USA Fighter Strategy

[Nippon-koku]

I always like do dream up some new plans/strategies, and recently I got thinking about the US going almost exclusively fighters out of them out of WUS.  For the sake of this example let’s say JDOW2

US1 and US2: five fighters each.  From there on out, assuming 70 a turn, just some combo of fighters and ships.

My thinking is flexibility.  From WUS those planes can reach Moscow in 4 turns and easily navigate the pacific.  This may be tough to pull off, but if Anzac can get an island (say Java) and hang onto it past Japan’s next turn, and US can plop 8-10 fighters down there, it could get nasty for the Japanese.  Add an airbase on Java and they can reach India in one turn.

Or one funky idea:

as many of you know I like to be aggressive with the Siberian troops.  Let’s say Russia has decided it can take Manchuria R3 and hang onto it: US drops 4-6 fighters in there, plus China adds a few units, and there’s chaos in China.

Having all these planes handy, combined with a few subs/DD’s a turn creates a lot of options.

Just thinking out loud hear.  I always like hearing thoughts on these ideas.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Interesting ideas. I wonder how much you will hurt the Axis in exchange for making it easy for them. Many planes = few ships = easier on Axis. But does Japanese losing 9 IPCs from Java make up for it? Interesting.

[SubmersedElk]

If you send all the US starting air to Hawaii and build 2 carriers off west US, the fighters from Hawaii can attack Japan SZ on US2 and land on the carriers, allowing an attack that evades any DD blocker. Great trick for putting the hurt on a Japan whose navy went too far from home too early, especially in a J1 scenario where Japan does not threaten a J2 attack on Hawaii.

[Young Grasshopper]

I like the idea of American fighters reinforcing the Siberian Russian troops, but the fact that Japan is between Russia and US in the order of play is problematic.

[knp7765]

@Young:

I like the idea of American fighters reinforcing the Siberian Russian troops, but the fact that Japan is between Russia and US in the order of play is problematic.

That would work well if most of Japan’s force were down south taking the DEI and fighting China.  Sometimes Japan forces are just out of reach of Manchuria.  That’s why if I’m Japan and Russia keeps those Siberian guys hanging around then I will keep a decent amount of infantry on Manchuria and Korea.  It sucks when you could use them in China or elsewhere, but you got to guard against the Russians.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Dont forget that Amur is not the only way. You could go by Iceland and of course the Middle East.

[teslas]

Pacific:

Having a US stack sitting on [whatever money island], or keeping Malaya a haven for the Allies (and therefore +8 IPCs for UK/ANZAC), or defending an advancing Chinese stack…

I don’t think that’s going to hurt Japan enough–not like forcing Japan to heavily invest in fleet, and then killing most/all of it, would. Without a big-and-still-growing American navy to pay attention to, Japan can afford to do two things at once. The American fighters can only be in one place at one time, because without them in a single-stack form, they’re not strong enough, until at least US 6 or so, to withstand a direct hit by the Japanese.

They are also not strong enough to directly strike the Japanese navy. Perhaps adding a few tactical bombers in addition to the one the US starts with into the mix would help that.

It sounds to me like in the Pacific what would result is a grand maneuvering game that, Japan, since it’s in its home turf and has a material advantage, will still come out on top of. Meanwhile in the Atlantic, Germany should either have shut down Russia and dug in for the long game (where Germany’s power is steadily increasing), or already have outright taken Moscow and an Axis victory may be 1-6 rounds away, depending on the status of Egypt.

Atlantic:

What if you did this in the Atlantic for a few rounds? Assuming the British helping you with some air bases (more on that below), you could get some fighters in Moscow. Okay, you’ve held Moscow, hopefully… I say hopefully because that likely requires an early Japan DoW to safely and consistently make it (more on that below). Germany does the normal push there, gets locked out right in front of it, but now there’s reduced American pressure in the Atlantic on Italy, or even Germany directly. Germany lets Moscow stand (indeed, because Germany absolutely could not take it with such heavy US air investment). They dig in for the long game, and try to push south into the middle east. Yeah, your fighter stack can fly around and put up road blocks in the Caucuses/Iraq, or in China, or whatever else, but Germany is still making more money than is comfortable during this period, not to mention you’d be sending 2-3 turns of plane production (10-17 (+ starting planes?)) to Europe before your attention would need to return to the Pacific to contain the monster that Japan has become in your absence.

The biggest shortcoming is that those fighters are fantastic for defense, but they don’t allow you to push back against the Axis very well. Britain excels in this defense-centric role, especially in Moscow. However, the US usually needs to be the one actively pushing against the allies. I don’t know if a fighter stack would accomplish this.

Routes fighters can take to Moscow:

Northern route:
US: US -> Gibraltar/Nova Scotia
UK: Air base on Gibraltar/Nova Scotia
US: Gibraltar/Nova Scotia -> Scotland
US: Scotland -> Northern Russia (Nenetsia, Archangel, Novgorod)
US: Northern Russia -> Moscow

Takes four turns and one new UK air base to make it work. If The axis have Gibraltar, no problem, you can go through Nova Scotia, but for reasons I think are clear to most of you, Gibraltar is strictly better, especially better to have an air base on for the allies. Nova Scotia is also somewhat useful because planes can reach it from the Western US in case you built there and then changed your mind or wanted to feign directions.

A G6 Moscow hit can happen. To get there in time requires a J1 or J2 DoW.
G7 Moscow hits are more likely in my experience, which means you’d need a J3 DoW.

If the British/Russians alone can hold Moscow on their own through G7, which is possible but not something that is by any means a certainty, then, and only then, can you get there with your planes without an early Japanese DoW. However, by this point, landing in Nenetsia may not be “safe” without a bit of planning with Russia. The Germans will have had all the time they need to have some tanks/mechs in range to snake up north with their own air force and devastate your plane stack before it arrives in Moscow. If you are “lucky” and get a J1 DoW, you can bring your planes in piecemeal, but this greatly increases their exposure to a German strike.

Other bad news: US planes flying this route are essentially useless apart from their potential one turn stay on Gibraltar.

Southern Route:
US: Eastern US (only) -> Gibraltar
UK : Air base on Gibraltar
US: Gibraltar -> Cyprus
UK: Air base on Cyprus
US: Cyprus -> Moscow

You can always make it in time to stop a G7 Moscow, but to be there for G6 requires an early Japanese DoW.

This is an entire turn shorter, but utterly depends upon Italy not taking Cyprus (or Britain retaking it if they do). It also costs Britain 30 IPCs in air bases. Germany/Italy could attempt to bomb the air bases before the US’s turn, but with the fat stack of fighters sitting there, you probably want them to try this.

Planes in this scenario are also useful for the entire flight. Depending on where planes are coming from, it’s usually only a one turn delay to hit SZ 97 or 98, though 98 requires a safe landing zone in Malta (which is probably 100% okay), or Northern Africa somewhere.

edit-
Then there’s the scenario where you go Western US -> Soviet Far East -> etc. This requires that some Russians stay behind in the far east to help you out, else it’s exceedingly simple to have Japan delay you by 1 or 2 turns, which is damning. The Russians also can’t as easily afford to plop down air bases for you as the UK can, but an air base in the Soviet Far east puts you in Moscow in 3 turns with a hop over Yenisey and is likely worth the 15 IPC investment if you can get two or more turns of fighters through it. But, it’s potentially easy for Japan to take the Soviet Far East on J2, even if you drop some planes there. It would require some navy backup. I am out of time or I’d explore this a bit more.

It is of course possible to use a combination of any of the above at the same time, if that’s better for some reason, though fighter stacks get exponentially more juicy to hit the smaller that they are.

There are also like ten different 4-turn routes across the Med to Moscow, and they’re all useful for different situations.

If you want to try a game like this, Nippon, I’ll play the axis against it. You can decide what turn you want Japan to declare war on you (I default to J1 in 95% of cases, and 100% of the time when I’m playing 1v1).

[Dafyd]

I actually tried something like this once.  I didn’t build as many fighters per turn as you were talking about but I di go fighter/tac heavy and spread them along the US islands…Guam, Midway, Hawaii.  The idea was to be able to reach out a little further.  I found I needed carriers to make more effective and detroyers to help block the IJN in place for me to hit them.  I still think it can be used effectively if the right combination of ships and plains can be found.  I do like the idea in Europe as well; especially with an airbase on Gibralter.

[Spendo02]

Assuming a J1 DOW and full KIF / DEI strategy, if you buy:
3 CV on US1 and
3 BB + SB on US2
By US3 you can have a REALLY nice landing platform in SZ 7 to shuttle 6 FTR / Round starting on US4….  Japan’s not going to be happy having to allocate resources to Tokyo instead of Minor IC it has purchased to facilitate KIF faster.

Of course, you forsake ANY Atlantic presence and possibly Moscow, but if you build a minor IC in Persia on UK2, you can create some real problems for Japan’s KIF strategy and/or have a closer location for UK to help Moscow when the time comes.

[taamvan]

This idea is OK, but the fighters are too short range to bridge the wide oceans.    The fighters going to Moscow is a huge detour and as you point out, they are not very useful while in transit.    Most importantly, you are taking a circuitous and roundabout path to plug a gap in a defensive wall rather than bringing the war to the Axis.

We were playing G42 recently, which doesn’t really alter this consideration;  Iwo Jima may be the only viable island to SBR Japan from, but the US can just as easily SBR Tokyo from eastern Russia.  In our game, Japan (me) attacked Russia, but this was a disaster and as usual I was spread too thin.  Worse, all of his Pacific US forces flew up to East Siberia.  I was nearly able to use what transports and ships were left as Japan to throw him out, but with only 2 fighters and 4 strategic bombers (plus all available ground fodder) he held his base.

Since the Russians are already allies, you can land defensive fighters up there and strat bombers at the same time.

The Russians supply the ground forces; there are two ways to go here–Japan attacks you and the US intervenes and lands on siberia (eventually) with a few of your troops to protect their LZ

or, wait until USSR4/US4 to declare war with Russia on Japan (which permits USA intervention right away).

So, I think I’d argue for a mix of fighters, strat bombers and transports being more effective offensively than a stack of roaming prodigal fighters would be defensively.

[Nippon-koku]

@teslas:

If you want to try a game like this, Nippon, I’ll play the axis against it. You can decide what turn you want Japan to declare war on you (I default to J1 in 95% of cases, and 100% of the time when I’m playing 1v1).

I very rarely play online.  Just enjoy a live game so much more  :|

Maybe I’ll give it a shot.  There are many on the board I’d love to play with

[NimitzLimits]

@teslas:

Then there’s the scenario where you go Western US -> Soviet Far East -> etc. This requires that some Russians stay behind in the far east to help you out, else it’s exceedingly simple to have Japan delay you by 1 or 2 turns, which is damning. The Russians also can’t as easily afford to plop down air bases for you as the UK can, but an air base in the Soviet Far east puts you in Moscow in 3 turns with a hop over Yenisey and is likely worth the 15 IPC investment if you can get two or more turns of fighters through it. But, it’s potentially easy for Japan to take the Soviet Far East on J2, even if you drop some planes there. It would require some navy backup. I am out of time or I’d explore this a bit more.

I’ve been wanting to try this approach for some time now, glad to see others have thought of it.  The air base might also allow the US to use the Soviet Far East as a staging point for its fleet, or a base to strategically bomb Tokyo.

The other routes suggested by everyone look interesting as well, I’ll have to give them a look.

[Spendo02]

Lots of variables with the Russian AB strategy, but how many US FTR would make up the difference by landing in Moscow to warrant the Communists placing the AB there?

I’m guessing 4-6 US FTR would be a serious game changer for the German attack on Moscow as soon as they arrive?

In subsequent turns, eventually the German income from forcing a Red Turtle on Moscow should return the odds back in their favor and even push far enough to cut off the intermediate landing point for those FTR.

Of course, Japan could swing from KIF to ANZAC and just let the Germans wait outside Moscow while they go for a Pacific victory with all the US resources going to FTR to reinforce a turtled Moscow.

[teslas]

For the far east route, Russia loses 15 IPCs of early game income (the fact that it’s early game matters, because that’s very flexible money, whereas midgame income is when Germany is already at your doorstep and your options are greatly reduced). That’s 5 inf that’s gone. Let’s just go with that for now to keep this simple. 5 hp, and 10 on defense.

And then you must keep some ruskies in the far east to keep Japan from screwing up the air base. Let’s assume this is at least 6, and be very nice about it. That bumps us up to 11 hp and 22 on defense that won’t be in Moscow by R6 or R7.

America would need to be sending in at least ~7 fighters to make that kind of investment worth it. More than 7, and it’s definitely been paid off… defensively. The loss of those 15 IPCs, however, also reduces any offensive moves Russia can make either early on or if Germany weakens its stack too much by sending units south toward the Caucasus and oil fields. But it’s not all bad, of course, those American fighters make bombing raids on Moscow much harder for Germany.

It’s a risky proposition, the eastern route, which is why I said in my previous post it would take a good bit of thought (and words) about all of the pros/cons. I would strongly prefer the Cyprus route as an Allied player, I believe.

[Spendo02]

@teslas:

For the far east route, Russia loses 15 IPCs of early game income (the fact that it’s early game matters, because that’s very flexible money, whereas midgame income is when Germany is already at your doorstep and your options are greatly reduced). That’s 5 inf that’s gone. Let’s just go with that for now to keep this simple. 5 hp, and 10 on defense.

And then you must keep some ruskies in the far east to keep Japan from screwing up the air base. Let’s assume this is at least 6, and be very nice about it. That bumps us up to 11 hp and 22 on defense that won’t be in Moscow by R6 or R7.

America would need to be sending in at least ~7 fighters to make that kind of investment worth it. More than 7, and it’s definitely been paid off… defensively. The loss of those 15 IPCs, however, also reduces any offensive moves Russia can make either early on or if Germany weakens its stack too much by sending units south toward the Caucasus and oil fields. But it’s not all bad, of course, those American fighters make bombing raids on Moscow much harder for Germany.

It’s a risky proposition, the eastern route, which is why I said in my previous post it would take a good bit of thought (and words) about all of the pros/cons. I would strongly prefer the Cyprus route as an Allied player, I believe.

So in your scenario the US needs to technically divert an entire round of income in FTR.  Based on timing to arrive on time, the relevance if those are starting FTR needs to be considered as well.

How long does this actually buy Moscow?  And more importantly, does it really matter once the Germans obtain the real strength - the economic gains in Russia?

For the record, I still prefer KJF over save Moscow.  Leave that to the Brits via a Persian IC.

[teslas]

It would need to divert ~70 IPCs to break even, yes, which means that it’s kind of a wash as far as time is concerned. To really make it worth it, you’d likely need at least a couple more.

Will it defend Moscow?
Yes, even with a crippled Economy, Russia is still producing infantry, and putting fighters on top of all of that is devastating for German hopes of goose stepping around in front of the Kremlin. If the Germans divert forces to clean up all of that delicious, sweet NO money in the south of Russia and Middle East, then this investment of fighters likely holds Moscow for quite a long while. We’re talking about turn 7+ of the game at the moment, so it’s very, very hard to make big generalizations, but I’ll pull a number out of my ass and say Moscow would be saved at least until round 9, and in the situation you’ve described, of growing German economic power with Germany steadily increasing in strength, Germany usually isn’t interested in taking less than very good odds (90%+, or even higher) to smash Moscow since it has nearly everything to lose and not much to gain by rushing in, so you could hold it until round 10-12, maybe more, depending on the game. And that’s just with 10-11 American planes and maybe a few more from UK in the later turns.

Does it really matter?
Well that’s the important question, and it’s a much harder one. You’d be depending on the UK to be holding its own in the middle east, out of some minor ICs wherever the UK feels like putting them (I love Iraq, and in this game, since the US is taking care of air support for moscow, you could easily plop down a second). The American fighters can also fly back and forth between Moscow and a UK stronghold in front of the largest German threat, slowing them up even more. The combined Russia/UK pressure, with this American help, is what you’re hoping buys you 1-4 extra rounds to have America smash Japan. It costs you about 1 and a half American rounds of production to do it, and that’s early game production, the most important production. Worth it? I dunno. I’d need to theory-craft for hours on this, or just play a couple of games.

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

[Spendo02]

@teslas:

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

It sounds like a plausible curveball against someone who prefers to run a general script / perfect play to get them out of their comfort zone.

Nothing more rewarding than taking advantage of mistakes because someone had their strategy rattled.