US tactics

Here’s my take on the US way of playing.

I think it’s important for the Us to harass Japan in the Pacific, especially since J has such a high IPC value concentrated on three islands. The problem is that US can’t spend too much IPC toward that goal since they have to help the Brits and Russia in their quest for a better Europe.

I usually spend my whole first turn income on a Pacific fleet: one AC, one tranny, 2 tanks and one sub. That gives me a Pac fleet of 1BB, 1DD (from Panama), 1 AC, 2 Fig, 2 Tran (filled up) and 1 sub. That fleet is decent enough to HOLD a sea zone. By holding I mean taking a defensive position which would be costly to attack. There is no way that fleet can attack and defeat the Jap navy. But the point is not to attack, it’s to threaten vital ressources. By holding Solomon, which was suggested earlier on, you can target vital areas ( 3 islands worth 11 IPC total) plus Japan itself, which if left poorly defended could be taken by your 2 trannies.

Basically, the goal of this taskforce is to take one of the three high IPC islands, hold it with your fleet in a defensive position until you can build an IC there. A lot of people argue that an island IC is a waste, that you should put it in FIC or Kwangt, but I disagree. Trying to hold a mainland territory with your supply chain so spread out is a suicide at best. It won’t be possible to hold a territory for the 3 turns it takes to start producing units on your IC with only 2 inf and 2 tanks (plus maybe 2 fig).

On the other hand, an island IC can “easily” be held out since that in order to reach it, Japan has to punch through your navy. I assume that Japan could probably destroy the US navy, but at what cost? If they plan to land on the island, they have to take casualties on ships beside their trannies, which is what US wants. And beside, even if they blow the US navy out, they don’t have the island yet. They still need to retake it, which leaves time for the US to reinforce with their IC.

Other advantages of an island IC over a mainland one is that it covers more ground. Navy build from the East indies can reach Africa, Asia, Australia and all the important islands in the Pac. East Indies is also out of reach of Japan sea zone… which could be a good or bad thing… good for it allows you more time to build the IC (if the Jap navy was originally in SZ 60 or 61 when US first landed on EI)… bad because you can’t strike Japan with your newly bought unit.

Another advantage is the possibility of building more units (4 instead of three). Let say J attack US fleet and retreat after doing some damage (in order to repair their BB)… the next turn US can build 4 ships right in J territory (2 subs and 2 DD would be a great boon for the US).

But I’m rambling on…

So basically first turn US build its fleet, move to Solomon on turn 2 and attack East Indies on US3… which gives the US an operationnal factory on US 5 if everything goes smootly… but it rarely does  :wink:. During that time, starting on round 2 I build a lot of troops and trannies to help the allies deal with the German threat.

Wood the Rook

Balls to the Wall for Europe.

You actually get better results against Japan that way by making Germany send more forces to Africa and to Western Europe with a sustained and massive US push that allows Russia to float a few troops east than you get by sending the US into the Pacific.

Call it an indirect assault if you like :-)

Not to mention it is a heck of a lot cheaper to do.

Still ncscswitch,

I think Wood the rook has some great thoughts…
Indeed, you take some pressure of Germany, but only for one or two rounds…
Instead, you make Japan deal with something he didn’t expect at all…
so, USA takes the pressure of Russia in the east :-P

I will certainly try something similar with USA and let you all know how it worked :-)

Switch,

Russia sending a few troops to the east doesn’t give you control of the 11+ IPC in the Pacific. Russia can only slow down Japan… they won’t be able to stop them. One turn of purchase is not that much for all the pressure you put on Japan. If the US succeed in building the factory you can be sure that Japan has lost control of the Pac and won’t be able to put much pressure on Russia… who can then put more pressure on Germany, which compensate for the one turn US didn’t put pressure on them. So for one turn of purchase, sure you delay the Europe landing for one turn… but you gain an edge in the Asia/Pacific theatre of operation. Plus the Africa landing is not really delayed since you can still send the two starting trannies to the south.

Wood the Rook

if japan knows what they are doing your usa fleet is usually scrap the round after taking one island, then they can recapture the island at their leisure and with smart purchasing they will not lose too much drive into asia.  i think it can be done by the usa but i feel you need your atlantic shuffle in place and the pacific drive would come around usa4-5.  your europ/africa support will be less but if it reduces japan’s asia push by more then you have a net gain.  if i pull usa next game i am trying it (i am getting VERY annoyed with work schedules, our game this weekend has been canceled  :x)

Crit,

Let’s say that on US2 the US fleet moves to Solomon.

On J3, the Japs can either:

1- attack the fleet if they are in range;
2- move to SZ60 to protect Japan.

If they don’t do either you can attack Japan with 2 trannies, 2 figs and 1BB… maybe taking it… a big plus  :wink:

If they do attack… well it’s going to be a bloody battle since US fleet is better a defending and that, usually, the J fleets haven’t linked up yet (depending on what they did on J1 and J2). So it’s probably going to be a wash out. I think in this situation Japan has the upper hand since it’s highly improbable that US will spend more money in the Pac.

If they decide to protect Japan with their fleet, on US 3 you take East Indies. On J4 Japan moves it’s fleet in range. On US 4 you build the IC. On J5 Japan attacks the fleet, wipes it but suffers high casualties… especially if the UK fleet came to fortify the US fleet (I usually spare my AC + 2 trannies + sub as the UK just in the event Us would do the above). They might be able to take the island on this turn but my guess is that their transports are destroyed during the sea battle. Either that or they don’t have much air support because it went to the sea battle… so I think the island won’t fall on this turn. On US 5, you can build either ground units + air units to defend (for a total of 8 units on the island) or you can buy 4 boats (2 subs and 2 destroyers… or an AC + 2 fig + 1 sub). Given this, Japan cannot take back the island at their leisure. It’s still a big pain in the ass.

My take on this is that Japan has to be slowed down… and I think this is the most efficient way to do it. Not only will you take out some of it’s income, but you will divert it’s attention from the Asian theatre (if they bring trannies to take the island, they don’t disembark troops in Asia). US will also increase it’s income, negating the loss of China. All that at a cost of one turn. I think it’s a great strat… unless the US fleet is sunk at Solomon.

I also believe that going to the Pacific on turn 4 or 5 is a waste of time. By that time, Japan has a hold of Asia and doesn’t need it’s fleet for support, so they can deal with the US menace more easily without disturbing their flow of troops.

Wood the Rook

A Solomon strike simply does NOT pan out against a skilled Axis player.

Ample evidence in multiple games posted here.

A Solomon strike simply does NOT pan out against a skilled Axis player.
(quote from switch) i guess i am technologically challenged as well :|
especially on usa1, japan crushes your fleet, with 2BB’s and mass air the “wash” isn’t, usa gets wiped and japan loses a trannie  :-P

is usa4 too slow? india usually falls j3 (unless it is abandoned on uk1) and j4 they are really ramping up in asia so taking some pressure from there is good, the crux of the biscuit is whether or not to loss of european pressure can be handled by uk/russia.  usa walks a very fine line if they go two front, but that is what i am determined to try next time i am usa (of course our games are for fun, not tourney)

Switch,

Skilled or not, if the english player do what they have to do, i.e. take out the tranny, sink the sub and land their fig at pearl… there is a high chance that the Japanese player is left with only a BB an AC and a fig (or two) after Pearl. This small fleet won’t be able to face what the US is putting on the water this turn. So this mean they need to regroup. If they don’t then my plan will succeed. But if they do… and as you said if they strike at Solomon with everything they have on J3… then it was a lot of money spent by the US to sink a part of the J navy. But the dice can play a big part in this… and Japan can loose a lot… so it’s not really a waste on the US part. After all a BB, an AC, a destroyer, a sub, two trannies and 2 figs are not so easy to sink (22 total defense and 9 hit points total)

So I guess you’re right… a skilled Axis player would be able to avoid this… but I’m still convinced it’s a good move to make because there is a lot of other things you can do to avoid a confrontation with the J fleet.

To Crit… why I think US 4-5 is too late… well going against Japan on US 1 like I mentionned takes about until US 4 to become a real threat (having a complex in the Pac with a fleet to defend). Let’s say you start doing what I said on US 4… that means that the US will be a threath at about US 7 or 8… which is way too late to make a difference. For exemple:

Build the fleet on US 4
Move it to striking distance on US 5
Take one island on US 6 (or Japan if not defended…)
On US 7 you can reach the coast of Africa or Asia… hence you’re able to slow Japan a little.

But you must admit that by J6 or J7, the Japanese player has a solid hold of the mainland and he won’t need his fleet to support his invasion… so he’ll be able to easily counter the pressure.

But at the start of the game, when Japan needs his trannies to convey his troops, he can’t afford to go around chasing the bait that is the US fleet.

Well it’s nothing but my opinion…

Wood the Rook.

Also Switch…

You mention ample evidence of the failure of a Solokmon strike in some of the games on this site… but I’ve never seen a player attempt to solely take one island and hold it. Can you please direct me to a game where it happens… or where at least the US player tries to do it. And do not mention your game against Octo… you failed to do anything good with the US navy.

Wood the Rook.

woodie,
how are you losing you 2nd jap BB? if you position yourself right on j1 then the solomon fleet is sunk j2 and with smart buying (imho) you are still putting grunts in asia(i.e. a complex j1) i know alot of people disagree with that preferring 3 trannies but with that IC on j1 then another later you can do things with your fleets you might not have been able to otherwise

To see a major attempt by the US in the Pacific, go back about 5 screens on the Games thread to my game with Ezto.  He tried things like grabbing Wake to use as a static AC along with massed fleet.  You will see how easy (and relatively cheap) it was for Japan to counter even the MASSIVE builds by the US in that game.

There is another more recent game that I played, cannot remember the opponent, but I tried a Solomons strike after doing a pretty good job of getting most of Japan’s navy in Turn 1.  My surgical strike team was immediately sunk, though I controlled Solomons for the duration of the game with 2 stranded INF.  Not like Solomons does you any good.  Pearl and midway are both superior bases for use against Japan, and you can;t even IC Solomons since it has no IPC value.

Crit,

The Japs rarely loose their second BB, I was saying that at pearl, they only have one BB left. Sure J can move it’s second BB into position right away, but it’s rarely done since most player attempt to sink the UK fleet with it. I assume that if you’re aware that the US are going in the Pac, it’s easy to position your fleet to counter most of the threat in the Pac… but that should slow down the troops deployment in Asia… unless you build one or two IC like you suggested.

So I guess that this strat works well when most players expect a KGF strategy.

Switch… I’ll have a look at those games and write back later. Thanks for the info.

Wood the Rook

It sounds like it would be a fun strategy to play if playing someone inexperienced, but the Pacific is so big there is really no threat from Japan for quite some time.  I think it makes more sense on a normal basis to use USA to help fortify Africa, and then build up a tranny system (supported by fighters or a bomber or two) to hit hard into germany.  It takes so long for Japan to move anywhere that America could effectively tunnel forces through africa to prevent Japan from putting pressure on the caucauses (I think as early as turn 5 you can have forces in transjordan 2 inf/1 art/4 tanks/plus air, plus whatever units britain has decided to move into that direction) if you feel that is a worry.  I just think against a skilled player concentrating on Germany is far more worthwhile for the US.  It would be fun to try the island IC though :)

Does anyone who plays as the US advocate the buying of bombers?  I would think that it would be a good idea to maybe have 3 or 4 bombers with 4 or 5 fighters to back up your troops D-Day’ing France or Germany.  I realize that the bombers could get shot down, but with a 1 in 6 chance, that’s 4 out of 24 chances, pretty low deal.

well 20-25 games later my friends and I still use the box rules so generally we always see america getting bombers and attempting to go heavy bombing. im good with rolling 1s (i am know as the pewpew man for double snake eyes) so I haven’t noticed heavy bombing to be too terribly wreckless.  It is a bit unfair but it still takes a long time to amass enough bombers/infantry to actually give you an advantage in a battle and I find that if they are going to go heavy bombing, 7-8 jet fighters with jet fighter defense is an ample counterattack.

First, set up a US fleet to kill the German Baltic then Mediterranean fleets.  Get 6 transports; three to move troops from E. Canada to UK (you march infantry from E. US to E. Canada), and three more to move troops from UK to wherever (Norway, Karelia, Archangel).

On the way, you will probably drop some guys in Africa.

Then you take the remnants of the US fleet and go hunt Japan.

What happens if you just try to build against Japan?  Germany gets Africa and uses those IPCs to beat the crap out of USSR.  UK without Africa can’t produce a lot.  UK cannot reclaim Africa because Germany can smash the UK fleet with the German Med fleet and fighters and bomber.  Germany is rich, UK and USSR are poor, Japan still runs cheapo infantry into the mainland, but switches to fighters and infantry instead of infantry and tanks.  It takes a long time for a US Pac fleet to get going; two battleships, two carriers, a destroyer, four transports, five fighters, and a bomber are no joke to face down, and that’s what US is up against.

Late game, Japan is an easier target than Germany, because Germany can defend its capital with mass infantry, but also use those massed infantry to attack.  But Japan can’t attack anyone unless it has navy and/or air.  Once US has control of the islands and Asia, Japan can build 8 IPC worth a turn, hopeless.

I would agree that it is generally a waste to put any kind of US fleet in the Pacific. That is why I was asking about garrisons for the west coast in another thread. My experience with US Pacific fleets is they are manmade reefs very soon. I have been having much better luck staying out Pacific. You need too many transports and too much to protect them from what Japan already has in the water to accomplish anything. You might draw off some IPCs from mainland Asia. You can put all those trannys in the Atlantic and protect them with much less and still buy infantry!

ive tried the pacific strat 2 times, once i worked great with a usa ic in east indies, once was a dismal failure

And TC…

The East Indies combo success was a fluke.