US Strategy

An interesting thought.  Test it and let us know how it works out.

Yes, its pretty obvious that the allies need to start the campaign with subs and planes.

Lets face it, if UK buy infantry, they are just wasted. If Uk and ANZAC buy all subs the first turns, they are a major threat to Japan, because Japan start with a lot of planes that cant kill subs alone, so they need destroyers. Japan start with 4 destroyers only, and they are needet for blocking duty too. So if US, UK and ANZAC put a lot of subs in the water T1, and never more than one in each seazone, then Japans first purchase of 3 trannies might turn out to be hazardious. And if Japan start building destroyers, they will be sitting ducks for the US bombers, that will show up real fast.

@Razor:

Yes, its pretty obvious that the allies need to start the campaign with subs and planes.

Lets face it, if UK buy infantry, they are just wasted. If Uk and ANZAC buy all subs the first turns, they are a major threat to Japan, because Japan start with a lot of planes that cant kill subs alone, so they need destroyers. Japan start with 4 destroyers only, and they are needet for blocking duty too. So if US, UK and ANZAC put a lot of subs in the water T1, and never more than one in each seazone, then Japans first purchase of 3 trannies might turn out to be hazardious. And if Japan start building destroyers, they will be sitting ducks for the US bombers, that will show up real fast.

I’m not so sure about UK building subs first turn, depending what J! looks like I guess.  It’s seems to me subs are good for securing a radius, keeping the enemy outside but only if they can secure that radius when there is no enemy inside it at the time.  My point is, if Japan takes all DDs out of striking distance of Haw, then if US can put lots of subs at Haw and Jap will feel uncomfortable about putting any ships within striking range of those subs (Japan sz included).

I think this was one of the earlier strategies proposed. IIRC, it just takes too long. By the time you get enough subs in place to start seriously impacting income, India has already or is about to fall and then its a cake walk to Australia or Hawaii since there is no substall.

There’s been a number of different Allied strategies examined:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4mY7o0GhHA

:lol:

I think he’s right, Europe is needed to balance this game. Russians on the north and Commonwealth units from the Mediterranean to bolster India is what is needed.

@Autarch:

I think this was one of the earlier strategies proposed. IIRC, it just takes too long. By the time you get enough subs in place to start seriously impacting income, India has already or is about to fall and then its a cake walk to Australia or Hawaii since there is no substall.

There’s been a number of different Allied strategies examined:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4mY7o0GhHA

:lol:

I think he’s right, Europe is needed to balance this game. Russians on the north and Commonwealth units from the Mediterranean to bolster India is what is needed.

That’s new “rant” in the link above! I thought it was going to be the other one, LOL!!!

Well bring Europe on then dammit!!! :-D

Autarch may be right though, the "“other half” of this game may be sorely needed in order to make “this half” work.

Gotta go to work now, I’ll get back with my thoughts later after work. :-D

The problem with sub heavy build is their weak defense and inability to hit air units. All Japan needs to do is send one or two destroyers in along wth their air units, so in the end the US will lose 6-8 subs and Japan loses maybe two destroyers.

@Gwlachmai:

The problem with sub heavy build is their weak defense and inability to hit air units. All Japan needs to do is send one or two destroyers in along wth their air units, so in the end the US will lose 6-8 subs and Japan loses maybe two destroyers.

Place only 1 US sub on each SZ and counterattack to sink the spread out Japanese DDs

Maybe people here are too obsessive buying subs, dds and figs? Many subestimate the power of BBs and cruisers. BB can be a deadly weapon is one side has much more than the other. And the cruiser … well, all I say is that a fleet must have a balanced composition: a bit of all

Also, is possible many try too extreme strategies. Maybe India can fall J3 but what are doing USA and China? If Japan sends all to south they can lose Carolines, a critical point, or even Korea, that is pretty bad for Japan even if they recover at time to prevent a USA’s Korea IC. Trying saving India at all costs is playing the game Japan wants play: in my experience from all past A&A games, a well done balanced approach, one that fights all the board, allways has advantage over a extreme strategy

@Hobbes:

@Gwlachmai:

The problem with sub heavy build is their weak defense and inability to hit air units. All Japan needs to do is send one or two destroyers in along wth their air units, so in the end the US will lose 6-8 subs and Japan loses maybe two destroyers.

Place only 1 US sub on each SZ and counterattack to sink the spread out Japanese DDs

They have to mass up somewhere in order to get to the convoy zones, otherwise you’re spreading them out over 0 IPC islands and it will take too long to use them to any good effect anyway. I tend to agree with FunCioneta, the US would do better with a balanced build, but that takes time to build and deploy.

@Gwlachmai:

They have to mass up somewhere in order to get to the convoy zones, otherwise you’re spreading them out over 0 IPC islands and it will take too long to use them to any good effect anyway. I tend to agree with FunCioneta, the US would do better with a balanced build, but that takes time to build and deploy.

Mass them on Hawaii (or Queensland if you can afford the 1 turn delay) and send them piecemeal, aiming to the Asian coastline and/or the DEI. It will be a 2 turn process (SZ26 to SZs6, 17 or 22 then to the Asian coast, or even SZs7 and 16) but just having subs on those SZs will force Japan to respond, otherwise the US might attack in force any J fleet on SZ6.
Taking income from J is nice but the main objective is to threaten Japan with the perspective of convoy disruptions and attacks on its ships on SZ6 and the Asian coastline. That way it will make him spend money on DDs (which can then be attacked and sunk by 1-3 subs, depending if there’s US bombers available to support the attack) instead of ground units.
With the 2 step you will always have subs available to counterattack and the sight of having 12 or more subs heading towards Japan and filling out every SZ should make J worry a bit.

I have been assuming Japan moves in force to Midway J1 to tie up the US.

I agree a combination of subs + Bombers are the best buy to counterstrike, plus a few DD’s and Transports to give a credible threat.

The problem is timing after a J1 attack. India and China fall too quickly.

I still say the best balance is to simply ban a J1 attack on the allies. You could also try banning new IC construction but the J1 ban is simplest.

Still doesn’t seem terribly effective to me. I would think it’s going to be more cost effective for Japan to destroy them with destroyer/air unit combos then it would be to keep spamming subs. Especially if you’re not contesting the DEI. I wouldn’t mind seeing it in action, but, I wouldn’t have enough confidence to actually implement such a strat.

I don’t know fellas, but I’m thinking that the US and ANZAC player(s) had better start thinking and building from the onset with the thought in mind that India & China are going to fall, sooner or later.

Japan has a huge edge in air units. My thinking at this point is that the US needs to try getting as many fighters as possible each turn early. I’m leaning toward air heavy builds for the Allies. Subs work great with air, but I think my main emphasis would be on air builds. Also I would be looking at getting airbases, whether capturing or building, or a combination of the two.

If the US can grab Iwo early, that should give the US 56 IPCs a turn, enough for three fighters and two transports full of infantry a turn. I don’t know that the US needs two fully loaded transports every turn, but I’m thinking at least one a turn.

When India and China go bye-bye, then Japan is going to have to make an invasion against Australia, and will most likely have to build a major IC in Singapore.

I’m thinking that the US should be aiming at Manchuria with the intent of trying to get an IC of their own in there. If I remember the rules right, China can come back to life in the game if its territories become freed, so a couple  American tanks could do wonders to reinvent China in the game, especially if the Japanese have swept through China down toward India and left the backfield empty.

Anyway, the rules say that Japan needs six of the eight VCs to win, and in the games we’ve played, we’ve called it a game when India bites the bullet. To be fair, in those games it was all over too because we sold out the opening US & ANZAC buys and moves going all out to save India.

My question at this point is can Australia be held after India & China fall, or in China’s case, after it goes dormant.

I would even go so far as to suggest the following. ANZAC1 buy 1 transport, bank 3 IPCs. Send the at start Transport to New Guinea with two infantry with the aim of securing Dutch New Guinea and hopefully getting the ANZAC income to 15 IPCs by ANZAC2.

On ANZAC2, buy a minor IC and place it in either Queensland or in New Zealand. If the Japanese are doing their thing in the DEI, then the ANZACs could have 16 IPCs and two ICs going by ANZAC3, giving them the opportunity to place five infantry a turn. If you place it in New Zealand, you run the risk of allowing the Japanese to knock out your transport “bridge”. That one transport bought on ANZAC 1 can ferry the two extra troops each turn. An IC in Queensland doesn’t need the transport bridge, but is a bit more exposed to capture by the Japanese.

I’d go even further by suggesting that the RAF fly out of India at the latest possible turn and fly to Australia, where they can reach either Western Australia or the Northern Territory.

The cool thing for the Allies when India falls, is that the Japanese won’t recieve a really big boost to their IPCs from capturing India for gaining Britians currently held IPCs! Britian will normally only be holding like 3 or 4 IPCs…maybe. With a sub sitting off India, Britian collects only 2 IPCs, and it could be down to just 1!  So if you see the Japanese pull a sub off the shores of India, you know he or she is going to strike the next turn! If they don’t they will have just sunk 2/3 IPCs they could have captured; just saying.

Anyway, if Japan controls all of China, and all of Britian’s stuff (they hopefully don’t have Canadian B.C.) in the Far East, Vietnam, the DEI & the PI, they’ll be at 73 with the DEI bonus.

The Allies could be at 55 for the US and 15 for the ANZAC player with that bonus, which is 70. Like I said earlier, if the US grabs Iwo early on, it’d be 72 Japan vs 71 Allies. Japan going for Australia, the US trying to get a toe hold in Asia. I mean, at this point, by comparing IPCs, it should still be a game. If the ANZACers get a second minor IC going, then I’m hoping that Australia could be a tough fight.

Who knows though, we’ve always sold out the Allied buys and moves on trying to go all out to save India, and that has always resulted in Australia being wide open.

If the Allies try instead concentrating on building up Australia right off, and the US building up it’s air strength and grabbing key bases to work from early like Iwo; a naval base on Wake; trying to grab Guam or the Marshalls; then it could be a game. The Allies use China and Britian to grind down as much Japanese units as is possible while allowing the US & ANZACers to build up strength for the coming fight.

Who knows, maybe in the Europe version, India will have another half that the British can fall back further to? I mean, if Austarlia now has several territories with a total of like 7 or so IPCs overall, surely India won’t just be a one, 3 IPC territory? The other half surely has to have another seperate territory with it’s own IPC value and possibly IC & bases.

So maybe the design took into account that India may get whacked, but the Japanese still need 6 VCs to win.

I ask, what are China doing ? Stack in Yunnan ? We all know Yunnan will fall sooner or later, so how about moving a Chinese stack up north, to treathen the money-territories ? Japan wont be in India before T4 anyway.

As a strategy I think US should buy trannies and occupie islands, and build Airbases on them, and ANZAC build fighters to protect this islands.

Also I think a clever UK1 in case of a J1 attack, will be to buy a trannie, and next turn occupie Sumatra or Java, build an Airbase there, and land the airforce there, reinforced later by US and ANZAC. All UK navy is used as blockers to slow down Japan, and later UK will buy nothing but subs. India will of course fall J4, but Japan wont easily get the DEI bonus.

@kaufschtick:

I don’t know fellas, but I’m thinking that the US and ANZAC player(s) had better start thinking and building from the onset with the thought in mind that India & China are going to fall, sooner or later.

I would even go so far as to suggest the following. ANZAC1 buy 1 transport, bank 3 IPCs. Send the at start Transport to New Guinea with two infantry with the aim of securing Dutch New Guinea and hopefully getting the ANZAC income to 15 IPCs by ANZAC2.

I’d go even further by suggesting that the RAF fly out of India at the latest possible turn and fly to Australia, where they can reach either Western Australia or the Northern Territory.

The cool thing for the Allies when India falls, is that the Japanese won’t recieve a really big boost to their IPCs from capturing India for gaining Britians currently held IPCs! Britian will normally only be holding like 3 or 4 IPCs…maybe. With a sub sitting off India, Britian collects only 2 IPCs, and it could be down to just 1!  So if you see the Japanese pull a sub off the shores of India, you know he or she is going to strike the next turn! If they don’t they will have just sunk 2/3 IPCs they could have captured; just saying.

Anyway, if Japan controls all of China, and all of Britian’s stuff (they hopefully don’t have Canadian B.C.) in the Far East, Vietnam, the DEI & the PI, they’ll be at 73 with the DEI bonus.

The Allies could be at 55 for the US and 15 for the ANZAC player with that bonus, which is 70. Like I said earlier, if the US grabs Iwo early on, it’d be 72 Japan vs 71 Allies. Japan going for Australia, the US trying to get a toe hold in Asia. I mean, at this point, by comparing IPCs, it should still be a game. If the ANZACers get a second minor IC going, then I’m hoping that Australia could be a tough fight.

Who knows though, we’ve always sold out the Allied buys and moves on trying to go all out to save India, and that has always resulted in Australia being wide open.

If the Allies try instead concentrating on building up Australia right off, and the US building up it’s air strength and grabbing key bases to work from early like Iwo; a naval base on Wake; trying to grab Guam or the Marshalls; then it could be a game. The Allies use China and Britian to grind down as much Japanese units as is possible while allowing the US & ANZACers to build up strength for the coming fight.

Who knows, maybe in the Europe version, India will have another half that the British can fall back further to? I mean, if Austarlia now has several territories with a total of like 7 or so IPCs overall, surely India won’t just be a one, 3 IPC territory? The other half surely has to have another seperate territory with it’s own IPC value and possibly IC & bases.

So maybe the design took into account that India may get whacked, but the Japanese still need 6 VCs to win.

It is an interesting strategy. After a J1 capture of Midway, India still falls; just a turn or 2 later.

Do you really want to know Japan’s counter?

Ok. If I see the UK fighters pull out of India before it falls I buy subs on Japan’s next turn.
In fact, I probably buy the subs the turn before India falls regardless.
The following turn the subs go to TRUK and the turn after that they surround a certain island continent that begins with the letter A.
It becomes UK all over again. With an income near zero the fall of Sydney is only a matter of time.
Japan can DD screen the US to delay reinforcements. Of course if Japan has a fully reinforced Midway naval base (established on J1) the Americans have other concerns.

I am going to institute house rules of NO J1 attacks on allies. Or have Japan take their turn last for even more of an Allied boost.
It makes for a more interesting game with even chances on both sides instead of this logic experiment of finding some master stroke by the Allies to threaten Japan early on,
Only to have it countered by Kaufschtick.

@Buckeyeboy:

What I was referring to by “heavy sub and air buys”, was maybe 3 subs a turn for the US. Along with 1 or 2 loaded transports, and rest of the IPCs in air craft.

What I was thinking of, is an island hopping campaign. Buy a naval base for Wake, and set the US fleet there. Yes, leave a little something in HI for defense, but use Wake as the jumping off point. From there, send 1 trans to Iwo with a tank and a man. J will kill the trans, but you will have the island. On the following turn, send in a bunch of planes and and build an air base, the turn after that you can reinforce w/ Inf and and have air cover for your trans. On the same turn you build the air base, you can send another trans to Guam or the PI and try the same strategy there. Pumping men ( to hold the island bases) and air craft forward to support your subs, which by now would spread out in the J shipping lanes, taking away IPCs and hopefully helping to kill J DD’s along with the newly arrived air power. The bulk of the US fleet would just stay at Wake as a threat, unless J gives you a juicy present.

The goal of the drive would be to start pumping men to the Asian mainland and get an IC built. Then you can really put the heat on J.

I know this sounds really good on paper, but I will not have the chance to try it out f2f until 4/21. If even part of this works, I would think that it would pull some J resources back to the north, maybe allowing ANZAC to sneak into the DEI.

Yeah, I know what you’re getting at, and I’m thinking the same thing, but from the other end of the “what to buy” spectrum. I was thinking of trying to secure airbases on islands that transports could skip to, one from the other. The Allies will need troops, transports, lots of air and DDs in there too, as well as subs.

So yeah, I’m on the same page with you there brotha!

The real test is to try it out though, like we did with Van Trump’s strategy, maybe this one will work though!   :lol:

I agree with Van_Trump about banning a J1 attack.

So far I have always been J, and I always attack J1.  I even take out the pathetic ANZAC DD and transport.  So much for ANZAC ever getting an NO of any kind.  40 more IPC’s for the US is not enough of a deterrent.  I would never want to allow the Allies to maneuver their forces around unmolested.  How can 40 IPC’s substitute for taking the Phillipines (ruining USA NO and worth 2), taking Hong Kong (ruining UK’s NO and worth 3), annihilating Singapore BB and TWO transports, and taking out the ANZAC <snicker>fleet <snicker snicker=“”>?  It’s not even close - I will always always always attack J1 unless it was not allowed.  And then I’d still want to do it.  What were they thinking with these rules?

Other than my first time playing, where I was 1 DD block from winning the game against a great player (I have to say he’s great because he knows who he is and he’s reading this, but seriously, he’s good) I think it’s easy for Japan to win every time, just like Hitler is ranting in the youtube videos.  Japan can make a lot of mistakes and win.  Japan can get lazy and win.  Japan can take India fast or slow, it does not matter.  It’s still a fun game to play, but it does seem to need the other half.  Man, that game will take forever to play…  :lol:</snicker></snicker>