USA Strategy/Purchasing

Nope.  That’s terrible.  If you want strength in the Pacific early that badly, buy boats in 101 and send them through the Panama canal.  They can be at Hawaii in two moves

Agree with GM. If you’re that desperate for naval strength in the Pacific, buy a CV and buy the fighters on the eastern side then fly them over.

I have to agree with the no BB crew here.  Every BB equals two subs and a DD you could have bought.

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

@Nippon-koku:

I have to agree with the no BB crew here.  Every BB equals two subs and a DD you could have bought.Â

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

That was me!

And I agree re the BB vs 1DD & 2 subs point. The latter have a 75% chance in attack and 55% in defence against the BB. Cannot think of when I last bought a BB (or a CC for that matter).

I never bought a Battleship. not even in my first game. A carrier fleet is the best!

@Private:

@Nippon-koku:

I have to agree with the no BB crew here.�  Every BB equals two subs and a DD you could have bought.�

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

That was me!

And I agree re the BB vs 1DD & 2 subs point. The latter have a 75% chance in attack and 55% in defence against the BB. Cannot think of when I last bought a BB (or a CC for that matter).

Exactly right.  I know this has been talked about plenty, but I would love to see the price of battleships and cruisers drop.  16 IPC for a BB is totally fair; a CV may only defend at 2 and not even attack, but it can hold two planes, and as we all know a loaded CV is as good as it gets in the water.  So that being the case, why not drop the BB cost to match a CV?

Has a cruiser ever been purchased in an A&A game?  The cost either needs to drop to 9, or keep it at 12 but give it AA ability (not my idea, I just forget who originally suggested this).

Has a cruiser ever been purchased in an A&A game?  The cost either needs to drop to 9, or keep it at 12 but give it AA ability (not my idea, I just forget who originally suggested this).

Keep the cruiser at 12 but give it a keel.

I’ve purchased a cruiser once or twice.
I needed to maximize the defense of a sea zone and 12 IPC for a cruiser for the final part of the purchase was the best way to do it.
Pretty rare scenario though.

@Nippon-koku:

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

The other point is that the heavy US1 Atlantic buy deters the J2 DOW or responds to a J1 DOW. Without the latter, the Axis may consider that USA helping USSR will make it too difficult to pull off the win.

Boy, the BB hate is strong here.

One should take into account the ability of the BB to take a hit and get repaired when considering the purchase. Your opponent will have to when considering whether to attack it.

It’s not an insignificant ability - every time a BB eats a hit and gets repaired, it’s getting the value equivalent of a free sub (the cheapest unit one could lose in a naval battle). Plus of course that amphibious shot makes recapture of islands from Japan cheaper as well.

If you use a BB right, you can use it to greater effect than you can a DD and two subs and end up income-positive relative to the latter purchase.

Building in 101 as an alternative also has the drawback of being a turn behind in the Pac theater. This gives Japan more freedom of action as it will have to devote less to defending SZ6 against early raids.

If people were arguing for a CV purchase as an alternative to the BB I could agree with that. Not so much on the DD/subs, which could be purchased by ANZAC to the same effect anyway while the same is not true of a BB purchase.

Simon: good point as well.  I’ve always been a believer that, even if Japan gets off to a good start because of early US attention to the Atlantic, you can catch up over there.  They still have to come take Sydney or Hawaii, not easy when the US is spending the majority of its money there from US3 onward.

Elk: valid points, but I can’t get passed the thought “Hmm, would I rather have 4 BB’s or 8 subs and 4 DD’s on the board?”

Well said.  I’m glad I didn’t bother to answer and just wait for someone else to say it

However…. If you think about it, there are some interesting things you could do with like 4-5 battleships, and yes I know you could do better things buying something else - that’s not the point

On the other hand, if you’re the attacker presumably the extra hit would be useful. Unless you’re doing an attack which can’t stand an oncoming counter attack.

If you use the BB’s abilities, yes they can be value. But that is quite difficult to pull off.

Interesting math:
4 BB + 10 DD = 160 TUV
vs
20 DD = 160 TUV

The battle is 50/50, but the side with the battleships will have a +14 advantage.  He also can use those battleships for help in amphibious attacks, and send them as free hits on smaller battles.

Mind you that 14 DD + 8 Subs would be even better on both attacks and defense.  Mixing unit types do have advantages in the game.

a BB can be usefull,

Whan doing a J1 DOW i use 2 BB against the US fleet in the Phillipines. The US player scored two (luck) hits with his sub and destroyer. Using the two BB’s to take the hits saves units. Since you own the Phillipines after J1, you can repair the BB’s J2.

I’ve seen many games where te UK battleship in SZ 37 is able to kill a Japanese cruiser and a bomber (if Japan comes in with a cruiser and two bombers an get diced).

The German “Bismarck” is often damaged in SZ 110 or 111. The UK will try to sink the battleship. When te UK comes to kill it you have a chance to kill an English ship/plane and might puts their fleet out of position.

I think the US purchases should be as follows:

US1

2 aircraft carriers in Western US and 2 fighters in Central US (all to meet up on Hawaii on US2) (land the 2 Hawaii fighters on one of the carriers)

US2

2 aircraft carriers in Eastern US and 2 fighters in Central US (all to meet up in sz 101 on US3) (also land tac bomber on 1 carrier)

Note: if Japan has declared war on J1, use your extra IPC’s to build transports

US3

6 destroyers to go in sz 101.

Note: if Japan has declared war on J2, use your extra IPC’s to build transports

US4 and on:

all inf to go in as many trn as possible all destined for Europe and also destroyers to replace any destroyers lost in case Germany is using the Dark Skies strategy.

There is no reason to ever build fighters in Central US.

I trust no explanation is needed.

@ShadowHAwk:

@SubmersedElk:

There is no reason to ever build fighters in Central US.

I trust no explanation is needed.

If you want to build 1 carrier + 2 fighters + 3 other units and place them all in ZS101( german side ). But it is not clear if you build the fighters in central or eastern US as they end up on the carrier regardless.

EUS would still be the better option simply because it gives you more flexibility.  What if you change your mind after the next German turn and decide “Actually, I need to send these to Gibraltar, or a CV in 109 or 110, etc.”

Always pays to give yourself options

What kind of flexibilty we are talking about?
It doesn’t matter if you buy a ftr off of CUS and place it on a CV or buying it off of EUS and either placing it there or on a CV.
They will both reach 109,110 or Gib.

???

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no air base in CUS, meaning the planes couldn’t reach 109, 110 or Gibraltar.

So leaving them on EUS means they can reach all the same Pacific spots, plus being able to reach further in the Atlantic.