@vodot Yeah, definitely seems like the US would need some kind of economic boost if they have a split economy. I bet playing like this would be more historically accurate and more fun, especially with more than 2 players.
KUSAF(kill usa first) strategy?
-
I am thinking a different strategy kusaf for the axis, istead of japan going for calcutta most of the time, and germany for Moscow, Leningrad and London in most games i played.Sometimes if japan already has calcutta, germany just goes easy way obliterates the soviets and takes moscow and leningrad, (3 victory cities) and axis win. Has anyone ever tried kusaf and how did it workout for you? (thinking KUSAF strategy mostly because axis go easy, like I said, never attempt to conquer usa, and its “almost” impossible even with a not very experienced usa player.) :-D
-
An interesting strategy, I once playtested it against Hard AI on triple a. In my opinion there are two scenarios in which you can capture the USA:
1.) Capture the Western USA “by chance” - The US player simply did not notice that a japanese transport could reach the american mainland.
This happend to me once, I have to admit 8-) This is very unfortunate, but the US player will be able to recapture it in 2 turns. The greater problem is that you cannot really build a strategy on it. therefore no. 2:2.) Capture the US by establishing a convoy over Alaska.
This is a strategy I once tested, and there are even some pros:- Alaska is worth 2 IPCs
- Alaska cannot be reached within 1 round from the Western USA
- Alaska is only one move away from the japanese-adjacent seaszones
- You can build a factory in Alaska which can produce 2 units a turn
This may sound quite good at first, but you have to be aware that the US player can still produce damn many units to protect his land since he will probably still have 38 IPCs/turn. Going US first means you won’t invest too much on the asian battlefield and thereby will not have 50+ IPCs to compete with that.
This strategy should work if the US player goes KGF. Even if you cannot establish a bridge head in Alaska, he has to spend some IPCs to get rid of those japanese units on his territory.
Try the strategy for yourself, but for me it only worked when it was clear that I had won nevertheless and therefore could spend a lot of IPCs to establish a bridge head in Alaska. But of course I am not a big fan of this strategy since I am a passionate Allied Player who usually goes KJF ;).
I hoped it will give you some ideas, am am always open for counter suggestions :)
-
The USA can produce so many units on the west coast in any turn that either it needs to be “by surprise”, which unlikely against a decent player, or the move is telegraphed by the accumulation of TTs and units.
Alaska can act as a landing ground for accumulation of Japanese units, as identified by the previous respondent, but the USA’s economic clout allows it to build so many units in response. Don’t get me wrong - I have won with this strategy, but not against a reasonable opponent.
All of which means I agree with sephiroth7707.
-
Another problem w/ KAF is that there’s virtually no way for Germany to help support Japan’s attack on the US. It’s close to impossible for Germany to even get a base in the Western Hemisphere to use for refueling bombers, let alone for building enough infantry to make a dent in the USA’s territorial holdings. As Germany, anything you leave in the Atlantic overnight will be sunk by Britain (Britain can afford to build pure air once it sees a coordinated KAF strategy), and there are zero Western Hemisphere territories within a one turn’s move of the Baltic Sea or the Central Med.
That said, the Alaskan attack by Japan can be a very cost-effective way of draining American resources while Germany is driving toward Moscow or London, because it gives you a way to deploy your extra starting Japanese fighters in the opening. I find that Japan starts with more fighters than I really need in Asia. Sometimes the US player will rely on a tank build in California to sweep you out of Alaska – but then if you manage to trade Western Canada, even at a loss, that buys you another turn of Alaskan production.
-
Yes i agree. Ive played this game on triple a as the axis vs allies on easy AI, and it took me awhile to subdue usa (the only allied power left). I eventually did, just for the fun of it, (i think around turn47)(probably never going to do that again!) :-D But it took a painstakingly annoying lot of time and build up, even though axis controlled almost everithing. The japanese built a factory in brazil and just kept bombing the us, while germany built up ,took eastern canada, built a factory there, and eventually took Washington. With 63 fighters , 27tanks and 21 infantry, and 12 bombers. Then planes flew to canada, and a german tank took West usa and west canada on next turn by blitzing. The one thing i dont like about playing this game against AI,(i dont know about other ones yet, havent tried playing them), i had to built up a HUGE force as germany cuz i wanted to be sure to take usa. Because it seems like to me the computer is trying to “hack” almost every single roll for his favor when he ends up in a predicament :-), and i end up losing battles as the axis that i should have won guaranteed, were it a normal table board game. Having the computer roll for you, and rolling dice yourself is not the same thing :-D
Suggested Topics
