American Strategy (Video Added)

Couple things come to mind w/USA when just starting out.

1. It could be a while before you see any action. Mostly depends on Japan and the overall axis strategy. Stay loose, observe what is going on, and keep an open dialog with your partner(s). Or just talk to yourself if you’re alone (might give you an edge if the axis think you’re crazy).

2. You need to pick which side to concentrate on early (Euro or Pac). Spend at least 75% of your income for several turns on that side so you will be more effective. The US will generally be aggressive on one side, and more defensive on the other. A US that spends equally on both sides each turn will have a hard time dominating either theater IMO. With that said you also have to be flexible and able to switch gears later in the game.

3. The US will need many transports, and fleet to protect them. You need to build a defensive fleet in the beginning to move into the danger zones to off load ground units etc…(loaded carriers and lots of destroyers).

4. The US needs to use the turn order to their advantage. Need to coordinate with the UK/Anz to bring in more ground support, and air cover once the US makes a landing. Merging fleet with your allies for more defense is always a plus.

5. Point out the strategic launch points like Gibraltar, Queensland, or Caroline Isles.

6. The importance of taking away the axis NO’s like DEI or Norway, while protecting your own or those of your allies.

It’s very situational but I have found these seem to come in handy fairly often for me:

Building a fleet:

1. try to have as many carriers in your main fleet as Japan has (count a loaded airbase as a carrier)
2. carriers and fighters are for defense; subs and bombers are for offense; destroyers are for blocking
3. have 2 loaded transports in your main fleet

Positioning the fleet:
4) Carolines allows you to threaten money islands, but Queensland is ok too
5) z91 allows you to threaten multiple targets, but Iceland is ok too

mobility:
6) Drop a Naval base in line islands or panama to get you to Gibraltar, Hawaii and Sydney in an emergency
7) Bombers in Western USA can cover Queensland to London, and z6 if you have Iwo jima
8 ) An airbases in Suriname gives bomber cover all the way from Queensland and Hawaii to z112 and Egypt

tactics:
9) use ANZAC or British fighters on US carriers for extra rage
10) use ANZAC or British troops on US transports to get past blockers (USA clears blocker, ANZAC/UK lands)
11) always have a destroyer in z10 and also one in z7 anytime Japan has a transport in z6
12) attack kamikaze zones with subs and planes
13) The japanese fleet will be most vulnerable when the spread out to take DEIs, so be ready to pounce from Queensland
14) convoy raid Japan into the poor house

I agree with Wild Bill that you have to make one side your focus.  I’ve posted this before but my preferred round 1 buy with the US is a CV, DD and 4 transports in EUS.  I bring the 2 inf in WUS to CUS and the Hawaiian troops back to WUS.

Turn 2 I like to do another heavy buy in EUS.  You can catch up in the Pacific with heavy buys over the next few turns.

My goal is to land in Europe with a signifcant force and hold Japan off from getting that 6th VC and look for any naval battle in the Pacific that would result in mutual annihilation

@WILD:

Or just talk to yourself if you’re alone (might give you an edge if the axis think you’re crazy).

lol.  This is always part of my strategy against Nippon.

A lot of excellent posts so far.
I have nothing to add. Except perhaps, that whatever the USA does, it must make sure to increase its economy. 72IPCs per turn seems like much, but it isn’t in the late game. I’d say the USA desperately needs >80IPCs per turn in the late game…
As others have pointed out already, the USA needs an early focus in one area with the aim to increase their economy as said, at the cost of the axis power that is picked on. They need that economic increase in order to be able to maintain their established parity/superiority against the axis picked on early and at the same time, opening a second front on the other map.

Only one other thing must be said: Carthago delenda est!
If you don’t know what that means, google it. It is used in one of my playgroups to poke fun of our strategic rantings ;-).

These are all great posts.  I havn’t played a tremendous number of games but I have played the US quite abit in the games that I have played. I too like to go heavy on the European side with loaded transports, destroyers, and cruisers for for bombadment.  I like to include fighters and tacs that can be moved onto Gibraltor or Moracco.  I like to help the UK out in North Africa which weakens the Italians.  Once I get the transport shuttles going back and forth from Gibraltor/Moracco to the EUS, you can threaten the Med. Normandy, or Norway.  Landing in Norway and building a naval base and minor I/C really plays havoc with the Germans.  Alot of options available from Norway.  From the Med, you have all of the under belly of Axis Europe.  Americans in Greece have a better chance of not being pushed out immediately and diverts alot of axis resourses away from Moscow and Normandy.

On the Pacific side, destroyers to block, subs to reak havoc and fighters scattered across the islands with airbases makes for a thorn in the Japaneses side.  A few loaded transports with the existing pacific fleet can help defend Manila and take Iwo Jima.  An airbase on Iwo Jima makes SBR’s on Japan a war of attrition very costly to the Axis.  If the DEI has fallen to the Japanese, take them back for the US income if the ANZAC’s or Pac-UK are unable to liberate them. The US definately wants the ANZAC’s mounting a good naval and air presence.  Encourage them to take the Carolines and the US will have a naval/air base in the heart of the Pacific.  Iwo Jima and Japan are one move away.

becoming a distraction to the axis player; making them move to counter you can take them out of their plan long enough for the other allies to recover from the early advantage the Axis has.  The longer the US can prolong the war, the greater chance for an Allied victory.

Hiya…

Okay this may be long and drawn out for you YGH but I am thinking of shoes for a first time player and they have gotten to play USA.

USA is a good country to play if a player introducing to Axis and Allies or in this case G40. Just like playing Russia I guess or Italy where it kinda less hard core to start off with.

Starting in 1940 b4 the famous Pearl Harbor, so the USA player may be a bit bored due to that nothing happens till a possible turn 3 ( like many of us already said ) due to Political Sit.

Explain that the USA player needs to work with the other Allies to see what there plan is, especially the ones already at war at the start of Rnd 1 ( UK and France with GER/ITALY ). What to buy could be vital. How long should USA wait to be in war, does USA want the full 3 turns, or wishes to be in sooner by provocation by Japan or Germany/Italy. Using verbal announcements I am now at war with Japan and explain the choices it’s just at war with Japan or with the other Axis too ( this maybe our own house rule here folks… ).
Explain the advantages of being at war with an Axis country both sides of waters.

When/how USA land in Russia.

Should the concentration be towards the Pacific OR the European belt, as the USA is in a catch 22 being in the middle of two big oceans with enemy’s both sides, and what to buy best, and non combat moves not at war and then in war.

Talk about the consequences if Japan waits till round 3 to bring USA into war. Maybe it’s the European Axis putting USA into war. What happens next? Explain the relationship restrictions between Japan and USA and European Allies in the sea zones surrounding the coastal territories when not at war.

The mission in the Pacific once at war, the mission in the Atlantic once at war.

Passing of the Panama Canal.

The political situation: The what if’s that could bring USA into war.

What happens when Axis boats are placed in USA waters in a not at war situation as a non combat move. Placing Axis warships in an USA convoy when USA not at war ( what happens now ).

USA Capital is Washington.

Should you hold your IPC money back or spend spend spend?

You can be distracted at one end of the board and not pay attention at the other end.

It could be a very long wait till it is your turn again. It is normally a cat and mouse game with Japan, and a more aggressive support in Atlantic ( again really depends on the focus with the other Allies players ).

What capitals are most important to get for USA in Pacific and relationship with ANZAC and UKP team work.

Does USA play China too. The USA fighter in China ( can’t leave China ).

USA National Objectives

Okay YGH think that’s it!

BH

Hm I don’t get why People think that US is easy to play… And think that Italy is difficult.  :? Italy is most likely on the defense/awkward offense, so they don’t have many options usually. So whats hard to play here?

If you have inapt Axis players who fail to seriously threaten Moscow/London/Calcutta, then sure… US cannot do much wrong… sending troops here and there, grinding Axis forces down so that UK can finish the Job. But if German/Japan know what they are doing, then suddenly USA becomes the power it is supposed to be and is the only one who can tip the scales. At that point no wrong move is allowed for US and a single wrong placement/decision can cost the game.

Please take no offense in this, but I don’t want to put people on the wrong track.

In general my opinion is it should be stated that US is really hard to play.
Why?

1. Long term planning is needed - all routes to the the enemy are usually at least 2 moves away. So you need to know what you have to buy now to hit axis with 3 turns later.

2. Patience - I’ve seen (and as a beginner did myself) many a big US fleet or invasion force just blown away since they attacked prematurely, feeling bold and overconfident with all their mighty fleet. Even after DOW its mostly better for US to place itself in a threatening position to keep Axis on their Toes.
E.g. SZ 91 at Gibraltar to threaten Italy and Germany, hawaii or Queensland to threaten either Japan or DEI, or (if you can get it… Caroline: to threaten both!)
Playing the waiting game is really hard if allied troops in Eurasia getting decimized every turn, but just the fact that Germany and Japan will have to buy Forces to prepare a counter attack helps them. So its not really that obvious or rewarding feeling when killing some axis army or capturing some nice territory, but its nevertheless important.

3. IPC Distribution - the infamous “Kill Japan First” tactic is for sure something nice to begin with and even stick to, although I blame the unit bidding (UK Sub to SZ 98, Ari in Alex…yadda yadda yadda…) with Taranto attack for it, but thats a different story…  8-)
But you never know how the game develops, may be a super lucky Italy gets MED and ME really fast, so USA has to observe closely what theater is getting the upper hand and where its IPCs are needed most. And since it takes long term planning (point 1.) that is not offhandedly done.
The decision where its IPCs should go to, and also into what (planes for fast defense, or Carriers / Transport for preparing invasion) is really not simple.

4. US is a Teamplayer - Where Japan, Germany, Italy and Russia pretty much fight alone, USA can not only REALLY good interact with UK and Anzac forces, but must do so.
e.g. US kills blocker / takes canal and UK / anzac grab DEI or important axis territory. One important example would be: US takes Denmark and UK moves in to get under defended Berlin - I am sure that happened to more than one here… but probably only once.  :wink:
So US moves directly work together with US and ANZACs. And since a lot more possibilities arise out of these interactions, US is turn is getting even more complex.

Thats my 2 cent to that subject so far.  :mrgreen:

Good post Elrood, completely agree with you USA is very difficult when you’re up against skilled axis play in both hemisphere’s.

A lot of good posts, but a lot depends on what happens with the other powers prior to the USA entering the war.
ie Did Taranto fail badly? etc. 
I think you should post your video with all of the what iffs…maybe make two videos.
KJF vs  KGF  (

@jeffdestroyer:

A lot of good posts, but a lot depends on what happens with the other powers prior to the USA entering the war.
ie Did Taranto fail badly? etc. 
I think you should post your video with all of the what iffs…maybe make two videos.
KJF vs  KGF  (

Yep. True. Thats what I am trying to say. USA is a lot about monitoring the map and understanding how the balance in each theater will be in 2 or 3 turns ahead, and then act accordingly. There is no simple winning strategy for them.

@Elrood:

Hm I don’t get why People think that US is easy to play… And think that Italy is difficult.������������������  :? Italy is most likely on the defense/awkward offense, so they don’t have many options usually. So whats hard to play here?

If you have inapt Axis players who fail to seriously threaten Moscow/London/Calcutta, then sure… US cannot do much wrong… sending troops here and there, grinding Axis forces down so that UK can finish the Job. But if German/Japan know what they are doing, then suddenly USA becomes the power it is supposed to be and is the only one who can tip the scales. At that point no wrong move is allowed for US and a single wrong placement/decision can cost the game.

Please take no offense in this, but I don’t want to put people on the wrong track.

In general my opinion is it should be stated that US is really hard to play.
Why?

1. Long term planning is needed - all routes to the the enemy are usually at least 2 moves away. So you need to know what you have to buy now to hit axis with 3 turns later.

2. Patience - I’ve seen (and as a beginner did myself) many a big US fleet or invasion force just blown away since they attacked prematurely, feeling bold and overconfident with all their mighty fleet. Even after DOW its mostly better for US to place itself in a threatening position to keep Axis on their Toes.
E.g. SZ 91 at Gibraltar to threaten Italy and Germany, hawaii or Queensland to threaten either Japan or DEI, or (if you can get it… Caroline: to threaten both!)
Playing the waiting game is really hard if allied troops in Eurasia getting decimized every turn, but just the fact that Germany and Japan will have to buy Forces to prepare a counter attack helps them. So its not really that obvious or rewarding feeling when killing some axis army or capturing some nice territory, but its nevertheless important.

3. IPC Distribution - the infamous “Kill Japan First” tactic is for sure something nice to begin with and even stick to, although I blame the unit bidding (UK Sub to SZ 98, Ari in Alex…yadda yadda yadda…) with Taranto attack for it, but thats a different story…������������������  8-)
But you never know how the game develops, may be a super lucky Italy gets MED and ME really fast, so USA has to observe closely what theater is getting the upper hand and where its IPCs are needed most. And since it takes long term planning (point 1.) that is not offhandedly done.
The decision where its IPCs should go to, and also into what (planes for fast defense, or Carriers / Transport for preparing invasion) is really not simple.

4. US is a Teamplayer - Where Japan, Germany, Italy and Russia pretty much fight alone, USA can not only REALLY good interact with UK and Anzac forces, but must do so.
e.g. US kills blocker / takes canal and UK / anzac grab DEI or important axis territory. One important example would be: US takes Denmark and UK moves in to get under defended Berlin - I am sure that happened to more than one here… but probably only once.������������������  :wink:
So US moves directly work together with US and ANZACs. And since a lot more possibilities arise out of these interactions, US is turn is getting even more complex.

Thats my 2 cent to that subject so far.������������������  :mrgreen:

Amen to that, Elrood.
The USA can also too easily screw up if they are in a False Sense of Security in the Pacific: if Japan is strangling Calcutta and the IJN is therefore far away and Japan is not buying any ships/aircraft to directly threaten Hawaii.
Some USA players then spend too much in Europe, indeed not understanding what you said about thinking 2-3 turns ahead: within 3 turns after Calcutta fell (J3-J5 if the USA is not going heavy into the pacific), Japan has turned around buying a lot of carriers and suddenly it is just impossible to defend Hawaii.

Like Nippon-Koku, I found that, assuming a J1, 2 turns of max spending in Europe is the limit for the USA if Japan is planning for this. Even if Japan is NOT planning for this, because it is very easy for an unchecked Japan to switch gears. This means USA does not have more than 153PUs active in the Atlantic (not counting the US’ initial land units).
For every turn Japan waits with their DOW, the USA can have more PUs active in Europe. For J1/J2/J3/J4 I calculated the maximum ‘pacific-proof’ European PUs from the USA at 165/196/214/214 PUs (not counting their initial set-up land units), during the first 2/3/4/4 turns respectively, without loosing the war in the Pacific and with the requirement that the USA spends 100% in the Pacifc after that till turn 7, to catch up. After that they need to re-evaluate the situation, i.e. at least match the Japanese naval and air production (together with their ally ANZAC). I’ll leave it in the middle if this Euro-scheme is a viable strategy for the USA. Too much controversy about that topic ;-).

About blaming bidding for the possibility to ‘KJF’ (with or without the ‘K’)… Correct me if I am wrong but I think without bidding, the UK will either loose both Egypt and India (which means game over for the allies), or if they realize this, weaken India even further because they bring over troops and particularly aircraft from india to save Egypt. Which hurts, but is not game over.

I have been no fan of bidding but I must admit that the past 1-1½ year has been an eye-opener for me. Bidding changes the opening battles, but does not seem to hurt axis chances of winning the game, although it definately narrows down their options (which is not the same). That is OK to me, since the allies do not have a lot of options as well.

@ItIsILeClerc:

About blaming bidding for the possibility to ‘KJF’ (with or without the ‘K’)… Correct me if I am wrong but I think without bidding, the UK will either loose both Egypt and India (which means game over for the allies), or if they realize this, weaken India even further because they bring over troops and particularly aircraft from india to save Egypt. Which hurts, but is not game over.

Thanks for appreciating my post.  :-)

And the above is subject to some theoretical discussions and testing with nerquen (US income bidding promoter). We are not sure about it yet. And as much as I would like to discuss that, we should not hack YGH thread with such side-topic. But I would be glad to invite you into the discussion / playtest to get some more insight in subject. But elsewhere of course.  :-)

@Elrood:

@ItIsILeClerc:

About blaming bidding for the possibility to ‘KJF’ (with or without the ‘K’)… Correct me if I am wrong but I think without bidding, the UK will either loose both Egypt and India (which means game over for the allies), or if they realize this, weaken India even further because they bring over troops and particularly aircraft from india to save Egypt. Which hurts, but is not game over.

Thanks for appreciating my post.�  :-)

And the above is subject to some theoretical discussions and testing with nerquen (US income bidding promoter). We are not sure about it yet. And as much as I would like to discuss that, we should not hack YGH thread with such side-topic. But I would be glad to invite you into the discussion / playtest to get some more insight in subject. But elsewhere of course.�  :-)

Thanks for the invite, Elrood :-)! I need a break from playing A&A at the moment, but I’d definately like to participate with you guys. I 'll discuss the details any further with you guys in private then, to avoid any possible hijacking :lol:.

Ok  :-) Then lets continue here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35683.15 with that aspect of the game. So this thread is no longer hijacked.

YG, i haven’t played enough times to really develop a “USA Strategy”, however, my thoughts on things i would be interest in knowing would be perhaps to do a few examples like:

1. Euro heavy offense options and buys.  Discuss Norway, Gibraltar, Med, Africa, and combining fleets with UK to Can Open Western Europe.
2. Pacific Defensive (If Euro offensive).  Heavy Sub/destroyer or air perhaps?  Blocking moves.  Island objectives.  Important sea zones

3. Pacific heavy offense options and buys.  Caroline islands, potential naval base, retaking Philippines, splitting japan navy.  importance of carriers, subs, and destroyers.  Can open with UK/ANZAC.  Money islands.  Other ideas on how to neuter japan

4. Euro defensive buy.  (If pacific offensive)  Harass gibraltar/N Africa? Rid atlantic of subs?  Any other thoughts….

Those are things i would love ideas for at least :)

Hi Young Grasshopper-
I don’t have a lot to say about what to put in the video, as I’ve only played Global a few times. 
I just wanted to tell you that I ran across your USSR and Japan videos earlier today while on Youtube and was very impressed.  Japan in particular was a revelation.  Good stuff, and I hope to use in soon.  Perhaps in correlation with this German Dark Skies strategy that’s been getting a lot of buzz on the boards.
Thanks again.

Hey

I will say that some of the most importent things the USA should do on the european map is to control Gibraltar and Marroco to prevent the Italiens getting 2X 5 IPC bonus’s, and then they just have to build up with land units and cheap navel units, so they are ready to move to London in case that London is falling. In the first round they should buy at least 2 transporters for the european map so they can take Brazil in the same round America enter the war. Brazil will act like a money cow…

As other people here wrote it is very importent to act with patience, and be careful to get in a situation where you are a “sitting Duck” The american supply linie is very long. Even that america is earning a lot of money then don’t buy a lot of expensive units, like battleships and carriers, You do also need a lot of submarines and destroyers as a canon fodder, because one unit is still one dice. In the longer run america can buy subs and challenge the italian fleet in med. But be careful not spending to much money in europe, because Japan is getting very strong, and will control all asia, without a american fleet.
In the pacific america should move against the carolines islands, and remember to put blockers up to prevent the hole japanese fleet to attack your fleet…  put one destroyer at midway island to prevent a pearl Harbour :)

In our games of Global, we tend to have mostly Axis victories. I would say roughly 60-65%. We had more Axis victories in the earlier games but now the Allies are slowly catching up. For later games it might even be close to 50-50.

Some of the Allied wins are due to our players learning better strategies and getting more experience with the game. Some are due to the Axis players getting bored with the “usual” strategies and trying something new and perhaps off the wall which ends up not working so well and the Allies end up mopping up the mess.

Odd strategies not withstanding, most of our Allied wins involve the US going hard after Japan first – either actually taking Tokyo out or neutralizing Japan by killing off the fleet and surrounding the island with subs. Between convoy raids and SBRs, Japan is not making much money while China and India whittles down what land army they have left.
Even this only works if Sealion doesn’t happen so UK is still in the game and keeps Italy out of Africa and the Middle East and Russia can hold onto Moscow.

Like others have said before, the US won’t win by spending somewhat evenly on both sides. They just can’t get enough stuff to really overpower the Axis on either side.

I have rarely seen the Allies win with the US going heavy Atlantic and making the Pacific low priority. It gives Japan too much freedom to romp around the Pacific and Asia gobbling up territory and killing Allied units. China, India and ANZAC can not handle Japan on their own without a significant US presence out there, at the very least in a strong enough navy to challenge the IJN. Warships cost money so the US will have to spend a fair amount in the Pacific to even match Japan, much less surpass them. Since it has already been stated that if the US spends evenly in both theaters, they are likely doomed in both, the US might as well spend the majority of their money in the Pacific and pound Japan good and quick. After all, you don’t want to give Germany too much time to wail on the doors of Moscow.

Now, I have seen a couple of games where the US spent heavier in the Atlantic, approximately 75% or so, and the Allies ended up winning, but these were more due to Germany’s failure to take Moscow with no “second wave” to continue the fight. This resulted in Russia being able to build back it’s forces and battle back to Germany (kind of like in the real war). Also, Japan in those games simply failed to take their objectives. Either they just didn’t plan right or got bogged down in some places.

So my advice for US strategy is to go heavy Pacific and take Japan out as quickly as possible, then go after Europe. I know it seems like a tired old strategy and a lot of guys get kind of tired of it, but I think it is the best way to achieve an Allied victory. If you can find a better balance, then good luck to you.