USA - Russia

When they reduced the IPC value of SFE and Yakut to 1 (and added a Buryat worth only 1 IPC) in Revised, the game designers really disincentivized either the Allies or the Axis to pay much attention to the Soviet north east.  It is just too damn difficult to have much effect on the game outcome going that route without a large commitment of forces.  Japan has the easiest time committing those forces of any player.  For the U.S., it is plain silly, unless the Japanese player does something very foolish, like leaving that route wide open (in which case, the Japanase capital is likely also wide open!).  Even in that case, the U.S. forces are probably too far away in any event to take advantage.  A U.S. Pacific strategy can only succeed by going South (via the Solomons).

The only time this might be worth something is during long games where the US navy is working the southern pacific and the IJN is nearby, a 2nd US carrier fleet up north would then do two things:

1). Supply the russians with a back door cover/support
2). Keep Japan honest at home either with units and/or some sips of decent defensive power.

I would agree that Island hoping would be a better method for a few reasons.

1 ) The US wouldn’t gain much defending Russia, as captured Russian territories revert back to Russia. Most island are out of range of Tokyo based FTR’s and it will take a few turns to get them in range of any US fleet.

2 ) Any territory on the Asian East coast are subject to Japan’s air attacks and therefore so is the US Navy that got them there. For Japan to loose 10 IPC FTR’s to take out your 10 IPC FTR’s and you 8 IPC transports filled with 6 IPC’s of INF and your 12 IPC destroyers seems to be in better favor to Japan. You don’t want the US to get into a economic competition with any one. They should be economically superior to the Axis not competing with them.

These are just a few of the things that would worry me as the US player.

-LT04

Island hoping also represents (in addition to the IPC improvement) another advantage to the US/Allies over a Siberian Insertion…
Access to Japan VC’s.

Going via SFE really does nothing in terms of winning the game, not in terms of economics (except to bleed the US dry), and not in terms of VCs.

Go south with the US in the pacific though, and you have all of Japan’s VC’s (and some nice income) arrayed before you with a variety of potential targets each turn (forcing Japan to either leave something open, or spread too thin).

Japan’s too close.  Messes with U.S. fleet.  U.S. forces landed in Asia can’t move anywhere but towards Russia, no room to take IPC territories, as if US goes south, Japan can attack at any point, while U.S. can be cut off from reinforcements.

I also think this point is worth mentioning.

On Japan 1 they attack Hawaii, only leaving the US 1 Battleship and 1 TRN in SZ 55. If the US insists on maintaining a presence in the Pacific on US 1 they could move the DST from SZ 20 to SZ 55.

Let’s just assume these two things:

1 ) That Japan lost every thing at Hawaii. 2 ) The Japan player raises an eye brow at the US not retreating and building and moves every other Navy unit to Okinawa (just b/c Japan can use this as a central focal point that every other Navy unit can get to on J2.) Japan’s navy now comprises of:

1 CV w/ 2 FTR
1 Battleship
Let’s just say they didn’t loose the TRN in the Pearl blunder

We see here that nether country has bought any thing yet but Japan has a bigger stick even though we accepted ridiculous losses into this scenario for the sake of debate. If we assumed that Japan lost say two units at pearl (more likely) Japan’s Navy would comprise of:

Battleship x2
CV x2
FTR x 3 + 1 from Tokyo
TRN x2
SUB x1
DEST x1

Now let’s subtract the Pearl losses lest say the SUB and the Battleship took a hit and recovered.

Japan’s Navy is superior to the US Navy no matter how we look at it. I don’t like getting into Navy battles to much b/c at the end of the fight all you have to show for it is a crippled fleet and no new territories to supplement the losses.

If you still insist on having the US focus on Asia first build a Navy in the safety of SZ 10 and when they get to be a sizeable force then move them into the Pacific. Just keep in mind Japan started with a sizable Navy and if the Japan player becomes aware of your intentions can easily out number you by the time you get there.

-LT04

I agree with those that said the better bet is for the US to go south and Island hop instead of trying to land in northern Russia.

@losttribe04:

If you still insist on having the US focus on Asia first build a Navy in the safety of SZ 10 and when they get to be a sizeable force then move them into the Pacific. Just keep in mind Japan started with a sizable Navy and if the Japan player becomes aware of your intentions can easily out number you by the time you get there.

-LT04

US can still build in Sz 55.  You’re right Sz 10 to 20 to 55 gives Japan too much warning.

Consider this, US buys 2 ac, 1 ftr or 1 ac, 1 bb while moving your dd to Sz 55 on US 1.
Now, I unify the UK fleet in Sz 30 on UK 1 to provide another threat as well.
Usually with Japanese attacks on Pearl and Chi on J1 they can’t confront the US1 fleet placement on J2.  And 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb, 1 bom is usually enough to scare them back to Sz 60 permanently, and if they hit the UK fleet in Sz 30 it probably cost them 4-5 units, then hello US Naval superiority by US 2.

Now you do have to be fairly confident you can handle Germany with Russia and UK or at least stop them short of Cauc with only minimal US support.

I prefer a bit of a delayed approach with US aiding in the Atlantic in the first 2-3 rds to get things going then setting their sites on Japan.

But if you scare Japan out of the water they will have to move inland into Russia, India and US held forces in China. Your plan could back fire and make the Japanese player go ballistic all the way to Moscow with minimal resistance until they get to the Moscow threshold. By then they could have already built a IC in Manchuria, and possibly taken one from the UK in India. So what the US has the Pacific then you were just an accessory to murder of one of your allies.

I know that may or may not be the way the game would play out I just think you need to consider the fact the Japan is going to have to go some where. An Axis by-law of wining the game is you must expand rapidly and avoid or overcome allied containment barriers. If Japan hits a wall in the Pacific they will have to go some where else and me personally would rather have the Japanese player build a costly Navy and take Midway (0 IPC), Alaska (2 IPC), Hawaii (1 IPC), New Zealand ( 1 IPC) and Australia (2 IPC) for a grand total of 6 IPC’s spread out over two countries.

If Japan went to the mainland and took both US territories (4 IPC) India and Persia (4 IPC) and Yakut, SFE and Buryat (3 IPC) they have now almost doubled there occupied territory income and spent some where from less to just as much to accomplish that (not to mention possibly taken a India IC) then they would have on a costly Navy to take Allied islands.

Just my two cents,

-LT04

That is certainly a valid concern.

What you want to do (if Japan just goes all out Moscow), is pick off EI then Bor as they start to stock up in the Sin/Novo area.  Now for all the gains in Asia they are down 8 big island IPCs (that go to the US).  Depending on how you do it as the US, if you take Bor, then Japan MUST always place significant forces in Japan to protect against a “sneak” direct assualt.

I think the earliest I would feel comfortable in moving to Sol Is (if Japan ignores the US) would be on US 3.  Which means I probably hit EI on US 4.

While Japan can make an early push they quickly run out of steam once the US takes EI and/or Bor.

@losttribe04:

An Axis by-law of wining the game is you must expand rapidly and avoid or overcome allied containment barriers.

You can use this against the Axis if they are just trying to gain early IPC with no substance behind it.  Japan may look big and earn 45+ but if they only have 1-2 inf in each ter they are no threat to take Moscow, provided Russia is stockpiling troops in Wrus/Cauc/Mos and US can make its move in the Pac.

But you are right, it certainly could backfire and we didn’t even mention Germany which could be a big problem.  It can be very situationally on whether the US should even bother with the Pac or a Pac strat, but I have found it quite effective when they do.

I agree with you that if Japan moves fast they spread them selves thin, but that might not be a problem for Japan if Germany is constantly bombarding Russia’s western front. Russia might not want to fight smaller skirmishes and keep its main fighting force in Moscow. I would definitely think this since all those territories are only worth 1 IPC and won’t reimburse the cost of a single fallen infantryman.

-LT04