Can the US have naval superiority?

[jsp4563]

@Jennifer:

…Remember, your fighters can defend nicely, but they cannot be hit by subs…so if you have 4 carriers and I get 4 hits with subs, those 8 fighters do nothing but land on an island…

Wouldn’t the fighters get at least one return fire shot at the subs before they landed?

[Guest]

Yes they would, but she is looking at it form the prsopective of sinking your carriers, then you entire fleet is out of the SZ (with FIGs landing on an Island)

Of course, the sub-overload has its own counter…
1 DST to preclude sneak and retreat, BB’s to absorb hits…

[Sankt Hallvard]

By the time you guys are finished countering each other in the pacific Germany will own Africa, Europe(UK included) and Asia. And preparing invasions of America and Australia.

[trihero]

Well I just hope you’re adequately defending your ICs. It’s harder than it looks. If Japan strikes hard at China, it winds up with about 5 inf left there on average, then you dump 2 troops onto the mainland somewhere with your transport on J1. Potentially, the Sinkiang IC is under siege from 5 inf, 1 arm, 6 fig, and 1 bomber on Turn 2 already. Hint: your 2 US infantry + 4 Russian infantry from novo/kazakh are hardly adequate defense. On turn 2 if for some reason the Sinkiang complex is too strong to assault, the Japanese can then swing down into F. Indochina with 6 units from Japan, 2 units from Philippines, the 5 units from China, the 2 units dumped on J1. On turn 3 then 2 more units are picked up from E. Indies and India is hit with 14 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 6 fighters, 1 bomber, and 2 shore bombardments. By turn 3 the UK could only have produced 6 tanks, which means you need what like 6-7 Russian inf to begin to have a prayer at turning them back?

If India is still too hard reinforced, then you can swing again back into China with all those units, threatening the sinkiang IC with a ton of units. That requires another 7+ Russian infantry in Sinkiang because the US could only have produced 6 tanks by turn 4. It may be too hard to expect Russia to front all the troops necessary to defend both of those locations; the ICs alone hardly produce nearly the amount of units needed in that short of time.

Sure, you get a few rounds to attack Russia.  Can’t be helped.  But UK IC in India + US IC in Sink that’s 5 Allied tanks around, 25 IPCs isn’t that much of a drain on the European front for the allies.  Toss in 9-12 IPCs a round from Russia to help assist and put 100% of UK/USSR assets on the german front to fight a war of attrition and you should have at least 8 rounds before Germany’s really threatening Moscow.

Having the UK spend 15 IPCs a turn in India makes a huge dent in its European operations. That is about half its income, and actually turns out to be more than half its income since Africa is quickly being annexed by German troops. It’s left with a very sad paycheck which can either be used to make a half-hearted attempt at landing a few inf in Europe every turn or perhaps attempting to reclaim its money in Africa. Germany still has a very large fleet to be dealt with, and the UK can only build 1 fighter or less per turn in order to try to counter it. You can perhaps stall 8 rounds before Germany threatens Moscow, but is that a good thing?

Russia will be a very poor nation indeed when it’s trying to trade with a nearly 50 IPC Germany on the west an in addition spending 1/3 to 1/2 its income in helping contain Japan on the east. The war of attrition is one that the Germans can easily win when the UK has very little income to spend in Europe and the Russians in addition are sending out large chunks of their income in the opposite direction. What is your proposed UK build?

Even once you contain Japan, maybe by round 6? I consider containing as in they can no longer get troops onto the mainland, not just being a defensive fleet, otherwise they’re easily outproducing land troops in Asia. How many turns does it take the US to produce all those units? A turn or 2 to claim all those territories once contained, a turn to churn out the complexes, a turn to build tanks, a turn to blitz close to Russia, a turn to blitz into Russia, then a turn to finally participate in Europe? That’s a lot of turns to help a dead nation. I also fail to see how you can turn Japan into an 8 IPC nation with all its troops running around in Russia. Most likely it is Russia that is the 8 IPC nation far before Japan is.

I don’t doubt that you can contain Japan, but I doubt that you can stall Germany sufficiently with the remaining IPCs. The UK is very poor in Africa with half or more of its income spent every turn since the first in India, and if the US is spending enough money to reclaim Africa then that gives Japan an extra turn or more to dump more troops into Russia to suppress their money.

Doesn’t it make sense that you should be focusing on Germany? Germany is the most obvious threat to Russia: it is close and has good IC placement, it has a ton of troops and resources. Japan on the other hand is far, has to build transports and ICs, has fewer troops, and less resources. Many of the IPC you gain from Japan are paper IPCs (on islands) that dont help you further stage your attacks, unlike the zones like Ukraine/E. Euruope/Balkans.

[Jennifer]

Sink should have 3 US Armored units, 2 US Infantry and 6 Russian Infantry before Japan could attack the IC there…

Alternate, schmalternate…blah.  A matter of 30 minutes and I’d be whoopin everyone’s bootey and wearing a pirate hat at the same time!  Ever see the jolly roger an a MO class BB?  Scarey thoughts, eh?

[trihero]

Sink should have 3 US Armored units, 2 US Infantry and 6 Russian Infantry before Japan could attack the IC there…

Really, how does that happen? First being that sinkiang can only produce 2 tanks a turn, second being that the US hasn’t even gotten a chance to produce any tanks there when Japan can attack it on turn 2, since the US goes last. If you only have 8 infantry in Sinkiang, an attack force of 5 inf 1 arm 6 fig 1 bomb has a 99% chance to win, and this is on J2.

[Jennifer]

okay, two tanks.  And there are many reasons that Japan would have been slowed down in their conquest allowing for Sink to have 1 full turn of production before enough Japanese forces are brought to bear to cause any real threat.

Though, I might even consider changing that to 1 armor, 1 AA gun…since Japan will most assuredly be using a lot of air power if they attack on J2 or J3.

[Jennifer]

Exactly the point.  As America the trick is to get the Japs to attack you, or at the very least, to tie up Jap resources so they cannot do the Manchurian Shuffle down the Muscovite Way (marching from manchuria to moscow).

You either attack the combined American fleet or loose islands.  Sure, you can take them back, but now you have to invest in transports and infantry to move around the Pacific, avoiding the American Fleet, to retake islands.

Who’s in a better position?  America with 42+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM a round for the Pac or Japan 30+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM?

Add in that America has no reason not to build an AC + FIG each round to supplement (maybe 2 FIGs if they have all the islands later) and you’ll never take out their fleet, even if you do go SSX’s.

Though, I have to admit, if you are going this route you have to follow through.  You can’t go half arsed.  You can still do a 3 INF, 3 ARM shuffle through Africa up to Cauc if you want (though if you did, I’d say go through India and take out East Asia instead) while not detracting from your offensively strong defensive navy.

[U-505]

I don’t understand.

3 inf, 3 arm to shuffle throug North Africa in addition to purchasing a CV+fig per turn adds up to 50 IPC’s per turn. Are you talking AFTER the US takes the South Pacific islands? Or are the 3 inf, 3 arm coming from the UK?

[Jennifer]

Actually, I’d say you work your way up to building them.  After all, for USA Asia is an after-thought.  Your primary goal is to get those islands out of Japanese control.  They’re worth 13 IPCs which translates into an actual worth of 26 IPCs (+13 for the allies, -13 for the axis) and they effect the one Axis nation that cannot afford their loss.

Japan’s response?  Well, they can either attack the American ships giving America a HUGE advantage and hurting their own forces drastically (FTR @ 3 CV @ 1 instead of FTR @4 and CV @ 3, a total of -4 Combat points, or 8 effective combat points)  or they can attempt to reclaim islands which ties up their fighters, transports and infantry giving Russia relief, or, they can ignore the loss of their islands, build a home fleet for defense and hope they can take Moscow before America can sink them (this last is probably their best strategy.  However, none of these really saves them from loss.)

Meanwhile America is in the best position to do what htey want.  A)  It’s very difficult for them to hit Europe in Revised (compared to regular); B) They got a production increase which is MORE then what they loose in Asia Minor (+6 over standard, China/Sink only worth combined 4); C) American carriers and fighters defend just as well as Japanese ones, but don’t have as high of an opportunity cost as Japanese carriers do. (16 IPCs from 30 (53.33% is much higher of an opportunity cost then 16 from 42 is 38.09%).

And the final point of consideration is that American territory, except China/Sinkiang, is all but immune from Axis conquest in Revised.  (In standard as well, only I’d add Hawaii as a threatened territory on J1.)

Meanwhile, USSR/UK seem to do the majority of action against Germany anyway in Revised.  (Assuming America goes through Africa up through Caucasus we’re talking 6 rounds before their infantry can even start to threaten German home territory.)

[U-505]

The problem I’m seeing is that your operational cost assesment is slightly skewed because the Japanese has a much larger fleet presence to begin the game with as well as the fact that the US will only make 42 in their initial bankroll as China will likely be in japanese hands from J1. And Japan will be making roughly 35 IPC’s or more per turn by J2.

Also, don’t forget that Japan doesn’t need to match the US on a CV/2 fig basis. As long as there is at least one island or mainland territory in Japanese hands in an adjacent sea zone, Japan can use 4 fighters per carrier. If the Japanese player attacks your fleet it will consist of 2 fighters from the mainland within 4 moves of your fleet that will land on his/her CV and the 2 fighters already on the CV will move 2 spaces to attack your fleet then one space to an adjacent sea zone then one space to land on an island or territory.

8 fig, 2 CV (+1 TP fodder) on attack is roughly equal to 6 figs, 3 CV on defense( I ran a combat sim for this).

Since Japan starts with 6 fighters and 2 CV’s, assuming Hawaii was attacked J1, it will only cost 28 IPC’s to maximize Japans CV potential while it will cost the US (who has 3 figs left after Hawaii is attacked) 78 IPC’s to match that.

My math is thus: Japan has to buy 2 fig, 1 TP(28 IPC’s) to equal the US buy of 3 fig, 3 CV(78 IPC’s).

That’s a 50 IPC difference that would allow Japan to build a bunch of ground units in Asia. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that Japan has an extra BB and bomber that you will have to spend even more to match. Essentially, 3 turns of US income versus 1 turn of japanese income for both fleets to become roughly equal. 2 turns of income can go a long way for Japan while he/she waits for the US to roll into the Pacific.

[Jennifer]

Exactly, and it works in reverse too.  If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.

3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.

Jap IPC Loss:  204 IPC
US IPC Loss:  108 IPC

And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack.  So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.

[U-505]

@Jennifer:

Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.

3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.

Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
US IPC Loss: 108 IPC

And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.

Wait a minute. Of course you need to build allied CV’s for that attack. Where are your 6 fighters going to land for this attack? And do you think Japan is going to let you move 6 subs within range of it’s fleet without crushing them with aircraft? The only naval units the US has in the Pacific after a Hawaii attack is 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TP. Is that enough to protect your subs from a Japanese first strike? Not really. You also have to add a DD, and a sub to Japan’s forces unless they are destroyed in J1. And to get the 3rd CV in the Japanese fleet you listed it will only cost 16 IPC’s. On the other hand, to get the US forces you listed it will cost 75 IPC’s,(5 bmb) plus 30 IPC’s (3 fig), plus 48 IPC’s (6 SS), for a grand total of 153 IPC’s. That’s 4 full turns of US production not including another turn of production to roll for heavy bombers. Japan could buy 1 SS per turn plus a CV somewhere along the way and still have between 20-25 IPC’s per turn to land units in Asia.

[Guest]

It has been proven over and over again…

In a game where the US goes exclusively NAVAL against Japan, the Axis wins.

There ARE ways to do a successful KJF, but 100% US Naval/Naval Air is NOT it.

[88 Millimeter]

Couldn’t have said it better.

Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.

Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.

A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.

Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.

[Jennifer]

@U-505:

@Jennifer:

Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.

3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.

Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
US IPC Loss: 108 IPC

And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.

Wait a minute. Of course you need to build allied CV’s for that attack. Where are your 6 fighters going to land for this attack? And do you think Japan is going to let you move 6 subs within range of it’s fleet without crushing them with aircraft? The only naval units the US has in the Pacific after a Hawaii attack is 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TP. Is that enough to protect your subs from a Japanese first strike? Not really. You also have to add a DD, and a sub to Japan’s forces unless they are destroyed in J1. And to get the 3rd CV in the Japanese fleet you listed it will only cost 16 IPC’s. On the other hand, to get the US forces you listed it will cost 75 IPC’s,(5 bmb) plus 30 IPC’s (3 fig), plus 48 IPC’s (6 SS), for a grand total of 153 IPC’s. That’s 4 full turns of US production not including another turn of production to roll for heavy bombers. Japan could buy 1 SS per turn plus a CV somewhere along the way and still have between 20-25 IPC’s per turn to land units in Asia.

No, you don’t need too.  If you want fighters you could land them on a nearby island.  However, I was assuming a HB raid only.  Now you’ve sunk their fleet while not risking any of your own ships.

[Jennifer]

@88:

Couldn’t have said it better.

Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.

Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.

A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.

Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.

And yet, I know I specifically sanctioned that the US keep both transports in the Atlantic and send over some troops.  You want to leave france open?  I’ll take it with the UK and bolster with the US.  After all, remember that the US fleet isn’t tied down to the Pac like the Jap fleet is.  If you get too cocky with Germany you might find an American fleet moving into the Baltic.

Besides, in Revised I’ve never seen the German luftwaffe/kriegsmarine sink the entire British fleet.  I don’t even think it can be done given normal dice rolls.  That means UK’s gunna have a CV, 2 FIGs, 1 BB and 4 transports without too much effort at all, especially with the new rule allowing aircraft to land on newly crafted CVs.

How is germany, with 5 fighters, 1 bomber (assuming they didn’t loose any on their first round of offensive combat) going to take out 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 FIGs and 1-3 transports?

[Jennifer]

No, Shadowhawk.  Don’t put a blocker.  Only use a blocker if you think you can’t do enough damage to get through the Japanese BBs to more sensitive targets.  The reason being is you WANT them to attack your fleet!  They loose their best assets in an attack, A)  transports cannot come into the battle as fodder, B) their carriers only attack at a 1, C) their fighters only attack at a 3.  Meanwhile, your assets are increased.  Your carriers now defend at a 3 and your fighters at a 4!

No, the trick to the Pacific front, with America, is to sucker the Japs into attacking your fleet with theirs and thus reducing both fleets to cinders.  Then you can clean up whatever islands you don’t already control and rebuild faster then them.  And without a strong fleet, their land units will get bashed by Russian units moving off the German front (being replaced by British and Americans).

[squirecam]

If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.

That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.

Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base.  Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.

Squirecam

[Jennifer]

@squirecam:

If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.

That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.

Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base.  Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.

Squirecam

But what are the odds America only get’s two hits with a BB, 2 CV, 4 FIG, 4 TRN?  30 pts, or 5 hits on average (LL).  That’s 2 soakers in BBs and 3 actual hits somewhere.  That’s why the US has to sucker Japan into attacking.  The US can match Japan purchase for purchase, meanwhile, Japan’s homefield advantage is severely weakened by forcing them to attack a defending US fleet.