Suggestion for U.S. strategy



  • I think I’ve found a new strategy for U.S.
    Has anyone ever tried a Minor I.C. in Alaska?
    Once U.S. is in the war, they make 77 IPCs (including N.O.s).
    What I did was I bought the M.I.C., and a naval base, and put it in Alaska. For each turn afterwards I bought 3 submarines, and they start to stack up. If Japan is smart, they won’t leave any ships without a destroyer in z6.

    I just want people’s thoughts on this strategy.

    -MadPup77



  • What’s the advantage to that versus just building subs in SZ 10 and moving them to Hawaii?
    You certainly have more options from Hawaii.



  • You don’t have to wait a turn to hit Japan. You place them, next turn they’re in SZ 6. You place them in SZ 10, next turn Hawaii, next turn SZ 6.

    -MadPup77



  • I think that extra turn is worth the 27 IPCs it takes to get the necessary infrastructure set up.
    And you can hit several important spots from Hawaii, as opposed to only SZ 6.
    1 DD in SZ 7 would render those subs impotent anyway.
    You can build 10 subs in SZ 10; that’s certainly sufficient, I would think.



  • An Alaska IC can be a good way to get ground units into Soviet Far East if the Japanese are all over the eastern USSR.  3 transports and some carriers and destroyers in z3, with infantry built in Alaska and tanks driving up from Western US.  Its an expensive project though.



  • Setting up a shuck like that is certainly an option.

    In my opinion that cash would be better spent on subs and carriers, in order to make Japan pay for splitting up its ground forces.  They’ll be stretched so thin that they’ll have to give up on a certain theater after a while.  In addition, you’d need a lot of fleet to cover those 3 transports that close to Japan, so Japan might be able to advance in other areas - like Hawaii/Australia - more easily than they might otherwise.

    A dedicated US liberation force in Siberia is certainly plausible, though.  It’d sure make keeping Russian and Chinese territories a huge pain in the butt.



  • I see your point on the 27 IPCs Alsch91. I think if you’re willing to spend it, it can be useful. But it is expesive.
    One other thing I used it for (towards the end of my last game) is, 1 transport, 1 infantry, and 1 artillery.

    -Mad Pup



  • You’re right, it’s an expensive thing to do but you can also use Soviet Far East as a bomber base to SBR Tokyo.  Each new load of ground units protects the bombers and you put pressure on Japan to waste a ton of expensive units trying to get rid of you.  That’s going to be tough though because replacements from Western USA are always just 1 turn away, and their losses are hard to make up with the repeated SBRs and UK/ANZAC convoy raiding.

    As for liberating Soviet and Chinese territory, if a sizeable chunk of the Soviet far east infantry and AA are left, then when  US ground and air units take territory the Soviet stack can move in to reinforce before Japan’s turn.  If you get down into Manchuria you can also mobilize Chinese and keep goin south to starve Japan of its lucrative holdings on the mainland plus deny them 2 VCs.



  • I had tried a minor industrial complex and a navel base in alaska. The idea is good. But you are vulnerable for a counter attack from japan, and if the complex fall to japan, the U.S must work har to get it back. I know the us get around 70 IPC. but they can’t use 70 IPC at only one teahter, without any costs at the other teather. The americans have to use many ipc on ground troops to kick the japanese out, money they can´t use at their feet. If the allies shall have a change to win america need to splitt its economy…

    a good japan player will foced you to protect alaska with a lot of units…



  • @MadPup77:

    I think I’ve found a new strategy for U.S.
    Has anyone ever tried a Minor I.C. in Alaska?
    Once U.S. is in the war, they make 77 IPCs (including N.O.s).
    What I did was I bought the M.I.C., and a naval base, and put it in Alaska. For each turn afterwards I bought 3 submarines, and they start to stack up. If Japan is smart, they won’t leave any ships without a destroyer in z6.

    I just want people’s thoughts on this strategy.

    -MadPup77

    minor ic in alaska is only good if u really need that 31th unit in usa mainland for 15 ipc.

    for all other cases u can just buy from other factories and move them into position.

    buying 3 subs per round of coast of alaska (with navalbase) is the same as buying 3 subs per round in wusa, but u ll have 30 ipc profit if u do it in wusa (u lose 1 round to move subs from wusa to hawaii = u lose 1 round to build a fac in alaska)


  • TripleA

    Do mostly pacific, and a few subs/dds for the atlantic. or megadrop italy

    Pick one. Try the rush strategies before doing other things. Once you see how it unfolds you will get the big picture for the allies.

    I always found alaska stuff to be kinda silly, west usa produces enough units as it is.

    as far as the positioning goes… meh.



  • A minor IC in Alaska with no Naval Base is what I like to call the “Japan trap”. A “poorly” guarded Alaska with an IC can look pretty tempting to a Japan player. They see that IC and get excited and start making plans to take it, but they have no idea what to do once they have it. Without a NB on it their ships get stranded two turns away from mainland Japan and Japan can’t really afford to build that NB that has almost no use for them. Using that minor IC to try to “take” Western United States is pretty much impossible if the US has most of their IPC.

    The end result is that Japan sends fleet and land units to conquer Alaska for a measly 2 IPC when they probably needed to use those units doing important things. Making Axis powers waste time is just as effective sometimes.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I support the “insane”'s version of events.


  • TripleA

    Yeah I don’t buy the whole japan attack alaska thing, it is pointless when there is so much more elsewhere.



  • Yeah, everybody else’s ideas are wrong. Clearly.



  • cause they are?



  • ghr2 - again, it was an adolescent attempt on my part for justice, which I will never acheive in this format. I immensely dislike people who are dismissive of other people’s ideas. Diplomacy and decency are failing arts in our culture… especially when there are no ramifications for calling another person’s ideas “silly” (see earlier in this thread).

    I couldn’t help myself, but I’m better now. I like Cow just fine even though I don’t know him. I like his avatar. If we played A&A face to face, we’d probably have a good time. I’d buy him a beer or two.

    Just so I don’t get booted from this thread for being off topic, I agree with most that an Alaskan IC would be repetitive - the infrastructure is already in place to accomplish the same objectives in Hawaii and in WUS. If you want to go over the top (fun but only a good idea if you’re also pressuring the DEI consistently), you need to set up a nice steady flow of forces into Alaska, and shuck to S F East. But that also requires some protection for transports… costly.


  • TripleA

    I dropped a naval base on midway once, just because I thought it would be cool. I got to convoy japan and block him from attacking me… so it was OK.



  • Cow - I tried that as well in a game… and I regretted it. I thought I’d be able to threaten S F East, Japan, everything… but fighting on two fronts means you never really have enough IPCs to support those kinds of efforts against a decent Japanese player.


  • TripleA

    Two fronts? I only put like 2 subs and a destroyer in the atlantic LOL.



  • Ahhh… I tend to go with Pacific heavy (a modified Jen plan) for the first three rounds, then throttle back in the Pacific, spending 2/3 in the Atlantic for the rest of the game, to ease the pain on Russia. I’m interested in seeing your Pacific heavy Allied play… we should play a game!  🙂

    Although I don’t like the prospects for Japan in such a game, I do like them for the European Axis.


  • TripleA

    But I want to be axis and win in the pacific @_@. I got to play a tournament game as allies, why would I want to play allies in a casual game right now.

    If you log on the triple a lobby and host a game, sure I take the side that is given to me.



  • I think you have to go pretty much 100% Europe with the USA, because we have been finding that with the new setup in our games that the Axis can grab 8 VC and win in 6 rounds if everyone jumps on Russia and Italy can hold its own in the med and Africa(which they can if they move quick enough and have some German help).  4 games so far with the Alpha 3 set up, 3 axis victories(2 in 6 rounds and one in 12 that was a total fight, but that was our first one), and 1 allied victory(in 14 rounds). We play a lot by computer so its easy to save and come back to a game when we need to walk away, but its rough on the allied players if Russia can’t hold the line and the UK has no fleet.


  • TripleA

    says the guy that gets armor units for russia. infantry attack better. 6 inf better attack than 3 tank.



  • @MadPup77:

    You don’t have to wait a turn to hit Japan. You place them, next turn they’re in SZ 6. You place them in SZ 10, next turn Hawaii, next turn SZ 6.

    -MadPup77

    If you put a NB in Alaska, they can move in 1 turn into SZ 6, via SZ 8 and SZ 7.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 5
  • 54
  • 4
  • 46
  • 27
  • 22
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts