• Exactly Darth.

    I am reminded of my first game with Ezto, where he went USA Pacific.  Japan met him naval for naval, sort of, with Japan matching US offensive power with Japan defensive power.  That left spare $ for Japan to land in Asia.

    And with UK and Russia being totally tied up with Germany, Japan still advanced quickly in Asia.

    And with a few Africa IPC’s, Germany did get enough forces to break through…


  • So the US can have superiority but it seems that it takes an awful lot of resources.  So say the US tries a 5 to 6 turn campaign against the Japanese and fails.  Is it too late to save the Russians from the Germans?  I guess the most important thing is to decide on a strat and stick to it.  My allied friends and I have our work cut out for us but I think with enough UK and US troops landing in archangel in 3 to 4 turns we can pull it off.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I don’t know Hawk, I’m not sure it’s worthwhile. 4 US units won’t be nearly enough.

    It won’t matter that the Allies can out produce Germany, you have to overwhelm them. Remember, 10 german units can easily hold off 15 combined Allied units in groups of 5. Those units would be defensive only and with enough Japanese pressure they would just be forced to slowly retreat to Moscow. And by splitting your US builds, Japan should be making enough money to counter with it’s own naval builds to hold the US off and still land plenty of units to crash Russia.

    I don’t think Karelia is a strategic enough territory to land in. Germany should be funneling units through Eastern Europe so you wouldn’t be able to completely cut off their reinforcements going to the Russian front. You will be achieving FOR Germany exactly what you are trying to do against them. Germany can hold off the Allies in Karelia and still make a push for Caucasus. Plus, without big US fleets in the Atlantic, the UK won’t be landing many units in the early rounds because they will be spending the bulk of their money on capital fleet builds to protect their transports AND the US’s. A large German airforce based out of Eastern Europe can also make shipping units through sz4 a very hazardous place to be.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Yes, but the problem is that you aren’t really going after Japan with everything you have. I see your point that you are simply using the allied units to help defend Russia and reinforce Russian gains. But, I’m just not convinced that it will be enough.

    I can’t see Germany not getting out. Without significant Western Allied pressure, by T3, Germany owns most of Africa so the UK will be lucky to fill 4 TP’s per turn and those units likely won’t include any armor. In that case, Germany can easily go head to head with Russia. Plus, Germany doesn’t even need to own all of Africa. They just need Trans- Jordan. If they have T-J, they can force Russia into a two front war by pushing units up through the Middle East and this will free up Japan to slowly build navy to counter the US fleet and focus their ground attacks in the north.

    Even with a full US focus in the Pacific it won’t be until T3 before the US can begin to press Japan and if you are going to be diverting about 16 or so IPC’s to Europe it will take you even longer. Japan will quickly be earning as much or more than the US and they start with a larger fleet so they can afford to focus early on ground units and turn to navy only when the US begins to become a threat. The longer it takes the US to get into the Pacific the more ground units Japan can produce. The more ground units they produce, the more territories they will take and the more money they will earn. That situation can snowball out of control if the allies aren’t careful.

    The poster asked if the US can achieve naval superiority. The way I see it, if the US spends every dime in the Pacific then, yes they can. But, if they split their income between Europe and the Pacific, then I think they can’t.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, alright, I’ll agree with you there. The US can get close with a full 1st turn naval build. But that also depends on variables that neither of us nor the original poster addressed. By the time US1 comes around a whole lot of crazy things could have happened. He never really gave us the whole picture. What did Russia and UK do in Asia? What did the UK do with their Indian ocean fleet? What did Japan build? Did Japan attack Hawaii or not?

    Our criteria for attempting a US fleet buildup in the Pacific could be miles apart, too. As far as I’m concerned, In order for me to even think about going after Japan with the US, Japan would have had to have taken a beating in either Hawaii or Asia and I would need to have seen some type of support in Asia with the Russians and/or UK. Otherwise, I think Japan is more than capable of swatting the US fleet and still put enough pressure on Russia to get an Axis win in the majority of cases.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I believe that the US should attempt Naval Superiority in the Pacific… as if they don’t the Japanese can pour ALL of their IPC’s into Asia which NO Russian player wants… with the American’s distracting SOME of their IPC’s to the Pacific by putting ALL US IPC’s there… then the Japanese need to choose between a split … giving the US Superiority… or Putting all their IPC’s into keeping up with the US.

    Japan cannot have enough money to keep up with a FULL US pacific campaign AND take ASIA.


  • Not quite true… if Japan is building DEFENSIVELY, then yes they can.

    Japan can get 11 points on Naval defense with a single AC build and land based FIGs, FIGs that can still be used in Bury, China or even India depending on the location of your AC’s.

    From then on out, Japan can get 11 more points of defense for 36 IPC’s.  Spread over 2 rounds, that still allows about $25 IPC to be sent to Asia, with the TRNs to support Asia adding to your defensive fleet.

    To get 11 points on attack with navy, you need to spend a LOT more than $36.
    2 BB and 1 DST is 11 points and costs $60
    6 SUBS gets you 12 points and costs $48, but must be protected with surface ships or they are sunk by Carrier based FIGs before they even get to attack.
    4 DSTs costs $48 for 12 points of attack
    And with AC’s and FIGs, you have to spend $62 for 2 AC’s and 3 FIGs.

    Against that kind of IPC outlay, it will take many turns for the US to be able to punch through a consolidated Japan navy… turns which are used to reduce US income in China and Sinkiang, and start making more IPC’s in India, Bury, etc.

    Meanwhile, Germany has only 2 opponents, and for 3-4 turns they can keep the UK navy at bay with startig navy, an AC and their air power… that leaves Russia outspent 2-1… gates of Moscow before UK even has the ability to land forces…


  • The only case when US can have a confident surperiority is when Japan is very aggressive in Asia and the US is nearly 100% comitted in the Pacific. Even though there are many ipcs to have in the Pacific it is better to Support your allies in Euope.


  • One other factor for the US fleet…

    Japan land based FIGs

    If Japan has a defensive fleet that can withstand a US attack, then with the addiion of land based FIGs and BOM, Japan CAN attack the US fleet on any round they get within range of both the fleet and the land based AF…

    And remember, from Japan’s perspective, all they have to do is kill the TRNs, preventing units from being moved to take islands.  All the BB’s inthe word can;t take an unoccupied territory…

    So… STRAFE… then interdiciton of the new trannies being shipped forward (or to pretect new trannies, the US has to sail back to California, get the TRNs, and sail back again… 3 TURNS WASTED…

  • 2007 AAR League

    The point that Switch is trying to make is that the US will be operating in Japanese controlled waters. Once the US moves beyond the Solomans they are subject to having naval reinforcements from the Western US cut off from the rest of the fleet in the Pacific.

    Switch knows that by strafing the US fleet and trading TP’s the US will be unable to take any more islands. His reasoning is that after trading TP’s, Japan can strategically position their fleet to rebuild their navy and transports safely while at the same time threatening the oncoming US reinforcements which will force the US to retreat their advanced fleet back to protect their reinforcing units. Newly built Japanese warships and transports are immediately useful while newly built US ships are not. A transport trade sets the Japanese back 1 turn but it sets the US back 2 or 3 turns. And Japan can perform this action as many times as is necessary until Russia falls. It’s very effective and I agree with him completely.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

    And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose.


  • "But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

    And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose."

    Are you saying that KJF is a good strategy?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @newpaintbrush:

    "But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

    And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose."

    Are you saying that KJF is a good strategy?

    Wouldnt really know, but I wouldnt discount it off hand.  I’m sure it is a way to go, at least a new flavor!


  • Jen, you missed part of the point…

    Japan only “turtles” with navy, and only agianst the US.  Not like Japan can ever make a serious hard-core strike at Western US early in the game anyway!

    So, they turtle with navy… lots of AC’s and FIGs… and TRNs for fodder.

    But those TRN’s can bridge land units to Asia just fine in NCM movement.  Those carrier based FIGs can attack a LOT of Asian territories and still fly back to their carriers when they are through.

    So Japan has NOT done a full blown turtle… they have only consolidated their fleet and massed against a US strike while still sending forces to Asia…

    You also forget that by the time the US can even get a good fleet int he Pacific, they are down to $38 IPC’s of income (losing Sinkiang and China) and Japan is collecting MORE than that via India, China, Sinkiang, Bury, SFE and Yakut ($40 total IPC’s for Japan right there…)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    In a KJF strat, Japan should be loosing islands while they turtle the mainland.  Sure, they can send forces in land, but Russia should be moving troops at them as well while UK does what it can to help defend Russia’s western front.

    Once you can sink that Jap fleet, everyone can go for Germany while the US baby sits the two sea zones around Japan with some fighters and carriers.


  • If Russia is focussing THAT heavilly on Japan to prevent Japan from making progress, then Germany will be in Moscow on G4 ish.


  • @ncscswitch:

    If Russia is focussing THAT heavilly on Japan to prevent Japan from making progress, then Germany will be in Moscow on G4 ish.

    Russia’s objective is not to fight Japan.  Rather their objective is to be Stallin (pun intended) the Japanese forces as they attempt to enter deep into the Soviet Union.  2 inf at a time to go keep Japan occupied is enough to buy time and to let the US and UK mess up Germany bad.


  • 2 INF won’t do it, not against the 11-14 units that Japan is sending toward Moscow starting in J3…


  • @ncscswitch:

    2 INF won’t do it, not against the 11-14 units that Japan is sending toward Moscow starting in J3…

    Im not saying USSR can do it by itself.  It is after all Axis and Allies.  😉 US and UK intervention in Asia is needed for Russia to survive.


  • But the US is buildign Navy in the Pacific, and the UK is screwing around with a South Africa IC… that means that Russia is FRACKED.


  • The UK and US would have to either heavily reinforce Moscow or push hard in Western Europe to keep the Germans at bay.  Russia cannot take the chance of sending the bulk of their force east when all the early pressure comes from the west.


  • But tha tis not what Jen posted… she has the USA 100% against Japan in the Pacific in a Naval Showdown…


  • @ncscswitch:

    But tha tis not what Jen posted… she has the USA 100% against Japan in the Pacific in a Naval Showdown…

    If US is 100% against Japan in a naval showdown, then Russia is F’ed in the A.  Theres no way UK can help out Russia if Germany can wield all their navy against them.  Thats why US has to be balanced.  They can anyways, with all that cash.


  • I have been in many games where the US goes 100% Pacific and it never works out so well for Russia.  The UK loses control of the Africa quickly and if the US doesn’t help they don’t get it back.  Russia just can’t compete with Germany in production so if the US goes 100% Pacific then the bad guys win.


  • In most cases, I would have to agree.

    KJF is POSSIBLE, but the risks are extremely high, and there is no room for error… or bad dice.

    In fact, were you to establish a set of KJF House Rules… rules that required say 2/3 or more of US production went to the Pacific, then you would probably also need to institute an ALLED bid to keep the game even.

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 26
  • 5
  • 57
  • 5
  • 8
  • 73
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts