Can the US have naval superiority?

  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    But you have a decent military between USA and UK already in the Pac.  A few reinforcements, a little russian harrsement and a concerted US effort at collecting islands and Japan’s done for.

  • Moderator

    YES, the US can have superiority.  Well at least it happened to me in a game at DAAK.

    However, I put my bid on Libya then FAILED to take EGY on G1.  So that does indeed skew the results somewhat as Germany was basically removed from Afr on rd 1 and finished off on rd 2.

    Anyway the US was relentless in building an AC and 2 ftrs every turn for the Pacific.

    Perhaps my arrogance played a bit in my downfall as well, as I was happy to see the US constantly devoting money to to the Pac, I thought I could get to Moscow before he could even use his fleet.  But with the loss of Afr I couldn’t afford to waste time.

    The first 2 AC’s for the Pacific I didn’t think much about them, since I think I took Pearl WOL and figure he was just being super defensive.  But then when the AC and 2 ftrs purchases started to come in rds 3, 4, and 5 it started to look very bleak.  With the AC and ftrs, that now makes the US a direct threat to the E Jap sz.  Again I neglected my navy for a bit trying to get to Moscow and it almost worked.  I had Germany in Cauc and Japan in Novo, but he had a heck of a force in Moscow with the UK able to reinforce with tanks  and ftrs from Kar as well as he could threaten a direct landing in Berlin.

    I did eventually have to start diverting money to the Pacific as Japan, but once he moved to Wake Island, I simply didn’t have the numbers to attack.  He had 5 AC, 10 ftrs, 1 BB, 1 trn, 2 DD’s plus another AC with 2 ftrs in Wus sz.  I had about 6 subs, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 2 BB.  A nice defensive force, but offensively it was pointless to attack, since AC and ftrs are both better defensively.  We stocked up on ships for another rd or 2 while he picked off some southern Islands.

    Japan also had a failed attempt on Moscow in the mean time and evetually he crushed my fleet with ~2 AC, 1 BB, 4 ftrs, 1 bom leftover.  Then it was just a matter of time.

    Germany later failied on a last ditch effort on Moscow with 40 inf, 2 rt, about 6 arm against 20+inf, 10 rt, 10 arm, 6 ftrs.

    I certainly made mistakes but I think the US can wage a successful Pac strat provided 1 KEY FACTOR, Germany is removed from Africa early and you don’t split your money.

    Now that I’ve seen a US Pac strat succeed, I really think it ultimately isn’t that great.  Had I not been so stubborn with Japan early or simply planned things a little better.  I could have negated the effect of the US fleet with better moves by Japan.

    So I think the US could have superiority, but if Japan is played wisely, you can negate the superiority with less units and cheaper units you just have to recognize what the US is doing.

    For informational purposes the final battle was:

    Japan:  1 trn, 9 subs, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 2 BB  vs.
    US:  3 DD, 5 AC, 14 ftrs, 1 BB, 1 bom

    And all nine of my subs missed.   😢

  • 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.

  • Well i was thinking even smaller for europe.
    Something along the lines of keeping your existing fleet safe and use it to shuttle 4 inf every other turn to norway starting turn 2 with the starting forces.

    4 units aint much but it is still another 4 units the germans have to content with, add 4-6 UK units and that is a nice force stacked at karellia round 3 and onward.

    This gives you the complete T1 and almost complete T2 to build ships with while still keeping moderate pressure. IF you want to speed up buy 2 trannies and move the destroyer and have a double chuck there. The objective is not to kill germany but to keep it from killing russia. With 2 inf a turn it gives ussr +6ipc’s  each turn on average add 4-6 inf from UK and it is above germany in turns of troup output.

  • 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.

  • Well it is a KJF scenario so you go after japan with everything you can.
    Keeping russia safe in those situations is the best you can do. Those units are there to keep the germans from advancing that is why only inf is needed. Also karelia is your T3 target, it is not like you can get any further. Let the UK bring in the armor/art/inf to attack and just have the US defend them germany has to do something against a force of 8inf 3arm each turn from karrelia or they just lose more ground.
    You dont go and attack germany with your units you just help in the defence of russia while on the other side your navy starts kicking jappan arse on the islands.

    What happens if germany cant get out. USSR stays around the 30ipc mark and the US is island hopping in the pacific?

  • 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.

  • I think they can do both TBH.

    Firstly you got your standing forces that you drop on US2 so you need new stuffings build in US2 not earlier.

    With 1st build purely pacific this gives you 2 loaded carriesr 1 BB 1 tranny 1 dest at the end of you first turn. ( you almost match the imperial navy right there and then )
    With around 28 to spend on the pacific turn 2 you spend as much on your navy as japan has spend in total the first 2 turns and you almost equal them with fleet.

    You dont have to shuttle ever turn to europe if you dont want to and UK can still enforce Afrika depending on the location of the germany airforce, they cant attack east and defend west at the same time. ( 2 turns from western europe to get to the seazone off afrika ).

    Unless japan is really getting the UK lands in asia you get 2 countries full on germany UK + USSR and 1 almost completely against japan.

  • 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.

  • Well it also boils down to what is superiority? And what do you want to do with your fleet.

    If you build 2-3 AC with fighters and a few trannies/destr/subs for fodder you are not easy beaten on defence. As long as you cannot be attacked you can also say you got superiority, since you can land troops safe to where you want them.

    Also if you cannot be beaten when attacked ( or only at verry high costs ) this lets you get all the islands with impunity, japan cant strike back at them because.
    A 🙂 they attack your fleet -> lose
    B 🙂 they leave their homewaters empty -> you move there -> no shuttle.

    If you can prevent the japan player to leave home waters with his fleet you get superiority it does not really mather how big his fleet is as long as he cant use it.

  • 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…

  • As long as you hit them harder then they hit you it is no big deal.

    They cant use their trannies as fodder so you are trading fighters for trannies.
    You also have landbases planes you can use fast once you get some islands.

    Building a fleet around carries gives you a bad attack fleet so you cant really attack a fleet with it. But on the other hand the fleet you cant attack with it does not have the power to kill you off.

    2 fleets with both 3full AC cant attack eachother even with a few landbased AC without significat losses so both are safe from the other.

  • 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.

  • 2018 2017 '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?

  • 2018 2017 '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."

    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…)

  • 2018 2017 '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…

Log in to reply

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 5
  • 15
  • 18
  • 11
  • 14
  • 20
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys