It’s tough to give up the opportunity to gang up on Japan early, because once they get rolling they’re harder to stop than Germany is. I guess the presumption is that with proper play, Russia can be held on long enough to put Japan on its heels and for the US to switch focus to the European theater.
The big difference between KJF Pac first and KGF Atl first is that Japan can and usually will activate war early, whereas Germany will almost never activate early (assuming that London cannot be lost so quickly when played by any competent player).
That means that if you build Pacific first, those units can deploy and be useful as a deterrent and threat-projection whereas the units build in the East have to sit there and wait until US4 to actually move out, and then only to take Gibraltar.
One of the more interesting suggestions I have heard is to feint your intended direction during US 1 and US 2 (building the intended pacific fleet off the east coast) and then on US 3, move the entire thing to SZ 11 or SZ 28 and add it your US3 buy. The fact that America appears to be KGF may cause Japan to over extend (at sea, past SZ37), and then have to scramble backwards to meet a big new threat. However, this whole movement is way too slow to surprise much of anybody.
The inherent problem with KGF in my opinion is that Germany is too well defended, with too many critical objective territories that you need to take (Norway, Gibraltar, Rome, Normandy, Denmark, etc), and you only get 1 wave of troops to accomplish your initial goals in Europe. If you spend money on warships and planes with the US, they take forever to get into position, and your ground forces are too weak. If you don’t, Germany has enough planes to threaten to wipe out the entire stack.
You can dance around the periphery, wasting time (with the US in Africa or Malta etc.) but all the while, Italy and Germany can produce 20 infantry for less than a single turns income and use already existing planes to threaten your beachhead. Italy only has to protect one square, a square that is well within striking distance of Germany (as are all the other potential targets). Its very easy to “slam the door shut” by blocking SZ 112 or SZ 92.
If you have a truly lordly stack of land units by US 5, then you could potentially take Denmark with the UK; based on the rules this is one of the most important territories to protect because the US can threaten Germany itself. But when this goes down you had better have a truly lordly stack, since at that point Germany vitally only needs to protect one of two territories in depth (either Denmark or Germany) and then, against a power that has to use stratty bombers for its offense (never fighters; they cant reach the key territories without other footholds).
Defending the Atlantic Wall is one of the few things that Germany or the Axis can do while simultaneously sending virtually everything against Moscow.
If you really want to keep your options open build a naval base in central america.A fleet parked in sz 64 can reach Gib,New Zealand,Alaska,Hawaii,Nova scotia.You don’t need to be at war to do this.
If you really want to keep your options open build a naval base in central america.A fleet parked in sz 64 can reach Gib,New Zealand,Alaska,Hawaii,Nova scotia.You don’t need to be at war to do this.
Anyone ever tried this with succes?
@Don:
Anyone ever tried this with succes?
Yeah, sometimes, I plop down a naval base on Southeast Mexico, if it comes to be that I want to shift theater of operations for some reason. Gibraltar and Hawaii are “only” two turns away from one another. Mind you, there is necessarily an entire turn where there’s basically no, or at least much reduced, American pressure on the Axis while you’re doing this. Most of the time that this happens, I’d feel that America is in a somewhat weak position and is doing a hail mary, but not always.
You don’t need to be at war to do this.
While this is true, I don’t see a reason why you’d build a naval base there and then sit off of the western coast of central america in SZ 64 for US 1-3. If you’re in the Pacific, it’s much better to stage off of Hawaii. If you’re going to send something to the Atlantic, I’d rather just have those 15 IPCs in extra units and stage in the east coast. I don’t think the “what’s America going to do?!” problem for the Axis is anywhere near worth the 15 IPCs it costs America. Maybe I’m wrong (because I almost never see a game without a J1 DoW, and so the US is always on time to the party), but I’m probably not.
edit-
Note: I’ve not read anything in this thread but the most previous comment. I’m saying this to excuse myself if someone has already said what I said, not to be rude.
The port in Mexico is very powerful in theory and not all that useful in practice. If the US is moving fleet between theaters then the war is already won or lost; it’s a three-turn affair to get a fleet from one theater into play in the other.
I’ve decided to start hatching a plan to go after Tokyo, basically the starting units in the Pacific will create a southern force that will go down to Queensland and wait there until the northern force builds and moves toward Tokyo. This should eventually force Japanese ships north and away from the money Islands where the southern American force will strike and take away income. This will only work if the Northern force is strong enough to threaten Tokyo, and not just strong enough to convoy, if Japan builds stacks of infantry on Tokyo before taking Calcutta, that would be a good sign of reverse economics for Japan, but it will cost the Americans a lot and they might possibly need a factory in Alaska.
The port in Mexico is very powerful in theory and not all that useful in practice. If the US is moving fleet between theaters then the war is already won or lost; it’s a three-turn affair to get a fleet from one theater into play in the other.
It’s not always three. It could be as little as one depending on the situation on Gibraltar/Hawaii, and then there’s the threatening of the projection of power on the following round. Anyway, you’re right, it’s likely 3 turns until you’re attacking something (unless the Allies aren’t doing very well at all), but it’s not quite technically fair to say it’s three turns to get things into play or three turns until you’re affecting the other theater.
I think the best thing US can do is early in the game is help make sure Italy never leaves Europe. This can be done with some transports and a small fleet. So most of my first two round buys goes to this objective.
With the help of the German Air force alone Italy has a good chance of taking Egypt if US goes to heavy in the pacific. But having a sizable US invasion force on Gibraltar early in the game will force the Italians to play defensive which buys uk time to lock down africa.
I am convinced that if the allies want to loose the game early they will let the axis run wild in Africa. The allies need to be making more or at the very least nearly the same IPC’s as the Axis if they want to stand any chance due to the axis central location on the maps.
The allies need to secure the board where they can first and this can be done in the Med with early US help,
@Young:
I’ve decided to start hatching a plan to go after Tokyo, basically the starting units in the Pacific will create a southern force that will go down to Queensland and wait there until the northern force builds and moves toward Tokyo. This should eventually force Japanese ships north and away from the money Islands where the southern American force will strike and take away income. This will only work if the Northern force is strong enough to threaten Tokyo, and not just strong enough to convoy, if Japan builds stacks of infantry on Tokyo before taking Calcutta, that would be a good sign of reverse economics for Japan, but it will cost the Americans a lot and they might possibly need a factory in Alaska.
US1 I almost exclusively by 3 CV.
Placed in the Pacific, I can land 8 FTR/TAC on them (start with 1 CV already). Max production for US is 7 FTR, so it works out pretty well considering where I will send them (see below).
US2 I typically buy at least 2 BB and a SB. I buy 3 BB if at war and a SB.
US3 I buy/fill TT
US4 I send US 1 - 3 purchases to SZ 7
US5 I take Korea or Japan depending on where I have better odds; obviously I go for Tokyo if I can take it - even with massive casualties Japan will be hard pressed to liberate its island capitol.
Japan in most incarnations of a KIF has a hard time addressing this type of pressure near Tokyo if it’s fleet goes anywhere south of Flip in the Pacific. By waiting as long as I do, Japan is only going to have 1 purchase round to address the threat which makes it difficult to truly defend.
I also make every single DEI expensive for Japan to take (flying ANZAC/India aircraft) to slow down Japan’s economic expansion and stymie them trying to get economic gains from the DEI while also putting their navy in positions that require multiple turns to return to Tokyo. Every loss of hardware, ground units or aircraft by Japan to achieve this end is, in my mind, fairly traded.
This also applies to the Burma Road. I’ll continue to send ground units from India to force Japan to fight in a corner it wants to control. It may have to trade aircraft to achieve this objective - which is again, part of the strategy.
It does leave Germany free to run around in Europe of course… but if I beat Japan before Moscow falls, I feel I’ve won with the US.
The port in Mexico is very powerful in theory and not all that useful in practice. If the US is moving fleet between theaters then the war is already won or lost; it’s a three-turn affair to get a fleet from one theater into play in the other.
I can testify to this conclusion as I have built a naval base in Brazil twice this month, and didn’t feel as though I was ahead in either game.
Has anyone else tried a naval base on a conquered Palau island? Real game breaker if you can hold your ground.
@Charles:
Has anyone else tried a naval base on a conquered Palau island? Real game breaker if you can hold your ground.
Interesting. My only question: other than getting to Malaya in one turn, why is that spot any better than Caroline Islands?
@Charles:
Has anyone else tried a naval base on a conquered Palau island? Real game breaker if you can hold your ground.
Interesting. My only question: other than getting to Malaya in one turn, why is that spot any better than Caroline Islands?
My bad I meant Dutch Guinea(don’t have the map;misplaced my bounds)
Your argument still stands though. Caroline islands already has a naval base making it a much more viable place. Dutch New Giunea can reach India, all money islands, and most of the coast. Bad points are the 15 IPCs of course it takes and the loss of threatening Japan. Is it worth it? Ideas?
its too easy for japan to take your base, once you place it. The bases on Malaya, phllipine and carolines are all going to be Japanese, better to use your resources to take one back than to place one more that’s going to be taken from you.
Very true.
I usually focus on Japan first and at least try to gain naval superiority in the Pacific (which can be no easy task). If I end up successful in this I often try an invasion of Spain, although you need a lot of resources to be able to do this.
I think the best thing for the USA to do is to stay neutral as long as they can, and save all their income for 3-4 turns. If brought into the war early, show restraint and continue to pull back and save. Then drop 4 rounds of income in one theater and pounce on the axis power that pisses them off the most.
Allies probably won’t win the game, but it would be fun to play an ass kick-n USA.
@Young:
I’ve decided to start hatching a plan to go after Tokyo, basically the starting units in the Pacific will create a southern force that will go down to Queensland and wait there until the northern force builds and moves toward Tokyo. This should eventually force Japanese ships north and away from the money Islands where the southern American force will strike and take away income. This will only work if the Northern force is strong enough to threaten Tokyo, and not just strong enough to convoy, if Japan builds stacks of infantry on Tokyo before taking Calcutta, that would be a good sign of reverse economics for Japan, but it will cost the Americans a lot and they might possibly need a factory in Alaska.
Doesn’t a J1 DOW with an attack on the fleet at Hawaii prevent this strategy? I can’t see why with a J1 DOW you wouldn’t attack the fleet at Hawaii.
Are you referring to a J2 or later DOW?
Otherwise you’d probably be having to build up on US1, go to Hawaii US2, getting to Qld (SZ54) US3.
I’d say it depends on the style of your Axis opponent.
If Germany goes mech and bombers, you know you’re in for a quick strike. But if they go for a slower kill, purchasing infantry/artillery early, that’s an altogether different matter.
So if I see a quick strike, I need to be prepared to go in early… bombers, fighters - units that can move to either destroy or defend over long distances. But if I see a more methodical Axis, I’m going to build infrastructures - carriers and transports and ground units - to deal with a long game.
I feel that the US is the ultimate ‘read and react’ nation in this game.
