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?



  • Couldn’t have said it better.

    Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.

    Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.

    A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.

    Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @U-505:

    @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.

    No, you don’t need too.  If you want fighters you could land them on a nearby island.  However, I was assuming a HB raid only.  Now you’ve sunk their fleet while not risking any of your own ships.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @88:

    Couldn’t have said it better.

    Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.

    Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.

    A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.

    Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.

    And yet, I know I specifically sanctioned that the US keep both transports in the Atlantic and send over some troops.  You want to leave france open?  I’ll take it with the UK and bolster with the US.  After all, remember that the US fleet isn’t tied down to the Pac like the Jap fleet is.  If you get too cocky with Germany you might find an American fleet moving into the Baltic.

    Besides, in Revised I’ve never seen the German luftwaffe/kriegsmarine sink the entire British fleet.  I don’t even think it can be done given normal dice rolls.  That means UK’s gunna have a CV, 2 FIGs, 1 BB and 4 transports without too much effort at all, especially with the new rule allowing aircraft to land on newly crafted CVs.

    How is germany, with 5 fighters, 1 bomber (assuming they didn’t loose any on their first round of offensive combat) going to take out 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 FIGs and 1-3 transports?



  • Like jenny said going fleet in the pacific does not mean that you dont go anywhere else.
    And with naval builds USSR will be stronger against germany.

    USA can still shuttle troops to afrika or norway or any other country just in lesser quantities while still pushing in the pacific with a sizable fleet. Sure japan can attack your fleet with its fighters and bomber but that is just trading more figs for less trannies 10 vs 8. IF you are scared just put 1 sub in the path of the japps fleet and you are secure from their BB. If they got loads of subs replace the sub with a destroyer. If they cant attack you in full force you can still attack their islands and drain away IPCS and pester them while you build up strenght every turn.

    With 38-42 ipcs a turn the USA can focus on both sides pretty decent keeping japan busy while supporting europe and every turn you gain more ipcs then the axis you get close to victory.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    No, Shadowhawk.  Don’t put a blocker.  Only use a blocker if you think you can’t do enough damage to get through the Japanese BBs to more sensitive targets.  The reason being is you WANT them to attack your fleet!  They loose their best assets in an attack, A)  transports cannot come into the battle as fodder, B) their carriers only attack at a 1, C) their fighters only attack at a 3.  Meanwhile, your assets are increased.  Your carriers now defend at a 3 and your fighters at a 4!

    No, the trick to the Pacific front, with America, is to sucker the Japs into attacking your fleet with theirs and thus reducing both fleets to cinders.  Then you can clean up whatever islands you don’t already control and rebuild faster then them.  And without a strong fleet, their land units will get bashed by Russian units moving off the German front (being replaced by British and Americans).



  • If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.

    That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.

    Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base.  Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.

    Squirecam


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @squirecam:

    If you count strictly O & D numbers, by J3 the japanese fleet will still outgun a solo USA fleet. It will have a slight battle disatvantage to a combined USA/UK fleet.

    That said, screening is the way to go. A Japanese player could just attack for 1 round, his two BB absorb hits, you lose 2 transports. Then he withdraws.

    Screening forces Japan to protect the home islands and all the others from your solomons base.  Plus, with a combined UK/USA fleet, the UK can take DEI or Borneo while USA gets Phils and DEI/Borneo.

    Squirecam

    But what are the odds America only get’s two hits with a BB, 2 CV, 4 FIG, 4 TRN?  30 pts, or 5 hits on average (LL).  That’s 2 soakers in BBs and 3 actual hits somewhere.  That’s why the US has to sucker Japan into attacking.  The US can match Japan purchase for purchase, meanwhile, Japan’s homefield advantage is severely weakened by forcing them to attack a defending US fleet.



  • the key to the success of the american fleet is what the uk does with the raf on r1… if you move the fig’s and bom to w. can than on jap 1 decisions become much more difficult… of course the uk boats have  to follow suit as wel… the uk can put alot of pressure can  put on sz 60 and 59 on r1 this gives the us time to commission its fleet while jap is some what on its heels… russias contribution is to reinforce buriatia on r1



  • 1.  Japan’s starting 2 BB and 6 fighters/Bomber are also 30, not counting its DD, CV, sub potential. Plus the potential for more naval units purchased J1 or J2.

    2. Japan could buy an IC, which will allow for some expendable transports

    3. Therefore, a UK CV + DD + transports + sub makes all the difference defense wise

    Yes, your fleet has a #'s advantage after #3. Buy why risk evan a 60/40 battle when you can take islands/mainland and force Japan to protect too many territories.

    Squirecam


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    The point, Squire, is to take Jap islands and force them to give up control of the Pacific, or come and attack the US Fleet.  And yes, I advocate using the british fleet with the Americans.  They add extra power and can always move to join your fleet before Japan can move.

    Also, if Japan takes ALL those forces to attack the American fleet, it has nothing to use in Asia.  I’ll give up an American fleet to not loose Asia. 🙂



  • I do agree with you somewhat. The way I used to play the strategy was to let the UK/USA get attacked. I was more than willing then to rely in my defensive strength. Two things changed that…

    1 - The advantage you have is not overwhelming. I’d say 60/40. But that means there are games where Japan will survive that fleet battle, causing you a loss. Whereas if you screen, Japan cannot prevent you from landing on the islands USA3. You reduce your risk, but accomplish the same goal.

    2 - In tournament games, which is what I play often, you are limited in time/rounds. You cannot afford to lose your fleet. Even though it might be a wash and a long term good thing, with a time limit there is not enouigh time left.

    Squirecam


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I agree, in the first few rounds you might want to hold off on loosing the fleet.  The first few rounds are when you want to grab East Indies, New Guinee and if you can, the Phillipeans.  By then, Japan should be good and mad at you and willing to throw anything they have at you to stop you from also grabbing Okinawa and starting to put “feet on the street” in Asia minor. (another tactic to force them to attack is to build an IC in New Guinee…it does Japan almost no good and it really makes them mad at you.)

    By the time you have collected those islands, you should be concentrated enough with some DDs, some Trannies, a couple ACs and a BB (or two if you are feeling lucky) to stop a full scale Japanese assault.  Sure, you can pretty much kiss your fleet good bye, but then so can Japan.  Meanwhile, you now have an IC in New Guinee (if you built it) to pump out a couple subs and a couple trannies to annoy the ever living yoohoo outta Japan.

    BTW, the whole goal of this game for me is to tick the other player off to the point they stop using rational thought.



  • I still want to know what you are taking all those Islands with…

    UK does not HAVE a fleet, they may have a few scattered ships, but no FLEET in the Pacific on UK2, not if Japan is being played by a competant player.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I’m taking islands with 1 BB, 1 TRN, 1 ARM, 1 INF.  If my Hawaiian fleet exists, add that.  Also, the Brits have a fleet, unless Japan squandered her resources sinking it instead of the US fleet, in which case Japan’s probably down a few more ships.

    Sure, it isn’t easy.  but what jap player (who isn’t playing me) is expecting it?



  • Japan has Naval superiority to begin with, and more FIGs to boot.

    UK fleet AND Pearl fleet are dead J1 (most of the UK anyway).  And I still have an AC and a BB in the south Pacific, and a fleet US needs to attack at Pearl…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    You’d be surprised how often I see the Pearl fleet sitting intact on US 1, Switch.  By the time Japan’s dedicated enough firepower to take out the British fleet, without suffering any real losses, they don’t have enough to take out Hawaii, in their opinion.  In mine, I go all out, if I loose, well Japan’s toast.  If I win, then Japan’s on easy street.



  • No the idea of a blocker is to prevent the japps from attacking my fleet.
    I dont want them to attack my fleet at the early stages i want them to leave my trannies alone.

    Yet he cannot leave them alone because it will cost them a lot of islands. So im forcing him to attack with only 50% of his forces and no fodder while i got fodder and 100% forces.

    Japan has 3 options
    6 figs + bomb vs my 1 CV + 2 fir + bb + 3 trannies ( at least)
    Dont attack and lose at least 4 ipcs woth of islands.
    Split up their fleet.

    Without the blocker it is easy. Just nuke my infant fleet with all you got and leave the trannies at home to transfer troops.

    The USA fleet is there for 1 thing only take islands from jappan and later threathen their fleet. The first ill do from turn 2 onwards the later from turn 4 or something. Basicaly you aim for the 4 pics island so you can start producing there and shuttle into asia at little cost while still be able to shuttle those forces with equal ease to russia if needed.

    Hawai fleet is dead most of the time but if you play agressive with the UK japan cant really take it on without losing transport capabilities to the mainland. And i have yet to find an opponent that builds 3 trannies unprotected that are in direct threath of allied airforces.



  • @ncscswitch:

    I still want to know what you are taking all those Islands with…

    UK does not HAVE a fleet, they may have a few scattered ships, but no FLEET in the Pacific on UK2, not if Japan is being played by a competant player.

    UK does have a fleet. 1 CV, 1 DD 1 sub 2 transports. Together, thats 10 def. Not enough on its own, but when added to the USA, it makes it difficult for Japan.

    Probably YOU never have a UK fleet because you waste it attacking that japan transport rather than save it.

    Squirecam


  • 2007 AAR League

    @squirecam:

    UK does have a fleet. 1 CV, 1 DD 1 sub 2 transports. Together, thats 10 def. Not enough on its own, but when added to the USA, it makes it difficult for Japan.

    Probably YOU never have a UK fleet because you waste it attacking that japan transport rather than save it.

    Squirecam

    Hey Squirecam,

    if you are never going to use your UK fleet to kill the transport or contest africa. (then i want to play as the axis everytime vs you)

    it isn’t wise to let the Japaneese Transport live at any costs. (I send the 1 DD, 1 AC after it) and 3 inf, 1 Fgt to Egypt to contest it with the germans.

    your UK fleet is doing you no good sitting around in the pacific doing nothing. even if you manage to grab a island lets say New Borneo. you wasted everything the UK had in the pacific to take a island for 1 turn that is not worth 4 ipc.

    you’d be surprised how fast land-based and Air-craft based figs can go from the main-land to the pacific and back and forth.



  • @NoMercy:

    @squirecam:

    UK does have a fleet. 1 CV, 1 DD 1 sub 2 transports. Together, thats 10 def. Not enough on its own, but when added to the USA, it makes it difficult for Japan.

    Probably YOU never have a UK fleet because you waste it attacking that japan transport rather than save it.

    Squirecam

    Hey Squirecam,

    if you are never going to use your UK fleet to kill the transport or contest africa. (then i want to play as the axis everytime vs you)

    it isn’t wise to let the Japaneese Transport live at any costs. (I send the 1 DD, 1 AC after it) and 3 inf, 1 Fgt to Egypt to contest it with the germans.

    your UK fleet is doing you no good sitting around in the pacific doing nothing. even if you manage to grab a island lets say New Borneo. you wasted everything the UK had in the pacific to take a island for 1 turn that is not worth 4 ipc.

    you’d be surprised how fast land-based and Air-craft based figs can go from the main-land to the pacific and back and forth.

    But I do kill the transport, with the UK fighter. I just dont waste my fleet by sending the carrier/DD to do so. Here’s why:

    1 - The carrier/DD will die, without inflicting a hit, due to the DEI BB. Therefore, you have wasted 28 IPC.

    2 - The fighter cannot be countered. It lands safely, providing Bury defense.

    Squirecam


  • 2007 AAR League

    if you were to land the fighter in the mainland. I would have to think China would be the best spot as I find Japan can have a bad round of dice and barely win or lose that battle.

    your saying a CV + DD will die without taken a hit? ( I love the idea of forcing the Japaneese to send in stuff to kill that. you got to think it takes 1 BB + some fighters or a fighter/bomb combo to kill it.

    reason is, a CV and DD both defend on a 3… (that BB is only taking 1 hit…) that means a plane is dying. So on the contrary to what you said. I think the CV + DD has a good chance of taking a fighter out.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    You can consolidate the British Fleet and then force Japan to send it’s precious BB and CV after it.  You should get one of those capitals at least before they sink you, even if you don’t keep the fighter with it.

    Meanwhile, the US fleet at Pearl might be sunk, but Japan will be sending a lot less navy then what it could and that’s easy to counter attack.  Just use the BB, DD and USAF (land in Hawaii) and you should retake that.  Now Japan hardly has a “vast” superiourity, but rather a few scattered boats.



  • @NoMercy:

    if you were to land the fighter in the mainland. I would have to think China would be the best spot as I find Japan can have a bad round of dice and barely win or lose that battle.

    your saying a CV + DD will die without taken a hit? ( I love the idea of forcing the Japaneese to send in stuff to kill that. you got to think it takes 1 BB + some fighters or a fighter/bomb combo to kill it.

    reason is, a CV and DD both defend on a 3… (that BB is only taking 1 hit…) that means a plane is dying. So on the contrary to what you said. I think the CV + DD has a good chance of taking a fighter out.

    CV + DD = 6 = ONE hit on average. Therefore, on average, a BB+CV (DEI) + Fighter + Bomber will on average, kill it, in 1 round, without any japan losses.

    Bury (6inf +fighter) is better than China, IMHO.

    Squirecam


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I always give up Bury and SFE.  Shouldn’t I be?

    Always felt the fighter served better on the German front.  You can always put 2 tanks in Russia and fire them off to Yak to defend, and 6 def from 2 units is better then 4 def from 1 unit.  IMHO.  Same cost.  Only tanks can also attack if needed.



  • @Jennifer:

    I always give up Bury and SFE.  Shouldn’t I be?

    Always felt the fighter served better on the German front.  You can always put 2 tanks in Russia and fire them off to Yak to defend, and 6 def from 2 units is better then 4 def from 1 unit.  IMHO.  Same cost.  Only tanks can also attack if needed.

    If you keep Bury, thats +1 USSR 1, plus +1 from USSR 2 and +3 from Manchuria which you will walk into USSR 2, +1 from Bury round 3, when Japan has to take back Manchuria and potentially keep swapping FIC, or be in danger of losing Kwang.

    It means more $$ for USSR to fight off the Germans, USSR can have 32+ on round 2-3 depending on circumstances (24 + 3 ukr +2 WR + 3 manch)

    Squirecam


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

  • 2
  • 3
  • 20
  • 4
  • 10
  • 14
  • 49
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games

34
Online

13.2k
Users

33.4k
Topics

1.3m
Posts