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.
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
