Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Can the US have naval superiority?



  • Also remember one other major factor in having UK spend so much of their resources in the Pacific…
    Fighters.

    I have played quite a few games now, including my current one, where the ONLY thing that has kept Moscow from falling are massed Allied FIGs in Moscow (and by MASSED FIGs, my current game with Darth is a great example… 9 UK FIGs, 3 US FIGs, 1 USSR FIG).

    Were it not for that HUGE number of Fighters, Moscow would be in Axis hands… dropped either to the INF/ART/FIG attack coming from Germany via their IC in Caucuses, or from the INF/ART/ARM/BOM forces that Japan has massed in Novo.

    If the US is focusing on Japan in the Pacific, then the US is not building FIGs to fly to Moscow via UK
    If UK is building forces in India, trying to re-take Africa, and attempting to do ANYTHING in an effort to land forces in Europe, even just northern landings trying to get forces to Moscow, then they most certainly are not building FIGs… especially since their income is down around $20.

    No massed FIGs to Moscow and a virtually opposition free Germany means Moscow falls.

    It is just a matter of the math in this case folks.  The US can’t get enough forces fast enough into the Pacific to prevent an initial expansion by Japan and several waves of forces into Asia to strip Russia of her IPC’s while Germany just beats the snot out of Russia and takes everything, including Caucuses, right up to Moscow’s doorstep in 3-4 turns.

    Russia with no money.
    UK with only a third of its money
    Germany at $50-$60 IPC’s (Africa plus all west of Moscow)
    Japan at $40 (having reached Novo)

    The only real question is which falls first… Moscow or London.

    And a creative player might even make a stab at Washington first, just for the fun of it.



  • I’m sure those who try kjf and say it doesnt work usually commit serious errors along the way.

    Im happy to teach it at gencon.

    Squirecam



  • However, the theory is, kill Japan before/same as Germany gets Russia.

    You swap a 30 IPC country for a 24 IPC Country (except that everything east of Moscow is still allied).

    I think Japan is committing a serious error if it falls before or at the same time at Moscow. An island capital is nearly impossible to crack because you need either a butload of transports or battleships.

    I think that KJF can work, but it is much in the same manner that the Axis can win without a bid. It doesn’t have majority dice behind the strategy, instead faultily relying on some good dice.

    Inevitably the truth is that you can contain Japan if you so desire. Japan is not strong enough to take on the attention of 3 nations by itself. I don’t disagree with that at all. The problem is that Germany is unleashed, which is much closer to Russia and Africa, has more IPCs to spend, and starts with a lot more troops. Most of the endorsements that I read about KJF tend to glamorize the first and ignore the second.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @squirecam:

    2 IC are unnecessary.

    However, the theory is, kill Japan before/same as Germany gets Russia.

    You swap a 30 IPC country for a 24 IPC Country (except that everything east of Moscow is still allied).

    It works if you do it correctly.

    Squirecam

    Actually, you don’t give Germany all of Russia.  Odds are Japan owns at least some of it and if you own their capital, that makes it basically nuetral territory until you liberate it.

    Also, now Germany has to drive from Moscow/Berlin to get to you while you can sit and build up on the East coast, maybe send enough forces in to annoy him and keep him from turning on London, but otherwise, just build up and then start moving into Asia/Europe in earnest.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @trihero:

    My $0.02 if you’re going to KJF is always to reinforce the Pearl Harbor fleet with the Indian fig because it potentially either causes tons of damage to the Japanese or saves the entire Pearl Harbor fleet, which is an efficient move. And of course kill the Kwantung transport. Past that, I’m not positive on what are the best moves. An Indian IC is helpful, but on the other hand you may not have that option available if the Germans link a massive fleet together and get into Africa fast, since you’ll need all your scarce dollars to whip up airforce and navy to handle that.

    I’d add take out the Jap submarine in Solomons.  One less ship shooting at American vessels.



  • It is sad that you did not sign up for the Tournament to prove all of these great theories 😛


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Of all the KGF strats I’ve seen it’s more of an Allied push through Africa into Asia.  This doesn’t seem as productive as an Allied move through Asia from the East anyway.  At least there’s no water crossings you have to do and you have a place to fall back AND you have places where it’s actually realistically possible to build ICs.

    Meanwhile, what Jap player is going to be paying attention for an Allied island hopping?  Most players I’ve seen, so far, don’t even notice the campaign’s going on until they loose New Guinee and East Indies and by then you have a significant US and UK fleet out there to contend with.  Sure, it probably cannot destroy your fleet, but it doesn’t have to attack your fleet, it just has to annoy you to the point you attack it…then you have US/UK carriers and fighters against your carriers and fighters, a loosing proposition at best.

    Sure, you get a few rounds to attack Russia.  Can’t be helped.  But UK IC in India + US IC in Sink that’s 5 Allied tanks around, 25 IPCs isn’t that much of a drain on the European front for the allies.  Toss in 9-12 IPCs a round from Russia to help assist and put 100% of UK/USSR assets on the german front to fight a war of attrition and you should have at least 8 rounds before Germany’s really threatening Moscow.

    Meanwhile, Japan’s been stalled in Asia, it’s lost its islands, and America’s building Subs now to deal with Jap carriers.  (Remember, your fighters can defend nicely, but they cannot be hit by subs…so if you have 4 carriers and I get 4 hits with subs, those 8 fighters do nothing but land on an island…)  And I’ll gladly trade an American sub for a Jap transport.

    And, as I mentioned before, you don’t have to take the Jap capital.  Just contain them on their island and don’t let them get a fleet.  8 IPCs a round isn’t even a fighter, should be easy enough to contain.  Now you have US with Sink, Manch, Kwang and FIC building tanks (11 tanks a round) to punch holes in German defenses for Brits and Russians to clean up.  (I always loved the one-two punch you get with US/USSR forces…hit em iwth tanks, knock em down to 3 fighters and an infantry and send in 20 russian infantry…gotta love the trade there!)


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    It is sad that you did not sign up for the Tournament to prove all of these great theories 😛

    I’m trying to sign up for the tourny. 🙂  Contacted a few people already.



  • We just closed out the last player…

    I’ll put you on the Alternates list in case we lose a player before the start on Tuesday 🙂


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Jennifer:

    …Remember, your fighters can defend nicely, but they cannot be hit by subs…so if you have 4 carriers and I get 4 hits with subs, those 8 fighters do nothing but land on an island…

    Wouldn’t the fighters get at least one return fire shot at the subs before they landed?



  • Yes they would, but she is looking at it form the prsopective of sinking your carriers, then you entire fleet is out of the SZ (with FIGs landing on an Island)

    Of course, the sub-overload has its own counter…
    1 DST to preclude sneak and retreat, BB’s to absorb hits…


  • 2007 AAR League

    By the time you guys are finished countering each other in the pacific Germany will own Africa, Europe(UK included) and Asia. And preparing invasions of America and Australia.



  • Well I just hope you’re adequately defending your ICs. It’s harder than it looks. If Japan strikes hard at China, it winds up with about 5 inf left there on average, then you dump 2 troops onto the mainland somewhere with your transport on J1. Potentially, the Sinkiang IC is under siege from 5 inf, 1 arm, 6 fig, and 1 bomber on Turn 2 already. Hint: your 2 US infantry + 4 Russian infantry from novo/kazakh are hardly adequate defense. On turn 2 if for some reason the Sinkiang complex is too strong to assault, the Japanese can then swing down into F. Indochina with 6 units from Japan, 2 units from Philippines, the 5 units from China, the 2 units dumped on J1. On turn 3 then 2 more units are picked up from E. Indies and India is hit with 14 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 6 fighters, 1 bomber, and 2 shore bombardments. By turn 3 the UK could only have produced 6 tanks, which means you need what like 6-7 Russian inf to begin to have a prayer at turning them back?

    If India is still too hard reinforced, then you can swing again back into China with all those units, threatening the sinkiang IC with a ton of units. That requires another 7+ Russian infantry in Sinkiang because the US could only have produced 6 tanks by turn 4. It may be too hard to expect Russia to front all the troops necessary to defend both of those locations; the ICs alone hardly produce nearly the amount of units needed in that short of time.

    Sure, you get a few rounds to attack Russia.  Can’t be helped.  But UK IC in India + US IC in Sink that’s 5 Allied tanks around, 25 IPCs isn’t that much of a drain on the European front for the allies.  Toss in 9-12 IPCs a round from Russia to help assist and put 100% of UK/USSR assets on the german front to fight a war of attrition and you should have at least 8 rounds before Germany’s really threatening Moscow.

    Having the UK spend 15 IPCs a turn in India makes a huge dent in its European operations. That is about half its income, and actually turns out to be more than half its income since Africa is quickly being annexed by German troops. It’s left with a very sad paycheck which can either be used to make a half-hearted attempt at landing a few inf in Europe every turn or perhaps attempting to reclaim its money in Africa. Germany still has a very large fleet to be dealt with, and the UK can only build 1 fighter or less per turn in order to try to counter it. You can perhaps stall 8 rounds before Germany threatens Moscow, but is that a good thing?

    Russia will be a very poor nation indeed when it’s trying to trade with a nearly 50 IPC Germany on the west an in addition spending 1/3 to 1/2 its income in helping contain Japan on the east. The war of attrition is one that the Germans can easily win when the UK has very little income to spend in Europe and the Russians in addition are sending out large chunks of their income in the opposite direction. What is your proposed UK build?

    Even once you contain Japan, maybe by round 6? I consider containing as in they can no longer get troops onto the mainland, not just being a defensive fleet, otherwise they’re easily outproducing land troops in Asia. How many turns does it take the US to produce all those units? A turn or 2 to claim all those territories once contained, a turn to churn out the complexes, a turn to build tanks, a turn to blitz close to Russia, a turn to blitz into Russia, then a turn to finally participate in Europe? That’s a lot of turns to help a dead nation. I also fail to see how you can turn Japan into an 8 IPC nation with all its troops running around in Russia. Most likely it is Russia that is the 8 IPC nation far before Japan is.

    I don’t doubt that you can contain Japan, but I doubt that you can stall Germany sufficiently with the remaining IPCs. The UK is very poor in Africa with half or more of its income spent every turn since the first in India, and if the US is spending enough money to reclaim Africa then that gives Japan an extra turn or more to dump more troops into Russia to suppress their money.

    Doesn’t it make sense that you should be focusing on Germany? Germany is the most obvious threat to Russia: it is close and has good IC placement, it has a ton of troops and resources. Japan on the other hand is far, has to build transports and ICs, has fewer troops, and less resources. Many of the IPC you gain from Japan are paper IPCs (on islands) that dont help you further stage your attacks, unlike the zones like Ukraine/E. Euruope/Balkans.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Sink should have 3 US Armored units, 2 US Infantry and 6 Russian Infantry before Japan could attack the IC there…

    Alternate, schmalternate…blah.  A matter of 30 minutes and I’d be whoopin everyone’s bootey and wearing a pirate hat at the same time!  Ever see the jolly roger an a MO class BB?  Scarey thoughts, eh?



  • Sink should have 3 US Armored units, 2 US Infantry and 6 Russian Infantry before Japan could attack the IC there…

    Really, how does that happen? First being that sinkiang can only produce 2 tanks a turn, second being that the US hasn’t even gotten a chance to produce any tanks there when Japan can attack it on turn 2, since the US goes last. If you only have 8 infantry in Sinkiang, an attack force of 5 inf 1 arm 6 fig 1 bomb has a 99% chance to win, and this is on J2.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    okay, two tanks.  And there are many reasons that Japan would have been slowed down in their conquest allowing for Sink to have 1 full turn of production before enough Japanese forces are brought to bear to cause any real threat.

    Though, I might even consider changing that to 1 armor, 1 AA gun…since Japan will most assuredly be using a lot of air power if they attack on J2 or J3.



  • @frimmel:

    10 IPCs of a FTR for 14 IPCs of TRN with 2 INF? If just one INF on the TRN it is still 11 IPCs. If the TRNs are unloaded you don’t need to go after the fleet do you?

    Eh i normaly just unload my trannies each turn and take a island. Sure they might be stranded there for 1 turn but ill still be trading figs vs trannies. You either counter my fleet at solomons or you will be losing IPC’s on islands. And those islands are pretty valuable in revised.
    And at the same time i can pump about 2-4 inf each turn to europe ( finland/karrelia/archangel ) to help defend russia.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Exactly the point.  As America the trick is to get the Japs to attack you, or at the very least, to tie up Jap resources so they cannot do the Manchurian Shuffle down the Muscovite Way (marching from manchuria to moscow).

    You either attack the combined American fleet or loose islands.  Sure, you can take them back, but now you have to invest in transports and infantry to move around the Pacific, avoiding the American Fleet, to retake islands.

    Who’s in a better position?  America with 42+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM a round for the Pac or Japan 30+ income a round building 1 INF, 1 ARM?

    Add in that America has no reason not to build an AC + FIG each round to supplement (maybe 2 FIGs if they have all the islands later) and you’ll never take out their fleet, even if you do go SSX’s.

    Though, I have to admit, if you are going this route you have to follow through.  You can’t go half arsed.  You can still do a 3 INF, 3 ARM shuffle through Africa up to Cauc if you want (though if you did, I’d say go through India and take out East Asia instead) while not detracting from your offensively strong defensive navy.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I don’t understand.

    3 inf, 3 arm to shuffle throug North Africa in addition to purchasing a CV+fig per turn adds up to 50 IPC’s per turn. Are you talking AFTER the US takes the South Pacific islands? Or are the 3 inf, 3 arm coming from the UK?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Actually, I’d say you work your way up to building them.  After all, for USA Asia is an after-thought.  Your primary goal is to get those islands out of Japanese control.  They’re worth 13 IPCs which translates into an actual worth of 26 IPCs (+13 for the allies, -13 for the axis) and they effect the one Axis nation that cannot afford their loss.

    Japan’s response?  Well, they can either attack the American ships giving America a HUGE advantage and hurting their own forces drastically (FTR @ 3 CV @ 1 instead of FTR @4 and CV @ 3, a total of -4 Combat points, or 8 effective combat points)  or they can attempt to reclaim islands which ties up their fighters, transports and infantry giving Russia relief, or, they can ignore the loss of their islands, build a home fleet for defense and hope they can take Moscow before America can sink them (this last is probably their best strategy.  However, none of these really saves them from loss.)

    Meanwhile America is in the best position to do what htey want.  A)  It’s very difficult for them to hit Europe in Revised (compared to regular); B) They got a production increase which is MORE then what they loose in Asia Minor (+6 over standard, China/Sink only worth combined 4); C) American carriers and fighters defend just as well as Japanese ones, but don’t have as high of an opportunity cost as Japanese carriers do. (16 IPCs from 30 (53.33% is much higher of an opportunity cost then 16 from 42 is 38.09%).

    And the final point of consideration is that American territory, except China/Sinkiang, is all but immune from Axis conquest in Revised.  (In standard as well, only I’d add Hawaii as a threatened territory on J1.)

    Meanwhile, USSR/UK seem to do the majority of action against Germany anyway in Revised.  (Assuming America goes through Africa up through Caucasus we’re talking 6 rounds before their infantry can even start to threaten German home territory.)


  • 2007 AAR League

    The problem I’m seeing is that your operational cost assesment is slightly skewed because the Japanese has a much larger fleet presence to begin the game with as well as the fact that the US will only make 42 in their initial bankroll as China will likely be in japanese hands from J1. And Japan will be making roughly 35 IPC’s or more per turn by J2.

    Also, don’t forget that Japan doesn’t need to match the US on a CV/2 fig basis. As long as there is at least one island or mainland territory in Japanese hands in an adjacent sea zone, Japan can use 4 fighters per carrier. If the Japanese player attacks your fleet it will consist of 2 fighters from the mainland within 4 moves of your fleet that will land on his/her CV and the 2 fighters already on the CV will move 2 spaces to attack your fleet then one space to an adjacent sea zone then one space to land on an island or territory.

    8 fig, 2 CV (+1 TP fodder) on attack is roughly equal to 6 figs, 3 CV on defense( I ran a combat sim for this).

    Since Japan starts with 6 fighters and 2 CV’s, assuming Hawaii was attacked J1, it will only cost 28 IPC’s to maximize Japans CV potential while it will cost the US (who has 3 figs left after Hawaii is attacked) 78 IPC’s to match that.

    My math is thus: Japan has to buy 2 fig, 1 TP(28 IPC’s) to equal the US buy of 3 fig, 3 CV(78 IPC’s).

    That’s a 50 IPC difference that would allow Japan to build a bunch of ground units in Asia. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that Japan has an extra BB and bomber that you will have to spend even more to match. Essentially, 3 turns of US income versus 1 turn of japanese income for both fleets to become roughly equal. 2 turns of income can go a long way for Japan while he/she waits for the US to roll into the Pacific.



  • Well the first few turns you are indeed limited to staying away from them strategies :D, although an attack needs all of the jappan fleet in range. Normal in turn 1 and 2 the fleet is not in range all the time because you need it to support landings and land attacks.

    If you are in range 1 sub placed in a blocking position can cause you not to be able to attack at all.

    You are correct in the fighters that you can take for each CV but i got trannies as fodder while you cant really use them for that purpose. And it does not hurt me as much as it hurts you to lose trannies especialy once i got a 3 or 4 ipc island ( and they are pretty isolated ) because then i can start making fleet there to replace the trannies and fly aircraft in.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Exactly, and it works in reverse too.  If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.

    3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.

    Jap IPC Loss:  204 IPC
    US IPC Loss:  108 IPC

    And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack.  So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Jennifer:

    Exactly, and it works in reverse too. If America starts buying bombers (or may the makers forbid it, heavy bombers) to support aerial sorties over Japanese fleets you could see your carriers sinking quickly leaving you with nothing but land based aircraft.

    3 CVs, 6 FIGs, 6 TRNs, 2 BB vs 6 HBs, 6 FIGS, 6 SS’s and I’m showing a 92.5% chance of American success with no defenders left.

    Jap IPC Loss: 204 IPC
    US IPC Loss: 108 IPC

    And you don’t even need Allied CVs for that attack. So that’s a huge reduction in cost, though I’d stilk get them because the plan is to take away the islands reducing Japan’s income AND bolstering US income.

    Wait a minute. Of course you need to build allied CV’s for that attack. Where are your 6 fighters going to land for this attack? And do you think Japan is going to let you move 6 subs within range of it’s fleet without crushing them with aircraft? The only naval units the US has in the Pacific after a Hawaii attack is 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TP. Is that enough to protect your subs from a Japanese first strike? Not really. You also have to add a DD, and a sub to Japan’s forces unless they are destroyed in J1. And to get the 3rd CV in the Japanese fleet you listed it will only cost 16 IPC’s. On the other hand, to get the US forces you listed it will cost 75 IPC’s,(5 bmb) plus 30 IPC’s (3 fig), plus 48 IPC’s (6 SS), for a grand total of 153 IPC’s. That’s 4 full turns of US production not including another turn of production to roll for heavy bombers. Japan could buy 1 SS per turn plus a CV somewhere along the way and still have between 20-25 IPC’s per turn to land units in Asia.



  • It has been proven over and over again…

    In a game where the US goes exclusively NAVAL against Japan, the Axis wins.

    There ARE ways to do a successful KJF, but 100% US Naval/Naval Air is NOT it.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 5
  • 5
  • 39
  • 8
  • 18
  • 7
  • 23
I Will Never Grow Up Games

40
Online

13.2k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts