USA: Pacific Fleet



  • I have been thinking about the USA fleet at the start of the game.

    Regardless of what Japan does on Turn 1 the USA sends the entire Pacific fleet over to the East coast.

    The theory is that if the USA sends all the Pacific ships to the Europe map then the USA in most cases will have enough surface ships on the Europe map to do what ever they want. The only IPC purchases on the Europe navy will be TRS and maybe just a few other surface combat ships if need be based on later turns and what the Axis navies are doing.

    The construction of the Pacific fleet starts from scratch on the West Coast in later turns.

    The downfall of this plan is obviously the USA cannot threaten Japan with naval until later turns.

    What do you guys think?


  • 2017

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all points of the compass.



  • @Ichabod:

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

    So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?



  • Allied Pacific fleets enjoy a much freer existence than their European counterparts. They don’t have to worry about every bit of ocean being part of a massive kill zone that the Axis sets up by buying stacks of bombers. The US is also free to move their fleet into position even when they’re not at war over in the Pacific.

    I also believe the Allies shouldn’t decide their strategy before seeing what the Axis are doing for at least the first two turns. Putting all that navy over on the East coast puts it pretty far from the action in the Pacific and so it kind of forces you to focus on Europe for at least a few turns to make those ships count for something. If the Axis know you are going for Europe first, they can adapt their strategy accordingly.

    I would consider putting all my fleet on the west coast. From there it’s only two turns to Gibraltar and two turns to Japan. You can leave both possibilities open and force the Axis to account for both.


  • 2017

    @KGrimB:

    @Ichabod:

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

    So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?

    No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.



  • @Ichabod:

    No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.

    Agreed. Altough sometimes I like to purchase a couple of ships on the Atlantic side, just see if I can lure Germany to buying navy as well.


  • 2018 2017

    In contribution to your idea, I’d repeat that bombers built on the WUS can fly to London.  This is a potential head-fake.    The ships take 2 turns to transition (or onto west indies naval base, so money spent on that), but the bombers eff. take zero turns.

    same mech/s armor–they can look to be ready to load in san diego for a while but orders change and instead they head to Newport news.

    and the original mechs, as useful as they are, could drive in tempting circles to confuse the enemy.



  • @Ichabod:

    @KGrimB:

    @Ichabod:

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

    So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?

    No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.

    I disagree with the 100% on Japan spending. Of course every game is variable, however from my experience, a strong presence in the Atlantic is essential for Allied victory.

    If the German and/or Italian navy’s happen to survive a few rounds after an initial G1 Royal Navy wipe-out, and after a Taranto raid (or any other string of events in the Med), they can make an Atlantic crossing treacherous. And this becomes a real issue in those mid to later rounds where Operation Barbarossa is rounding its second summer and the Americans need to start putting pressure on the Western front. Essentially, if the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, the last thing that you want to worry about with the Americans is getting troops across the Atlantic. You want to completely control the Atlantic, have a free flow of troops.

    Take the Atlantic, and make it undeniably owned by the Allies first, then start ramping up the pressure in the Pacific. A few aircraft carriers and a few planes over the first couple rounds is a nice way to begin the Pacific buildup, and still have to mobility to solidify control of the Atlantic.


  • 2017

    @tambo264:

    @Ichabod:

    @KGrimB:

    @Ichabod:

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

    So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?

    No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.

    I disagree with the 100% on Japan spending. Of course every game is variable, however from my experience, a strong presence in the Atlantic is essential for Allied victory.

    If the German and/or Italian navy’s happen to survive a few rounds after an initial G1 Royal Navy wipe-out, and after a Taranto raid (or any other string of events in the Med), they can make an Atlantic crossing treacherous. And this becomes a real issue in those mid to later rounds where Operation Barbarossa is rounding its second summer and the Americans need to start putting pressure on the Western front. Essentially, if the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, the last thing that you want to worry about with the Americans is getting troops across the Atlantic. You want to completely control the Atlantic, have a free flow of troops.

    Take the Atlantic, and make it undeniably owned by the Allies first, then start ramping up the pressure in the Pacific. A few aircraft carriers and a few planes over the first couple rounds is a nice way to begin the Pacific buildup, and still have to mobility to solidify control of the Atlantic.

    You’re describing what I said which is the US spending on the Atlantic around round 5 or 6. And IF the Germany player is spending on navy and stuff in the Atlantic to go after Washington late game, of course react to that. I doubt a solid axis player would do that. I think that description already means the axis won’t win that board game. Just my humble opinion.



  • @Ichabod:

    @tambo264:

    @Ichabod:

    @KGrimB:

    @Ichabod:

    I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

    Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

    So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?

    No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.

    I disagree with the 100% on Japan spending. Of course every game is variable, however from my experience, a strong presence in the Atlantic is essential for Allied victory.

    If the German and/or Italian navy’s happen to survive a few rounds after an initial G1 Royal Navy wipe-out, and after a Taranto raid (or any other string of events in the Med), they can make an Atlantic crossing treacherous. And this becomes a real issue in those mid to later rounds where Operation Barbarossa is rounding its second summer and the Americans need to start putting pressure on the Western front. Essentially, if the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, the last thing that you want to worry about with the Americans is getting troops across the Atlantic. You want to completely control the Atlantic, have a free flow of troops.

    Take the Atlantic, and make it undeniably owned by the Allies first, then start ramping up the pressure in the Pacific. A few aircraft carriers and a few planes over the first couple rounds is a nice way to begin the Pacific buildup, and still have to mobility to solidify control of the Atlantic.

    You’re describing what I said which is the US spending on the Atlantic around round 5 or 6. And IF the Germany player is spending on navy and stuff in the Atlantic to go after Washington late game, of course react to that. I doubt a solid axis player would do that. I think that description already means the axis won’t win that board game. Just my humble opinion.

    I took your comment as a call to build only on the Pacific side until round 5/6. And that is what I disagreed with, as my belief is that dominance of the Atlantic is an absolute must in order for thew Allies to put any pressure on the Western/Italian/North African Fronts. Dominance in the Atlantic is also fairly simple, if you contain it right from the start.

    Just my opinion as well, the Americans game is very reactionary. Holding the Atlantic opens up many strategic options in Europe that can be, and sometime need to be, acted on quickly.


  • 2017

    I do mean the US should not build anything Atlantic side unless the Axis are contesting the waters. Yes of course don’t let Germany or Italy sit on Gibraltar and threaten stuff they shouldn’t Otherwise, when where Japan is knocked out with a 100% US effort I often lose. When it’s like 80/20 spending by the US or going full blown Europe side, I’m more likely to win them. It’s way easier for Germany to spam a bunch of infantry/ mech infantry and bombers and cover everything while still building for like a round 10 Moscow.

    Whereas a hard effort against Japan from the north by Russia and everything else is really hard. Their planes can’t be everywhere and they don’t have enough ground if the allies just keep shoving everything. Come play me on triplea sometime.

    Russia and the UK can hold Moscow and the Middle East long enough for the US to get Japan in check and then switch their builds at that critical moment.

    Playing the allies is really hard and the timing has to be practically perfect.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 2
  • 4
  • 6
  • 5
  • 20
  • 6
  • 13
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

41
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts