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.
One thing I was reminded of in Game 97 (G40)?
If Moscow falls too quickly or you lose the Russian stack, it doesn’t matter one bit what you do with America or how much time you spend plotting and planning about it, because the game will be over before the US declares its first attack.
I’m a big fan of 4 transports, 1 DD and 1 CV in EUS on US1.
I’m guessing that the theory behind the CV is that you can (maybe) hold SZ91 off Gibraltar. I would question whether this was worth 16 production. Land based planes can threaten or defend against the Kreigsmarine off Iceland and the UK. If the Kriegsmarine can be stopped from just sitting in SZ109 off London, convoying it, they aren’t really an effective force any more.
Something that is always odd to me: the general consensus seems to be that the US should attack Japan first. However, the popular thinking on the Axis side is that Germany can take Moscow by turn 5 or 6. If Germany can take Moscow that early, effectively ending the game, then why wouldn’t the Allies want to create a strong Atlantic presence first? huh
Good point. via Iceland or Gibraltar, the US can be in Norway the second turn after a non-Italian axis DOW or turn 5. The former is probably the easier path but less flexible because you aren’t also threatening the Med or the Channel. Once in Norway, fighter escorts can be applied to strategic bombing raids against West Germany and Germany. North Italy is also threatened by unescorted raids.
What if USA built 4 bombers on the first round and sent them to the Pacific? Japan is most likely going to leave a transport behind somewhere. If you combine 4 bombers with USA’s starting fleet, you could do serious damage vs Japan’s fleet.
What if USA built 4 bombers on the first round and sent them to the Pacific? Japan is most likely going to leave a transport behind somewhere. If you combine 4 bombers with USA’s starting fleet, you could do serious damage vs Japan’s fleet.
Bombers aren’t anywhere near as useful in the Pacific as they would appear to be at first glance. The island geography and the lack of decent landing spots does a lot to limit their effective range. If you’re just sniping transports, you can do it cheaper with ANZAC subs.
Send your bomber to the Pacific next time you play US and you’ll see there aren’t a lot of targets to shoot at. Having 5 bombers isn’t enough, the IJN can defend against that. Those bombers are actually going to be a lot more effective against a German fleet, because Japan can afford to buy new ships every turn if it has to, but Germany can’t.
The best thing for the US to do is surrender, and fast. The Axis player won’t see it coming. :-P
On a serious note, try to go for Greece and build there, and let the UK take care of Western Europe, this forces the Axis player to defend on 3 fronts. Africa needs to be secured first though
What if USA built 4 bombers on the first round and sent them to the Pacific? Japan is most likely going to leave a transport behind somewhere. If you combine 4 bombers with USA’s starting fleet, you could do serious damage vs Japan’s fleet.
Bombers aren’t anywhere near as useful in the Pacific as they would appear to be at first glance. The island geography and the lack of decent landing spots does a lot to limit their effective range. If you’re just sniping transports, you can do it cheaper with ANZAC subs.
Send your bomber to the Pacific next time you play US and you’ll see there aren’t a lot of targets to shoot at. Having 5 bombers isn’t enough, the IJN can defend against that. Those bombers are actually going to be a lot more effective against a German fleet, because Japan can afford to buy new ships every turn if it has to, but Germany can’t.
Hmm, not sure I totally agree with that. From Queensland and India I’ve put American bombers to a lot of use.
Just some examples:
Bombing raid on Malaya and/or FIC factories (brutal for Japan if successful)
1-2 punches with Anzac on Japanese fleets (the extra reach adds options)
Attacking ground units on an island to assist your ground troops or to free Anzac to take them (ex: 2-3 bombers in India hit Sumatra and 2-3 bombers in Queensland hit Java, clear off the 1 or 2 inf there, Anzac just walks in)
Less flexibility for Japan (it’s easy to keep transports out of reach from a lone Anzac sub. Much harder with 7 space planes in two different areas)
The always fun SZ19 raid*
*Every so often as the Allies, while I have US bombers sitting in Queensland, Japan leaves a group of transports alone or under-defended in SZ19. Amazingly, it only takes those bombers 5 spaces to get there, meaning they can land in Amur. One of the most recent games I played Japan lost 4 transports to a US bomber
To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.
Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.
The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.
It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.
To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.
Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.
The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.
It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.
In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.
