Island hoping. US Pacific Strategy

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@axis_roll:

contributing to the problem in the pacific is the inability of UK to effectively help USA.

It could be something as simple as adding an IC to australia.
I’ve heard ideas of limited complexes that can be upgraded at a cost.

Limited like either only ground units or inf only.
Upgrade to full at $8 or some other dollar cost.

This enables the allies to help defend / slow the japanese expansion while giving the Americans some land base(s) for bombers.

There’s a TripleA mod created by Veqryn that gives UK a complex of its choice as a bid.

I think the game would be better with starting complexes in Aussie and India but its tricky to work out the game dynamics without tipping the balance to either side.

Tech: Increased Factory Production
Nation: Germany
Use: Relax as the effectiveness of SBR is more than halved and rub hands with glee as those captured russian factories start chunking out the troops….

I think this is possible one of the most powerful techs for Germany.

Thanks, I would be interested in the list of changes you made.

I’ll post my complete setup in the House Rules section once I’m satisfied with it. I’m still testing it for now. As you said, it’s very similar to what you have done in the Pacific, but Europe is a bit different. The main difference is that I gave Germany control of East Poland and Baltic States, so the game starts a few months into Barbarossa (late summer or so), while the German still had momentum.

I think the new turn (with J going before UK in both scenarios) order really works against a British Factory purchase.

An Aussie IC seems doable, but I don’t know, its still feels pretty shabby as an island at only 2 ipc. I mean if you have to buy a transport, that’s only one other ground unit in the first turn. Unlike India or S. Africa where you can eventually get those tanks to Russia, Australia requires you to transport everything. It seems safer in 42 than 41 probably (41 feels risky to me, unless your transporting units from India to Australia in the first round), but in 1942 you have the issue of no starting fleet in sea zone 42, which make the whole investment seem a lot less worthwhile.

If the UK was meant to have a second Factory they should have built the Colonial Garrison into the game. With all the other rules floating around, it would have been relatively simple by comparison. Its really the hefty price tag at 15 ipcs that kills it for me. If it was one extra factory for free, or all factories were only 12 ipcs, things would probably work out better.

Let us know how it goes.  Good luck!

@Krieghund:

@timerover51:

2.  Same situation as above, except the UK player also sends a fighter/bomber along in the attack.  The cruiser is sunk by the first strike of the UK sub.  Does the U-boat protect the transport, even though it cannot engage the aircraft, and the aircraft cannot engage it?

No.  Since the sub and planes can’t engage each other, the transport is defenseless.

True enough but i don’t see why the german would choose the cruiser to take the first strike instead of it’s sub.