Does anyone who plays as the US advocate the buying of bombers? I would think that it would be a good idea to maybe have 3 or 4 bombers with 4 or 5 fighters to back up your troops D-Day’ing France or Germany. I realize that the bombers could get shot down, but with a 1 in 6 chance, that’s 4 out of 24 chances, pretty low deal.
well 20-25 games later my friends and I still use the box rules so generally we always see america getting bombers and attempting to go heavy bombing. im good with rolling 1s (i am know as the pewpew man for double snake eyes) so I haven’t noticed heavy bombing to be too terribly wreckless. It is a bit unfair but it still takes a long time to amass enough bombers/infantry to actually give you an advantage in a battle and I find that if they are going to go heavy bombing, 7-8 jet fighters with jet fighter defense is an ample counterattack.
First, set up a US fleet to kill the German Baltic then Mediterranean fleets. Get 6 transports; three to move troops from E. Canada to UK (you march infantry from E. US to E. Canada), and three more to move troops from UK to wherever (Norway, Karelia, Archangel).
On the way, you will probably drop some guys in Africa.
Then you take the remnants of the US fleet and go hunt Japan.
What happens if you just try to build against Japan? Germany gets Africa and uses those IPCs to beat the crap out of USSR. UK without Africa can’t produce a lot. UK cannot reclaim Africa because Germany can smash the UK fleet with the German Med fleet and fighters and bomber. Germany is rich, UK and USSR are poor, Japan still runs cheapo infantry into the mainland, but switches to fighters and infantry instead of infantry and tanks. It takes a long time for a US Pac fleet to get going; two battleships, two carriers, a destroyer, four transports, five fighters, and a bomber are no joke to face down, and that’s what US is up against.
Late game, Japan is an easier target than Germany, because Germany can defend its capital with mass infantry, but also use those massed infantry to attack. But Japan can’t attack anyone unless it has navy and/or air. Once US has control of the islands and Asia, Japan can build 8 IPC worth a turn, hopeless.
I would agree that it is generally a waste to put any kind of US fleet in the Pacific. That is why I was asking about garrisons for the west coast in another thread. My experience with US Pacific fleets is they are manmade reefs very soon. I have been having much better luck staying out Pacific. You need too many transports and too much to protect them from what Japan already has in the water to accomplish anything. You might draw off some IPCs from mainland Asia. You can put all those trannys in the Atlantic and protect them with much less and still buy infantry!
ive tried the pacific strat 2 times, once i worked great with a usa ic in east indies, once was a dismal failure
And TC…
The East Indies combo success was a fluke.
What does “fluke” mean?
Isn’t it supposed to be some kind of an anchor, I don’t think I get your point switch.
-Daniel
It was an odd case.
Against typical dice and traditional strats, the success TC had in that game would not repeat… thus a “fluke”
oh ok thanks…
I was thinking it was something like that, but I had never heard the expression before and when I looked up the word I just couldn’t get it to make any sense at all… (some part of an anchor). :roll:
-Daniel
It may be a “hick-ism”
I am from the PA mountains afterall, where we pronounce ‘creek’ as ‘crick’ and pronounce ‘you’ second person plural as ‘younz’
:mrgreen:
I would support the contention that it takes more than one victory for something to be a proven strategy.
Combining the Jap fleets in SZ59 (Kwangtung) allows you to continue to shuttle troops to asia and be in a position to obliterate the US Solomon fleet if it moves to take one of the high IPC islands. The US fleet would be gone before you had a chance to build an IC.
