What about an American Battleship strategy?


  • @Ender:

    Great analysis, except for - what’s missing - hmm… oh yeah you don’t account for Japan doing anything for 7 ROUNDS!!!

    Guess what - I could checkmate Garry Kasparov in 7 moves if I can work with the assumption that he doesn’t make any moves to counter mine.

    LOL

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Try it out once before you condemn it.

    It doesn’t sound like much, but your Japanese fleet is checkmated.  That means America has free run in the Pacific so I’ll be bleeding off a lot more then just some units from Russia, I’ll be depriving Japan of resources from the Pacific AND bleeding units from the Russian campaign.

    That means it’s Russia and England vs Germany.  54 IPC vs 40.  That’s a lead for the Allies.  Is America helping?  No.  Does America really help in KJF before round 7?  No.  (They help a little, but honestly, the trickle of one or two units while cowering behind England’s skirts isn’t very significant until about round 7 when you FINALLY have enough there to actually attack something.)

    Meanwhile, you COULD run the battleship strategy. (There’s a submarine one, a carrier one, a fighter one, and a conglomerate one as well.  I’m not a one trick pony.  But the title of the thread is “What about an American Battleship strategy” so I listed a battleship strategy.)

    I notice you enjoy just declaring by fiat that something won’t work but, like a political candidate, you refuse to post a plan on how you will stop it.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I think Russia should try an All-Battleship strategy. How could it go wrong? I mean what with all the bombarding and repairing that battleships can do, it’s fool-proof!

    Russia and England won’t be totalling 54 anymore if all America has been doing is building a navy of battleships.

    Without US help, Japan and Germany will take away most of the UK’s land base pretty damn fast, long before the US is in a position to really threaten Japan. That tips the income balance in the Axis’ favour, and then Germany and Japan can focus their joint might against Russia, taking Caucasus early on.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    Meanwhile, you COULD run the battleship strategy. (There’s a submarine one, a carrier one, a fighter one, and a conglomerate one as well.

    ORLY?

    Are you telling me there’s a strategy in which I build all subs, one in which I build all carriers, one in which I build all Fighters?

    And then there’s one in which you purchase a variety of units? Wait, stop, that makes my brain hurt. Isn’t it best to just choose one unit and only build that? Mixing different units, that just sounds like asking for trouble. Then you have to remember the differences, etc… I would only recommend that for ADVANCED players maybe.

    :-P

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Silliness aside, yes.

    There is an all submarine one
    One with carriers in it
    One that is almost all fighters (very little carriers as opposed to the one with lots of carriers and fighters in good proportion)
    and the Battleship one.

    Honestly, I like the battleship one.  7 Battleships are going to play all kinds of hell with the Japanese navy and their maneuvers on the mainland.

    Without Japan helping in Russia, Germany’s going to be hard pressed to earn 22 IPC against Russia and England.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    Without Japan helping in Russia, Germany’s going to be hard pressed to earn 22 IPC against Russia and England.

    How about
    @Sensible:

    Without US helping in Europe, Russia’s going to be hard pressed to keep Germany at bay.

    or
    @Another:

    Without US helping in Europe, England’s going to be hard pressed to make any inroads on Germany.

    You continue to amaze and surprise with your ability to apply logic on one side, and not equally on the other.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 3
  • 9
  • 2
  • 8
  • 34
  • 31
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.1k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts