US / UK Strategy

@Francis:

Can someone please lay out a simple strategy that maximizes the US and UKs role in the game. Last game I built an IC in S.Africa as the UK and eventually beat germany out of Africa, and America generally sent air and ground units to the UK. Japan ended up gaining a ton of income, which caused us to lose. How can you weaken Japan but still take out germany first?

In my opinion, there is no (good) strategy to weaken Japan but that takes out Germany first.

As far as a SIMPLE strategy, well, you know I like those text wall posts.

Well, isn’t it possible to choose a Germany first but slow down Japanese expansion?
Me and some friends usually use this a first move in a KGF:

-Russia: Place 6 INF in the country bordering Manchuria and land our 2 fighters in India
-UK: Build IC in India and use the destroyer from the India fleet to take out the lonely Jap transport. Take out the Jap sub with the UK sub from Australia and fighter from India fleet. Land the fighter on US carrier.
-US: If possible attack and sink the remnants of the Jap fleet that attacked the US Hawai fleet. Buy transports and troops in the Atlantic preparing an assault on Europe.

This has been used a few times and really slowed down the Japs, giving the Allies enough time to defeat Germany.
I don’t know if it is a good plan, but it has already given me a few victories :lol:

@FM_Rommel:

Well, isn’t it possible to choose a Germany first but slow down Japanese expansion?
Me and some friends usually use this a first move in a KGF:

-Russia: Place 6 INF in the country bordering Manchuria and land our 2 fighters in India
-UK: Build IC in India and use the destroyer from the India fleet to take out the lonely Jap transport. Take out the Jap sub with the UK sub from Australia and fighter from India fleet. Land the fighter on US carrier.
-US: If possible attack and sink the remnants of the Jap fleet that attacked the US Hawai fleet. Buy transports and troops in the Atlantic preparing an assault on Europe.

This has been used a few times and really slowed down the Japs, giving the Allies enough time to defeat Germany.
I don’t know if it is a good plan, but it has already given me a few victories :lol:

I’ve seen similar plays.  Either I ignore Pearl and smash Burytia and accelerate towards India to threaten J2 and almost certainly take J3 for J4 production in India where I didn’t have to buy an IC.  Or I Pearl with destr/5 fig/bomber losing expensive fighters in the process, let Manchuria fall and retake next turn with Japanese transports, then bring fighters back towards India for J3 threaten J4 capture of India again for an IC I didn’t buy.

In the first case, the loss of so many infantry on the eastern front and the accelerated loss of India allow Japan to march through Asia like crap through a goose.  US can ignore it allowing Japan to explode early, or counter with KJF that’s slowed due to US1 Atlantic build.

In the second place, Japan loses precious fighters early, but compensates with not having to buy another expensive IC plus speed bonus for being able to produce on turn following capture instead of two turns later.

In both cases, your two fighters to India cripples your trade ability for valuable European territories with Germany.  With 2 fighters going to India, you can only do WRus heavy (no Belorussia or Ukraine) giving Germany FAR more possible attacks including German kitchen sink attack which can really hurt like hell considering you left 6 inf open on Burytia for Japan kitchen sink attack as well.  Or you could see a conservative play with Japan allowing Russia to gain in Asia for one round before smashing them, and Germany grabbing up African IPCs followed by Japanese capture of India, Allied recapture of Africa, Japanese re-recapture of Africa, and Axis economic superiority play/German infantry defense while Japan attacks Russia.

So if you say you’re pulling CONSISTENT victories with this Allies plan, I’d have to raise an eyebrow.  Frankly, I suck with Axis, but in the cases that I have won, it’s usually after the Allies try to do something like split their concentration as described above.

I disagree.  Stacking Buryatia is not a good move.  It is easily crushed by Japan.

May I suggest moving some units into Sinkiang and putting an American complex there and maintaining pressure on Japan?  This should allow England and America to both knock Germany out of Africa and press reinforcements into Russia.

The idea is not to STOP Japan, just to slow them down.

Try throwing some limited resources towards an island hopping campaign in the pacific.
If you can start nibbling away at Japan’s IPCs, they will eventually have to address it.
When they do, it will take them off the task at hand (Asia) and should give Russia some breathing room.

I usually wait to slow down Japan until they approach Novo/Kaz. b/c if you’re looking to just defend you can stack Novo and this forces Japan either to go heavy both North and Middle or get one of their stacks strafed and if they go south you can shift your stack to Kaz which allows you to hit Per or Sin with added reinforcements in Cauc.

I don’t like putting up the defense at Bury/Yak or Ind, b/c I really don’t think you can slow Japan down all that much unless you are following it up with a full fledged KJF (with heavy US support) so I’d much rather conserve my initial Asian units until it is easier to reinforce with follow-up attacks or I can get more UK/US ftrs in range.

@Bunnies:

@FM_Rommel:

So if you say you’re pulling CONSISTENT victories with this Allies plan, I’d have to raise an eyebrow.  Frankly, I suck with Axis, but in the cases that I have won, it’s usually after the Allies try to do something like split their concentration as described above.

Well, I didn’t say I was pulling consistent victories. I meant a few times, like 2 or 3 times. But thanks for suggesting some Jap opportunities for such an first Allied move. Perhaps my next game will go a little different than the last time…… :-D

@Francis:

I tend to play the axis much better than the allies, and therefore I really am struggling with the UK and US. I posted an earlier poll about where the UK should build an IC. Many said that you should not build an IC first turn. If you do not build one, how do you get UK in the fight. Can someone lay out a first turn for the UK where you don’t build an IC.

Also….If the UK focuses on India and slowing Japan, could the US take Africa on its own? Is building an IC in Brazil a bad move if America has the sole task of expelling the Germans out of Africa?

You may want to review some of the older threads for UK strats to find more complete answers.

Some of the more common approaches:
1.  UK Counter Attack in Egypt on UK1 (India, T-J, SZ35 FIG, UK BOM)
2.  UK landing in Algeria (backed up by a US landing in US1)
3.  UK Fleet unification in SZ30
4.  UK attack on Japan TRN in SZ59
5.  UK attack on Japan SUB in SZ45 (w/ SUB only, or sometimes with SZ35 FIG to land in SZ52 on US AC)

Lesser used options:
1.  UK landing in Norway
2.  UK RAF attack on unreinforced SZ5 fleet
3.  UK attack on Borneo
4.  UK Attack on New Guinea

That should get you started…

Also remember, you don’t need an IC as the UK to “get into the game.” Your answer is called transports. Buy 'em, get enough guys, and start pumping into Norway/Kar. That’ll get the UK going.

Yeah, ok. That’s a plan for the Allies, but without an additional IC for the UK you’re not doing a lot against the Japs now are you? :cry:
I think that even in a KGF you should slow down the Japs as much as possible.

@FM_Rommel:

Yeah, ok. That’s a plan for the Allies, but without an additional IC for the UK you’re not doing a lot against the Japs now are you? :cry:
I think that even in a KGF you should slow down the Japs as much as possible.

One thing not to be dismissed is the role of R against J. Russia has a severe disadvantage which is to have to fight in 2 fronts (Europe and Asia) but there’s also several mitigating factors that can help:

1. Space to trade for time. Japanese INF take a lot of turns to reach the Novo/Kazakh territories (and J using only tanks can be a waste of IPCs by leaving them vulnerable to counterattacks)
2. J has to split its units between 3 different routes: FIC/India/Persia; China/Sinkiang; Bur/Yak

To me the key for a successful Russian defense on Asia consists on:

1. Retreat from dead zones as they appear on any of those territories.
2. Counterattack any J move into a dead zone.

Eventually your the line of defense will be Novo/Kazakh/Persia. Here the key is to be able to have enough striking ability to discourage J from making a strong move and occupation into any of those 3 territories  (and to be able to do so without risking losing Caucasus or R to G). If you are able to land such a force into Kazakh then you’ve effectively disrupted J’s advance (not indefinitely though, always remember that).

It isn’t easy though because R has to be able to switch its efforts between the European and Asian fronts, ideally only focusing from 1 at the time.

@FM_Rommel:

Yeah, ok. That’s a plan for the Allies, but without an additional IC for the UK you’re not doing a lot against the Japs now are you? :cry:
I think that even in a KGF you should slow down the Japs as much as possible.

In a KGF, you want to unite the Allied forces and smash the Axis, not split the Allied forces and allow the Axis to swing against one.  Unite your forces when you can.

Illustration:  You have 100 tanks, and your opponent has 100 tanks.  Seems even, right?

But if your opponent splits his tanks between 2 territories with 50 tanks each, let’s say you hit one of those territories with your 100 tanks.  You lose 25 tanks, your opponent loses 50.  So on the next turn you take your 75 tanks and attack the other 50 tanks; you lose 32 tanks over two rounds and kill the rest of those 50; leaving you with 43 tanks to your opponent’s 0.  43 to 0!  And all your opponent did was split forces between two territories.

Agreed, uniting against Germany is important, but getting your Indian and Australian fleet to the Atlantic Ocean is going to take a lot of turns isn’t it? I think instead of wasting time by transferring your UK Fleets they are better used against the Japs.
But then again, that’s just my opinion and none of you have to agree with me… :-)

Indian Ocean Fleet:

UK 1: SZ 35 to SZ 33
UK 2: SZ 33 to SZ 27
UK 3: SZ 27 to SZ 17
UK 4: SZ 17 to SZ 7

Australian Fleet:

UK 1: SZ 40 to SZ 42
UK 2: SZ 42 to SZ 22
UK 3: SZ 22 to SZ 12
UK 4: SZ 12 to SZ 7

Compared to Japan:

Japan 1:  Build Industrial Complex
Japan 2:  Build 3 Infantry in FIC
Japan 3:  FIC to China
Japan 4:  China to Sinkiang
Japan 5:  Sinkiang to Novosibirsk

That’s assuming that Japan actually wins and HOLDs all that land mind you.  That does not include Russia, England and/or America knocking them back forcing them to stack before advancing.

So yea, you can get that British fleet united long before Japan’s a major threat to Russia.  It generally takes about 10 rounds for Japan to be a serious contender in Russia.  It generally takes 4 rounds for the British fleet to be united.  That’s assuming a KGF game mind you.  KJF and it all falls down to how England and Russia’s dice are in defense against Germany, since Japan’s a non-entity in Asia. (a few infantry, maybe they own the Siberian coast lines and part of China, but really, they’re not putting a lot into Asia like they are in KGF.)

@FM_Rommel:

Agreed, uniting against Germany is important, but getting your Indian and Australian fleet to the Atlantic Ocean is going to take a lot of turns isn’t it? I think instead of wasting time by transferring your UK Fleets they are better used against the Japs.
But then again, that’s just my opinion and none of you have to agree with me… :-)

Think of your existing units as assets that you can invest in (i.e. reinforce with more units) or expend (i.e. kill off to get some gain).

Look at India/Australia.  How are you going to reinforce that area?

The only practical answers are flying fighters or bombers built in London in (quickest), or dropping ground units at Algeria from London (fairly slow but maybe has a chance if combined with US reinforcements) or sailing around the world (frickin SLOW), or building an IC.  Now what happens if you build an IC?  You have to defend it, don’t you?  How do you propose to defend South Africa AND India?  The answer is that you just can’t do it unless the U.S. is helping you in the Pacific.  Either way, you’re talking about time and IPCs.

Now look at the Atlantic.  How are you going to reinforce that area?

A UK/US fleet is relatively easy to defend, doesn’t require IPCs to be spent on ICs, and transports allow you to QUICKLY drop off cost-efficient infantry at any number of different locations in Africa/Europe (i.e. Algeria, or Norway/Karelia/Archangel or Eastern Europe).  But you still have to purchase the transport escorts and the transports themselves, and all this requires time and IPCs.

–

Remember the example of the tanks I gave before.  If you build up strongly against Germany, Germany will find it difficult to stop you.  If you build up strongly against Japan, Japan will find it difficult to stop you.  But if you SPLIT your forces between Germany and Japan, you allow BOTH to ignore you - Germany can ignore you because you won’t have the transport infrastructure to drop infantry into Africa and/or Europe at will (you need to build an escort fleet too), and Japan can ignore you because it takes time and valuable naval units to reach the higher-IPC islands in the west Pacific/eastern Indian.  Of course while both Germany and Japan are not focusing on DEFENSE, they are focusing on OFFENSE, and that means a crack of Russia, which is a big problem.

I can see that placing some units in Africa early requires minimal Allied expenditure, and establishing a Eastern Canada-London-Europe connection also requires minimal Allied expenditure, but I certainly don’t see that happening while the Allies SIMULTANEOUSLY penetrate Japan’s islands in the Pacific to the point that the Phillipines and/or East Indies are seriously pressured.

It would be nice if you could use the Indian and African UK units for some sort of low-investment high-return strategy that would bear fruit immediately against Japan, but it’s probably better to just blow up the whole damn UK fleet and concentrate on Germany if you ARE doing KGF.  There’s a few different ways to do this - attacking an island or French Indochina UK1, going after the Kwangtung transport and using naval survivors to threaten Japan’s fleet, retaking Africa, attacking Japan’s Solomon sub to lessen the fodder at Pearl Harbor, using the Australian transport to cut off the Japanese consolidation to force a weaker Japan attack J1 or a weaker J2 counterthreat after US1; usually most of these involving UK bomber to Persia or China or Yakut UK1 or to Anglo-Egypt UK1 to assist in retake and further threat against Japan.  Those are just a few options of course; you could always do UK1 air build.

But maybe by “using against the Japs” you meant to expend the UK fleet?  I’m finding it pretty hard to keep track of what plan you’re discussing; first you’re suggesting a KJF with US support that’s pretty normal excepting leaving six unsupported infantry in Burytia (better to fly UK fighter in to support at LEAST) but then you’re talking about unifying against Germany which suggests a KGF.  OMG!

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

America buys 5 Transports and shuffles troops, tanks, artillery and AA Guns through North Africa.  Japan will NEVER threaten S. Africa and Germany will never get entrenched enough to slow down the Americans and deny England the money.

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Also -

Main Entry:
  cinch
Pronunciation:
    \ˈsinch
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    Spanish cincha, from Latin cingula girdle, girth, from cingere — more at cincture
Date:
    1859

1: a girth for a pack or saddle2: a tight grip3 a: a thing done with ease b: a certainty to happen