US1: A March Hare (a pun on the March Hare from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, as well as of a bunny marching to war, and tied in to the closing “hare-brained” reference from the last post. Ain’t I cute.)
The Story So Far: Russia went Norway/West Russia/Ukraine and lucked out like mad. Germany could have had a fairly vicious counter, but got lousy dice, and also failed Anglo-Egypt miserably due to more awful dice. UK blew up the German battleship and transport. Japan could have moved to grant Germany continued access to Africa IPCs but didn’t, instead choosing to make a powerful early push towards Moscow.
As US, I had to plan ahead both for both US and Russia; as they go right after one another, so there’s nothing the Axis can do to stop a planned US and Russian move. (As opposed to, say, Germany depending on Japanese moves, which could be disrupted by UK, or UK depending on Russia moves, which could be disrupted by Germany.
Also, I had to make a few plans as far as what the likely German, UK, and Japanese moves would be. I’d have to look at the board to see what US and Russia could do, what positions they could set up, the risks involved in doing so, and what immediate positions I could take advantage of with either US or Russia. Then, I’d have to plan a long range strategy based on existing board position, and build appropriately.
First, I looked at Japan. Did the US want to go KJF (Kill Japan First)? The key here was to look at Japanese battleships, carriers, fighters, and bombers, as well as other Japanese fleet. Japan’s navy and air is what can push US off. If Japan’s navy was or could be horribly weakened somehow, US could consider an attack on the Pacific.
Looking at the situation, though, none of US, Russia, or UK could really do anything of importance. There was 1 Japanese fighter on Wake that could potentially be destroyed, but at poor odds considering it was protected by an infantry. The Japanese cruiser at Hawaiian Islands could be destroyed, but at a decent chance of losing the US sub in return, and thus the ability to harass Japan.
So really, at best, Japan would have a force of 2 battleships 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 sub, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber, without building a thing. US had at the moment 1 battleship and 1 sub in the area, plus up to three fighters and a bomber. Counting battleships as 2 hits, that would be a Japanese force of 16 hits against a US force of 7 hits. I mean, seriously now. At an income of 40 IPC (US starts with 42, but with Sinkiang and China lost pretty quickly, it hovers around 40), that would perhaps be enough for a carrier, 2 destroyers and another fighter, bringing the US to 11 hits. Sadly Japan still would overwhelm the US 17 to 11.
Building 7 subs with US would bring its hits up faster, to `4 hits against 17 hits, but most of Japan’s hits would be of higher quality (3s and 4s), plus it had destroyers to fend off subs, plus subs are lousy defenders that additionally can’t hit air. If US grouped its subs together, a single Japanese destroyer with mass air could kill lots of them, trading a single Japanese destroyer for four or five US subs at a time. If US spread its subs out, Japan could still snipe them out with destroyers, and US would not be able to concentrate its forces to threaten multiple sea zones. (If you spread US subs out, then you could focus on surrounding a single sea zone, but then Japan could just run away from the attacked sea zone to a sea zone that most of the subs couldn’t hit.)
Finally, building subs wouldn’t help protect US transports, and it’s taking Japan’s island income away, killing its navy, pushing it out of Asia, and restricting Japan to the island of Japan itself that really define a KJF.
Given that Japan could build cheap subs to keep the US fleet away, while maintaining a flow of units into Asia, I decided not to go KJF. Instead, I would try to push on Europe, along with UK and Russia.
The first thing I looked for was a safe US landing zone at Archangel. Bringing the US bomber to Archangel is usually very handy. With that, I will take a break from comments from THIS game and introduce a Bunny Reference Guide! (On hunting the Germans out of Africa, specifically trying to target the German battleship/transport early)
Why depart from the game commentary, but mention this German battleship/transport hunt plan? Because you will have to worry about the German battleship/transport in most games. Usually, UK does not luck out like mad at Anglo-Egypt.
(next up – Bunnies lays aside comments on actually planning the US1 turn for speculation on what US1 might have had to plan to do!) Think of it as one of those episodes in which the protagonist visits alternate realities of What Might Have Been.)
US1 (speculation on what MIGHT have happened, but totally did NOT happen this game)
If you’re going KGF (Kill Germany First), you want to keep UK’s income high so it can build transports and escorts. After that, you will still want UK’s income high so it can produce artillery and tanks to hit Germany with. But more importantly, you want to restrict Germany’s income. Every IPC Germany has is a bit more it can build infantry with, and Germany taking in income from Africa is extremely difficult to stop, with it pumping mad amounts of infantry from Berlin and Rome.
So one of the high priority targets for early game is the German battleship and transport.
How can you whack it, and how fast?
R1 build of sub/fighter threatens Germans landing at Anglo-Egypt. Doing so saps Russia of ground units, leaving it potentially vulnerable to a heavy tank build. Caucasus must be held with Russian fighters on it to threaten sea zones up to Southern Europe, in case the German battleship stays south of Southern Europe/north of Libya. Even if Russia attacks and destroys the German battleship, its ability to trade territory in Europe will suffer as Russia is potentially forced to commit valuable tanks to trade territory.
UK1 can destroy the Germans landing at Anglo-Egypt with UK fighter from Indian Ocean and UK bomber from London, followed up by a Russian fighter from Caucasus (or as from Moscow if willing to land in TransJordan, probably only best if Russia sent infantry to Persia on R1 and/or has tanks on Caucasus, to prevent Germany from hitting that pile with mass air. But the UK fighter/bomber attack could easily fail, leaving UK two valuable air units down with the German battleship left intact. With the German battleship left intact, the Russians would almost certainly find a one or even two fighter attack on the German battleship/transport to be bad news. Again, Russian fighters are valuable, but building more can leave Russia vulnerable to a heavy German tank build.
UK2 can destroy the German battleship by using a slightly elaborate plan of flying 1-2 UK fighters to West Russia (depending on how its attack on the German destroyer goes), and bomber to points within Russia. The Indian Ocean fighter can be used to help retake Anglo-Egypt, and land on the Indian Ocean carrier southeast of Africa, to the east of Kenya. If the Germans drop to Anglo-Egypt/TransJordan on G2, UK2 can destroy the German battleship with 2-3 fighters and a bomber, a fairly safe battle that will probably only lose 1 UK fighter, 2 UK fighters at the worst. But this is only if Germany drops to Anglo-Egypt/TransJordan on G2. (Hobbes used this cuteness on me, after which I was ever wary for it.)
US2 can destroy the German battleship by sending a US bomber to Archangel, and flying 2 fighters to a UK carrier northwest or southwest of London. (one US fighter from Eastern US, one US fighter from Western US). On UK2, the UK carrier can move to Algeria, leaving US fighters able to hit much of the Mediterranean, as well as the US bomber from Archangel, which can land in Caucasus.
Between the UK2 and US2 plans, the German battleship can be destroyed before G3 rolls around unless Germany does something clever. If the Germans hit Anglo-Egypt / Trans-Jordan on G2, 2-3 UK fighters and a bomber can hit, with UK fighters landing on the car rier. If the Germans do not hit Anglo-Egypt/Trans-Jordan on G2 and stay at Southern Europe, US fighters and the US bomber can threaten 2 fighters 1 US bomber, with additional US fighters flying in on noncombat to the UK carrier if need be to protect the Allied fleet.
Wouldn’t leaving the UK carrier northwest or southwest of London mean giving up a UK1 attack into Europe? (Assuming the UK player doesn’t want to sacrifice transports, and wants to keep its fleet together). The answer is no. UK will probably not be able to attack or reinforce Europe anyways.
Typically you’ll see Germany hitting the UK battleship with sub/fighter/bomber and destroying the UK cruiser at Gibraltar with air, leaving UK with no defensive fleet to work with. The Russian sub may still be alive. But with German subs from the Baltic coming west of France, Germany will usually have something like 1 fighter 1 bomber on Norway, 2 fighters on France, and 1 fighter on Libya (in Africa), plus of course the subs.
If UK decides to invade Norway, the defense will at best be 1 sub 2 destroyers 1 carrier 2 fighters, for 6 hits. Germany, though, will have 2 subs, 3 fighters, and 1 bomber to attack with, possibly even 2 subs 4 fighters 1 bomber.
If Germany does decide to attack, Germany has a fair number of fodder subs that it can lose. Germany will have an advantage in attack, with both superior numbers and higher dice on the attack, as well as sub strikes in case the UK destroyers are lost soon. True, Germany may lose some very valuable air on the attack, and Germany doesn’t have much to gain with only a single UK transport at stake. But if Germany gets lucky, it may destroy a few Allied air units, and destroy the destroyers and carrier before retreating. UK would then have to build another destroyer (for air fodder against the still powerful German air) and carrier (to hold fighters), meaning more delay in building transports, taking pressure off Germany.
Moving the UK fleet northwest or southwest of London, though, will leave the UK fleet out of range of either the German fighters on Norway or the German fighters on Western Europe. This reduces the danger of the German attack on the fleet. Even though UK may not be able to drop to Europe early, it preserves its power to potentially land much harder on UK2, especially since the German subs will have to run from the Atlantic or be destroyed by UK destroyers and air (after which UK can build new destroyers to protect its fleet, supposing a UK2 drop to Norway).
In case Germany builds a few bombers and has good luck in the Atlantic and with its German air, UK may be better off building no navy at all, saving IPCs for a gigantic fleet drop on UK2. This can be joined by the US1 fleet build for a formidable navy that can then move together to threaten targets. Although the Allies are slower to get to Europe in that case, Germany can’t threaten a take and hold as easily against Russia (although the bombers allow Germany to trade territories very efficiently)
Once the German battleship and transport are destroyed, the Allies will want to destroy the German forces in Africa. After the Allies have landed at Algeria, US (better US than UK, as US needs lots of transports anyways; UK moving to Africa is seriously inconvenient as it removes UK transports from the picture that could otherwise be moving units every turn to Europe. Each single UK transport can move two ground to Europe each turn. Two US transports are needed for the same job, one moving two ground from Eastern Canada to London each turn, another moving two ground from London to Europe each turn.)
But even for US, moving units to the south of Africa is very inconvenient. Transports sent there are not able to threaten Western or Southern Europe, and take a full two turns to get to a position from which they can be used to transport units from Eastern Canada to Africa (or from London to Western Europe). Still, if Germany is in Africa, and the Axis aren’t pressuring Russia enough to force the Allies to run to Europe early, it is best to try to restrict Axis income from Africa, particularly in a KGF (Kill Germany First) plan. Every IPC the Germans have is more infantry they can build, which makes it much more difficult for the Allies to make real progress.
How can Germany counter all this?
Germany could capture Gibraltar on G1. Or, Germany could build a carrier and possibly a transport in the Mediterranean. There are disadvantages and advantages to both. The advantages, of course, being that Germany keeps its battleship alive. The disadvantage being giving up African income as Germany runs to Gibraltar and allowing the UK Anglo-Egypt units to live (very inconvenient), or buying an expensive carrier and possibly transport.
Even with a Mediterranean carrier build on G1, Germany can only dump a maximum of four units to Africa a turn. US can easily dump eight to ten units. Meanwhile, Germany will have a harder time pressuring Europe, with so many IPCs spent on fleet instead of ground units. The lack of pressure may allow the US to transport units to the south of Africa.
But even then, with two German transports, Germany can control the Suez very quickly and easily, allowing a Japanese battleship and carrier to move through the Suez to further protect the German fleet. In the event that Japan moves a lot of fleet into the Mediterranean, US could make a lot of trouble with a few subs built at Western US. (A Japanese destroyer close to Western US, plus two fighters on a Japanese carrier threaten newly built US subs, but Japan may not be easily able to keep fighters on a carrier east of Japan when the battles in Asia move into the interior near Moscow.
At the same time, though, a lot of Japanese fleet could severely disrupt Allied landings at Algeria, particularly with Japanese air in the area. But the Allies could just switch to Europe drops instead.
What’s the verdict? I’d say a Mediterranean AC build is a defensive build for Germany aimed at maintaining African income, although it could be useful for trading Balkans and Caucasus later. I haven’t analyzed it to the point that I consider it a bad risk (like I do a Russian Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack in dice).
So ends the speculation for what MIGHT have been. Back to what Bunnies ACTUALLY thought, in our next exciting installment!