West Coast Garrison

In the case of a KGF strategy I would think that the US could initially get away with just putting their 2 infantry from Central into the West and wait for Japan to prepare a strike… at which time they could put a destroyer of the coast and 9 extra infantry in the West.

I tend to play with a “Kill both Axis at the Same time” strategy… so I tend to leave the East completely undefended and put 4 infantry in the west just incase SOMETHING gets passed my awesome navy in SZ 55!

You might want to try this.  When doing a KGF, don’t just build Inf in Eastern US and move them up to Eastern Canada for the shuck to UK or Africa.  Instead, build some in Western US, move them to Western Canada, and then to Eastern Canada (tanks can do this in one turn, Inf in two).  Yeah its a little slower to set up than builds from Eastern US, but once in place it keeps two stacks on the west coast to deter Japanese adventurism.  If you build just in the east, the mere threat of a Japanese invasion can cause a one turn disruption in the US shuck to Europe at a crucial time.

you can build all your land forces i w usa and by round 3 you will have the shuck in place

@frimmel:

I had heard that idea before of building in LA and moving them to the East for shipping to Europe. I was just wondering how much you need to distract an average Japan player into making a significant advance yet still cost him in the invasion and not need to much to hammer what is left without making a hiccup in your shuck shuck to Europe. I also play a guy who likes to do annoying things that can’t really be let go.

I usually set aside 3 ipcs per turn with usa to put one infantry into west us.  I don’t usually use LA to build troops (maybe tanks sometimes) because you can see japan coming.  Sometimes they will try to sneak into alaska but you will know if they are holding their transports to try to be disruptive.  Adjust accordingly.

By default I’ll try and put most of my US troops in Wus.  It is just as easy to set up Shuck-Shuck from there and really doesn’t set the US back at all.

Something like this:
Rd 1 buy 2 trns, 8 inf (maybe a plane instead of 8 inf)
Move Cent Us to Eus, Wus to W Can
Place 2 trns in Eus sz, 4 inf on Eus, rest on Wus

Rd 2 buy 1-2 trns rest inf (maybe a plane)
Move Wus->Wcan->Ecan
Place 2 trns in Eus, 4 inf on Eus, rest in Wus

Rd 3 on, now you can buy a trn when needed, place the minimum in Eus to cover the new trn, but now the bulk of your troops should be coming via Wus->Wcan->Ecan

And you don’t really lose a beat.  Japan is no threat to really land and cause any serious distruption to you getting troops to UK and Europe.

One of the worst things you can do is set up a Eus->Ecan move only to have Japan mid-late game (when they already earn 40+) land in both Hi and Ala.  It doesn’t cost them much to due so and can really mess up the US logistically if they aren’t prepared.

They key is not to over buy transports as the US on rd 1 or 2.  Just buy the minimum you need.  Then fill in the excess trans later when you have the troops in place to use them.

So long as the US begins placing at least 2 INF into Western in US1, move the starting Western and Central forces to WCan, and then from WCan to Ecan, the US can maintian a presence in the West AND still be keeping the supply line full to Europe.  Once you have the supply line “full” you can even pull the Alaska INF out and leave AK vacant… swamping any Japan forces that land there from WCan and not losing your INF to BB fire.

You don’t need to worry about protection too much, the US starts with 2 dd’s and 1 bb (outside of Pearl) and add that to the UK BB they start with in the Atlantic and you are just about set.  Right now, I like the AC buy with the UK which can then support 2 ftrs and set you up for a strong defensive Navy.

You should have 4-6 trns for the UK and then the US trns, it will make it very costly for the Germans to attack and would actually be to your benefit provided you set it up right.

@DarthMaximus:

You should have 4-6 trns for the UK and then the US trns, it will make it very costly for the Germans to attack and would actually be to your benefit provided you set it up right.

Why would you ever have more than 4 UK TRNs?  UK can only produce 8 units, so it can only fill 4 TRNs.  Unless you are buying extra just in case Germany attacks to lose as casualties w/o interupting the troop shuck to Europe.  Not sure that is efficient use of IPCs……

If you have the income as UK, and if Germany has forces that create a threat, it IS cost effective.

One other consideration… slow-shuck of US forces using the extra UK TRN…  UK moves to ECan, then US boards.  Next round UK move TRN back, then US offloads.  Same speed as an out-and-back shipment form EUS.

@ncscswitch:

If you have the income as UK, and if Germany has forces that create a threat, it IS cost effective.

I guess if the UK is making enough money to be able to fill four TRNs and still has enough cash left over to buy a 5th TRN, the Allies are doing well enough that the UK can afford to make an inefficient buy.  As the Allies, I’d rather Germany lose his airforce sinking TRNs than buy TRNs I can’t effectively use so that Germany does not attack and keeps those fighters alive for defense of Berlin.

And no, I don’t consider the “slow shuck” you describe ‘effective’ use, more like ‘well I got nothing better to do with them’ use.

I was thinking 5-6 because then the UK can threaten Ger, EE, or WE with more then just 8 units.

You drop off 8 units to Fin, now on the next turn the max to hit any territory from the UK is still 8, but if you had an extra tran you take 2 inf from Fin and now bring 10 units.  Imagine an assualt on EE, you’ve got 8 units in Kar, 8 in Fin, and 8 on UK, with the extra tran you can not only bring in the 8 from kar and 8 from the UK but also 2 extra inf from Fin.  Those 2 more inf could be the extra hits you need to crack EE or sufficiently damage them for the US follow up.

It really isn’t that ineffecient at all.  Consider this on UK 1, Non-Com your ships to the safe side of UK.  Buy 3 trns and place them with the 2 you already have.  Reinforce with US ships and Russian sub.  You got 5 trns ( +2 US), 1 BB, 1 DD (US), 1 sub (Rus).

Even if you go AC and trn on UK 1 instead, that means you only need to buy 1 trn each over the next 2 turns which isn’t bad, IMO.  You should still have excess income (by that I mean more than 24 IPC).  Which means you can afford more air, or perhaps that other tran.  I actually like the air alternative, but I also don’t think it hurts to be able to threaten with 10 units even though you can only place 8.

This all assumes Germany didn’t buy trans for the Baltic on G1 or isn’t making a play at the UK.

Exactly DM. When I’m Germany and I see only 4 Brit transports I know exactly how much the UK can bring to my flanks. 5 or 6 transports allows a constant threat of 10-12 land units to W Europe, Germany, and E Europe, as long as you’re operating in SZ 6 or in the Baltic. It forces Germany to either hold back more troops from eating Russians- or if they don’t you can land with more force, which might allow you to land U.S. troops w/ fighters to reinforce. Which for Germany is scary.

When defending my flanks as Germany I use Britain’s transport capacity to determine how strongly I defend my coast- if Britain can’t destroy the entire force then the U.S. can’t land fighters- if they do it can easily put them over the top and allow them to hold the territory.

4 transports for Britain does make sense logistically- if you’re more concerned about getting help to the center of the board then don’t buy more- but more does have its advantages.

Back on topic. A west coast garrison is important, especially the logistical method outlined by others. I’ve made the mistake of not defending it and had to deal with a constant Japanese flow- I over-corrected in the next game by defending W Canada so heavily that it was impossible to take. I think a better idea is a compromise- a light continuously moving garrison of 4 Inf (with an AA from W US if any Japanese airforce is nearby), with Armor built in W US- also constantly flowing east- is plenty. If Japan wants to devote resources to that then it means Russia is able to breathe a little easier.

Darth and 88,

That is a good point, using extra TRNs to quickly move units previously placed in Norway/Kar to assault EE, WE, or Berlin along with the 8 units built in the UK.  It’s still not exactly something I’d probably do myself.  I like to buy 4 Inf and 4 Arm with the UK to load 4 TRNs, and that costs 32 IPC which is sometimes more than the UK makes depending on what’s going in Africa, India and the Pacific.  So I rarely have the expendable $$ to buy an extra TRN, and if I do I’ll probably use it to buy a fighter every couple of turns or place an IC in Norway.

And I’m also a believer of not having more TRNs than ground units to transport them with.  With DM’s proposed UK1 buy of 3 TRNs for a total of 5, you don’t have enough money left over to buy enough ground units to fill those 5 TRNs.  You can buy 2 Inf, plus 2 starting units from Canada plus 4 starting units from the UK.  That’s 8 units for 5 TRNs.  Not something I would do, but I guess it’s not terrible.

In summary, while I now see the greater flexibility for massed attacks to the flanks that extra TRNs provide, along with the extra fodder it provides I already recognized, it is still is not something I see myself doing.  I just think there are better uses for UK $$.  But I reserve my right to change my mind in the future.  :-)

James- I agree that the UK often doesn’t have the cash to build extra transports. The flow of a particular game would dictate that purchase. I’d use it at a key time when Germany is threatening a key position to force them to move some troops into defensive positions or keep them at home.

My secret (don’t tell anyone) UK first turn move is 2 Transports/ 3 Infantry/ 1 Armor. It provides the UK the opportunity to deliver 8 land units on UK2, which is pretty devastating that early in the game. It forces Germany to make quick decisions regarding the defense of France/ Norway. It relieves pressure on Russia. If the idea is to get the maximum number of Allied land units to the mainland in as quick a time as possible, what’s not to like about that purchase? I’ve seen that purchase single-handedly demoralize someone who had never seen it before. It works particularly well if the person purchased a Carrier, as German land forces are in shorter supply. Germany has to choose immediately- defend my flanks or give them up to go after Russia?

A British Carrier on UK1 hasn’t made sense to me since I started using the 2 Transport strategy. Take all Allied navy to Algeria on turn 1, build two Transports out of range of German aircraft. Or sit in SZ8, and let the US join you for added protection (works best with a US1 build of a Carrier and 2 Transports), go wherever you desire on turn 2 and then build a Carrier, after your infrastructure is in place. Now your British and US fleets can act together or independently, as each will have Battleships/ Carriers/ and Transports rather than one nation relying on the other.

Well, there is the issue of “timing” an attack on Alaska (or Mexico or Panama, but usually Alaska)…

TWO turns before the Axis gets ready for their final push on Moscow, Japan lands HEAVY in Alaska with INF.  This forces the US to divert WCan INF and WUS ARM to throw the Axis out of Alaska… meaning that 2 turns later, those forces are NOT landing in Norway or threatening Western Europe.

It allows the Axis to remove the US largely from teh equation on their final drive to Moscow.

The trick is, the Axis MUST have enough forces in Asia to TAKE Moscow, otherwise the diversion of Japan forces prevents a second round of strong assault and gives the Allies the game.