defended TRNs.

Can the US have Naval superiority in the Pacific? Yes, buy lots of boats.
Can the US have effective Naval superiority in the Pacific? I don’t think so.

[Aretaku]

I think a British IC in Australia would be very beneficial if America want’s to play in the Pacific.

If your going KJF, then that’s two ICs that would be needed (India on B1 of course, followed by Aus on B2, depending on Japans move)…but the ability to build a tranny or two to individually take scattered Japanese possessions will prevent Japan from focusing all of his fleet on America.

That, and it is a tempting prize for Japan, who might move his fleet too far south to counter a land grab on the mainland.

You could also build fighters there, and simply focus on your five build points in Asia, spending leftover cash on Inf for Britain.

This would leave Germany pretty wide open, but an occasional American fighter or bomber to Britain can help even things up a little.

[frimmel]

10 IPCs of a FTR for 14 IPCs of TRN with 2 INF? If just one INF on the TRN it is still 11 IPCs. If the TRNs are unloaded you don’t need to go after the fleet do you?

[squirecam]

@frimmel:

My personal experience is that a US Pac fleet is a bad idea. It is a worse idea if you don’t get any hits at Pearl. It is a less bad idea if Japan ignores Pearl and leaves that FTR and AC and sub that is because the competition isn’t up to snuff or is trying something new for the heck of it. Perhaps it was my executions of the plan. But to me you need a lot of TRNs to effectively take islands and TRNs need cover. And there is a lot of ocean.

A US Pac Fleet is easily countered even with below the averages dice because all you have to do is kill the US TRNs to make the whole fleet impotent except to go after Japan’s heavily defended TRNs.

Can the US have Naval superiority in the Pacific? Yes, buy lots of boats.
Can the US have effective Naval superiority in the Pacific? I don’t think so.

You can screen/protect the USA fleet from being attacked at solomons. Once there, and joined with a UK fleet, you cant stop them. USA can go to DEI/Phils/Borneo/Japan.

Squirecam

[Jennifer]

Why not subs for fodder and send out 1 BB, 2 TRN, 2 ARM, 2 INF for island taking.  The point of the mainfleet is to bottle up the Jap fleet, not escort transports all day.

Besides, when they loose islands, they’ll loose air bases to land fighters.

[squirecam]

@Jennifer:

Why not subs for fodder and send out 1 BB, 2 TRN, 2 ARM, 2 INF for island taking.  The point of the mainfleet is to bottle up the Jap fleet, not escort transports all day.

Besides, when they loose islands, they’ll loose air bases to land fighters.

Because for 2 more IPC, you get a 3/4 fighter that can help on the mainland after the sea battles are over.

Squirecam

[Guest]

Yall are talkiung some MASSIVE investment in the Pacific…
Carriers, loaded TRNs, TWO IC’s by UK…

For what gain?  A few IPC per round?
At what expense?  Germany with ONLY Russia to fight (because UK won;t be doing jack in Europe if they have to build TWO IC’s in the Pacific AND suplpy them… Hell UK will be lucky to be able to siphon off enough IPC’s from those 2 new IC’s to keep London from falling to German attack…  And since UK will also be losing Africa in order to do this massive Pacific build up…

Germany builds TRNs and takes London.  They also send the Med Fleet to Brazil, West Indies, Panama, etc.  So the slo IPC gains in the Pacific by US and UK are MORE than offset by rapid gains against the UK in Africa, and only slightly slower gains by Germany in Brazil and in the Carribean.

You just CAN’T have TWO allies go whole hog on Japan and expect Germany to not take MASSIVE advantage of the situation.

[squirecam]

2 IC are unnecessary.

However, the theory is, kill Japan before/same as Germany gets Russia.

You swap a 30 IPC country for a 24 IPC Country (except that everything east of Moscow is still allied).

It works if you do it correctly.

Squirecam

[Guest]

Yes but LONDON may as easilly be the first to go in that situation… 30 IPC’s in IC’s, plus units built there…  That is precious little for London defense, and certainly no offense against Germany, with massively reduced UK income from the loss of Africa and no gains in places like Norway…

[squirecam]

I buy 1 UK IC.

USA 1 atlantic troops go to Sea zone to join with UK fleet and drop off troops.

London is pretty safe with USA help. And, if Germany only builds fleet, then Russia can go offensive.

I think 2 IC opens up UK too much though. And its unnecessary.

Squirecam

[frimmel]

A UK IC in India becomes a Japan IC in India, US boats in the Pacific or not.

[Guest]

The ONLY way for UK to hold on to an India IC for any ammount of time is if the US also builds an IC in Sinkiang, and goes fleet heavy in teh Pacific.

UK also will have to spend a LOT of IPC’s to maintain that IC… probably 18 IPC per round for 1 INF, 1 ARM, 1 FIG.

FIGs will be CRITICAL in India to keep that IC free of Japan domination.

A US IC in Sinkiang is a source of additional FIGs and prevents Japan from focusing land forces just on India.

And fleet forces Japan to spend a significant portion of their IPCs on Fleet.

However, a Sinkiang IC also requires some USSR INF to help secure it, at least initially.  And that simply makes the situation in Europe that much worse…

[Guest]

I havent played as the allies in a while, so maybe me and you can have a game switch.  I want to see if I can manage to have US strong navally in both the atlantic and pacific.  I must warn you though, im not hardcore into this posting every single day.  I will post for sure every 2 and maybe on ocassion 3 days.  You can play me on the side from another game like JSP has done so.

[Guest]

I am still limitted to one game at a time, atl east or another few weeks.  And I have the 2-on-2 Tournament starting next week.

I also have a few other games in queue ahead of ya… but I will not forget ya!

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

I am still limitted to one game at a time, atl east or another few weeks.  And I have the 2-on-2 Tournament starting next week.

I also have a few other games in queue ahead of ya… but I will not forget ya!

No prob, I cant wait several weeks.  :wink:

[Jennifer]

I wouldnt have UK add anything to the situation.  MAYBE an IC in India, but that also helps them hold Africa which is an attack on Germany.

No, I’d say the UK fleet assists in the Pac, but don’t build more.  Meanwhile, the US can build up some carriers and fighters forcing the Japs to either attack the US fleet or give up the Pac followed by a nice containment.  Meanwhile, the US can build some subs (maybe even go for SS) for later when they want to sink the Jap fleet.

Now Japan is limited to the mainland.  Sure, they’ll get up to Moscow, but they’ll be SO much easier to beat back since they won’t have those 13 IPCs (or more if they collect more islands as some players do).  Meanwhile, the US now has an IC on Phillipeans, a very defensively strong fleet, 53+ IPC a round and enough bombers to SBR Japan back into the stone age while they build subs to take out the enemy fleet and/or build troops to retake Asia (giving them 9 more IPCs for Japanese held territories.)

[trihero]

I’ve done some fairly successful KJFs in that I can diffuse Japan well enough with a hardcore US navy, but the issue is always always that Germany is very strong by the time that happens, and Russia is on the verge of collapse.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent Japan from offloading 3 full rounds of troops into Buryatia, that’s 12 inf 12 tank. That’s hardly easy for anyone to beat considering Russia doesn’t nearly have the troops to spare, and the US and UK are light years form being able to build that many troops there. That means Russia IPCs collapse entirely from the East while the Germans press hard from the West, and soon you have an 8 IPC producing Russia.

Germany happens to be vastly annoying without the US to perform its support role. The counter to KJF is usually to kick the crap out of Africa as Germany, and force Russia into large troop trades in deadzones while the Japanese unhindered still drop massive troops along the north. The UK solely has to deal with a possibly massive German fleet while maintaining an IC in India and attempting to liberate Africa, and land into Europe as well, because the US is very busy attempting to build the fleet it needs to beat the Japanese. It’s a burden no matter which way you slice it.

I’m hardly one to pass complete judgment on a strategy like this; many strategies that I used to think were dumb actullly have some merit to them once re-examined. But I’m pretty sure that Germany is monstrous in this circumstance and the UK can be stretched too thin doing too many things, and certainly a clever Japanese player can strafe the transports out of the US fleet which prevents the island hopping, all the while the Japanese can be making more than the US is.

My $0.02 if you’re going to KJF is always to reinforce the Pearl Harbor fleet with the Indian fig because it potentially either causes tons of damage to the Japanese or saves the entire Pearl Harbor fleet, which is an efficient move. And of course kill the Kwantung transport. Past that, I’m not positive on what are the best moves. An Indian IC is helpful, but on the other hand you may not have that option available if the Germans link a massive fleet together and get into Africa fast, since you’ll need all your scarce dollars to whip up airforce and navy to handle that.

[Guest]

Also remember one other major factor in having UK spend so much of their resources in the Pacific…
Fighters.

I have played quite a few games now, including my current one, where the ONLY thing that has kept Moscow from falling are massed Allied FIGs in Moscow (and by MASSED FIGs, my current game with Darth is a great example… 9 UK FIGs, 3 US FIGs, 1 USSR FIG).

Were it not for that HUGE number of Fighters, Moscow would be in Axis hands… dropped either to the INF/ART/FIG attack coming from Germany via their IC in Caucuses, or from the INF/ART/ARM/BOM forces that Japan has massed in Novo.

If the US is focusing on Japan in the Pacific, then the US is not building FIGs to fly to Moscow via UK
If UK is building forces in India, trying to re-take Africa, and attempting to do ANYTHING in an effort to land forces in Europe, even just northern landings trying to get forces to Moscow, then they most certainly are not building FIGs… especially since their income is down around $20.

No massed FIGs to Moscow and a virtually opposition free Germany means Moscow falls.

It is just a matter of the math in this case folks.  The US can’t get enough forces fast enough into the Pacific to prevent an initial expansion by Japan and several waves of forces into Asia to strip Russia of her IPC’s while Germany just beats the snot out of Russia and takes everything, including Caucuses, right up to Moscow’s doorstep in 3-4 turns.

Russia with no money.
UK with only a third of its money
Germany at $50-$60 IPC’s (Africa plus all west of Moscow)
Japan at $40 (having reached Novo)

The only real question is which falls first… Moscow or London.

And a creative player might even make a stab at Washington first, just for the fun of it.