Critique this US strategy



  • Does anyone think it is possible to set up an effective strategy for shuttling US troops into Asia from Western Canada, while forgoing any US troops into Europe?  I have tried this in several games now and have had mixed results.  Has anyone else tried this, or is such a stretegy impossible to pull off?


  • 2007 AAR League

    I would have to say later in the game yes.

    early on isn’t a good idea at all.

    That just leaves the russians pretty much alone vs the germans with some small british drops which will be just annoying more then anything.

    Its sometihng that just can’t be done till very late in a game the way i’m looking at it. your going to need a huge navy build-up… because the japs have a huge navy + land based fgts and a bmb or two.


  • Moderator

    I agree with NoMercy, I think it is very hard to do from the start and really depends on how Japan does at Pearl (is a counter possible?) or where they position their fleet in then next couple of rds.

    Also it is just as quick to go from Eus to Mos as it is to go from Wus to Mos.
    both take 4-5 turns, depending on route.
    Eus->UK->Kar->Arch->Mos
    Wus->Ala->SFE/Bury->Yak->Novo->Mos
    Or if you go through Afr:
    Eus->Ecan->Alg->Lib->Egy->Trj->Per

    And if you do more armor you can get there even faster.

    I think it is generally more efficient to just go to Europe or Afr, you don’t need as many trans or capital ships to cover yourself.

    Africa is the easiest b/c you need the least amount of trans since you don’t need to set up a 3x3 (4x4) trn system, but you can’t directly threaten Ger or Kar/EE.  4-5 US trns total.

    To station in sz 8 and 5 you need a few more trns but you can threaten more key teritories.  6-8 US trns.

    And to go through the Pac you’ll need not only 4-6 trns (at least), but many more capital ships/ftrs and subs to protect your trns.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you do it too early, Japan’s navy will come spank you.

    If you do it at all, it has to be as an after-thought, not your primary move.  And, if you are going to do that, I’d recommend taking islands instead.  Harder to reclaim…ties up much more Japanese assets then a few infantry in SFE will.


  • 2007 AAR League

    However if you do it when japan is right next to moscow it will be a big pain to reclaim … my friend does this to me but like you guys said not right away.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, but you better make sure that Moscow can hold on long enough for Americans to cause a real disruption. 😛


  • 2007 AAR League

    It can turn into a mean arms race and the one who starts lagging will probably lose the entire game due to it. Build ships, send them to Alaska, ferry troops over while constantly adding new elements to the fleet. Japan will have to consolidate outside Japan to prevent an invasion and stop the loss of the fleet. Only staging point possible then is Buryatia. If the bury stack is always kept in check by the US it’s a working strategy as Japan will not be doing much else. But the only point in doing it would be if UK still has a working pacific fleet and can slowly take Japan’s islands and help Russia keep Germany in check.

    The strategy seems sub-optimal and somewhat situational to me, but it could well deserve some more playtesting. I dislike the idea of a straight “KGF” or “KJF” anyway.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Sankt:

    It can turn into a mean arms race and the one who starts lagging will probably lose the entire game due to it. Build ships, send them to Alaska, ferry troops over while constantly adding new elements to the fleet. Japan will have to consolidate outside Japan to prevent an invasion and stop the loss of the fleet. Only staging point possible then is Buryatia. If the bury stack is always kept in check by the US it’s a working strategy as Japan will not be doing much else. But the only point in doing it would be if UK still has a working pacific fleet and can slowly take Japan’s islands and help Russia keep Germany in check.

    The strategy seems sub-optimal and somewhat situational to me, but it could well deserve some more playtesting. I dislike the idea of a straight “KGF” or “KJF” anyway.

    Yea, so if I’m playing Germany and get my typical German dice, then you can do it.  Why?  Because Brition will have 100% of it’s navy, Egypt andTrans-Jordan and will be more then capable of securing Africa and assisting Russia against Germany.


  • 2007 AAR League

    The thing is that Japan can go south with it´s ground forces, and still maintain the Fleet in SZ60, drop a sub or two each round and wait for the right time to strike.

    My suggestion for the japanesse player is to attack with everything (2 bb, trn´, subs etc etc)

    And retreat when the trn´s and subs are dead, that will mostlikley kill all and every USA trn, making the s´huttle navy go back to square 1.



  • Every time a Siberian Insertion has been tried against me, i have thrown it back.  Revised, Classic, does not seem to matter (it is SLIGHTLY more effective in Classic, but still always fails… if the Japan player is conscious 🙂

    The problem with the Siberian Insertion is that the US has to project their power in all 3 areas;  land, sea and air, and they have to do it 2 moves away from their home base, and adjacent to Japan’s main IC.  So Japan can equal the US advance with half the expenditure.  And once Japan counters, it takes 2 rounds for the US to re-establish the insertion, by which time Japan has cleaned up from the prior insertion.

    The Siberian Territories are also worth less income in Revised, so even successfully inserting yields only minimal gain to Russia, and minimal harm to Japan.

    To be successful, you would have to be able to maintain your navy without fear of Japan cutting your supply lines, and land forces in mass every turn sufficient to prevent Japan land based counter-attacks, and maintain that level of naval and land control for 4 consecutive turns (from the initial insertion) to reach Moscow.  Japan simply is not going to sit idly by while the US attempts that.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @ncscswitch:

    To be successful, you would have to be able to maintain your navy without fear of Japan cutting your supply lines, and land forces in mass every turn sufficient to prevent Japan land based counter-attacks, and maintain that level of naval and land control for 4 consecutive turns (from the initial insertion) to reach Moscow.  Japan simply is not going to sit idly by while the US attempts that.

    You assume that the US troops are headed for Moscow, that’s not necessary. If US can keep Japan fully occupied by having to constantly repel US landings in SFE/Bury and pump up their fleet the main goal is reached. This by itself accomplishes nothing, it mainly just stops Japan from taking India and Sinkiang, they might even be unable to hold onto India/FIC and China. I think it all comes down to a delicate balance, and the one that starts lagging will ultimately lose the battle and with that most likely the entire war.

    I think the key thing is that it opens up for a british fleet to sail freely in the pacific. They can even without new elements to the region take several Jap islands by using troops from India/Egypt area and Australia. The initial US atlantic fleet should be enough to repel or keep Germany busy in Africa, while UK can concentrate on Norway/Karelia.

    Without the UK fleet Japan will ultimately establish a foothold in Bury that US can no longer threaten, but in the right circumstances Japans income will decrease due to the lost islands, and US will instead outbuild Japan - or put the extra funds into the Atlantic. What this does is buy the allies time, so it’s only a choice when the allies are making notably more IPCs than the axis. You will have a Germany in good condition, but a limp Japan. You will have US troops in Bury/SFE that can withdraw to Moscow when time comes, a pacific fleet that can be redirected to protect islands, an atlantic fleet than can start putting serious pressure on Germany. A british build-up of troops in Norway/Karelia and a Russia in pretty good shape who has only had to worry about Germany for several turns, and probably several more while Japan starts from “scratch”.

    Call it an aggressive “SJF” (slow japan first, as Switch introduced), but still having your mind set at actually killing Germany first.

    But ultimately it’s an advanced and fragile tactic the way I see it.



  • @Sankt:

    But ultimately it’s an advanced and fragile tactic the way I see it.

    Very true.  It assumes that Japan either will not or cannot destroy a major portion (or all) of the american flotila.  And that is a very poor assumption, especially against a Japan player who is both conscious, and has not done a few shots before gaming 😄


  • 2007 AAR League

    my pacific build worked vs Darth Maximus.

    you’d be surprised how fgts are useful… long as you have the AC’s…
    fgts from W-USA can hit SZ 60.

    just the point I was arguing if any is it matters on the game itself. I generally don’t like the pacific build-up but it was needed in my game vs Darth to ensure victory and force peace.



  • Japan can see it coming a mile away, because the US builds naval units in the Pacific.  Assume Pearl went off, and Japan lost a sub, destroyer, and fighter.  You still have 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5 fighters, and a bomber.  You have 1 battleship, 1 transport, 3 fighters, and 1 bomber.  Hardly auspicious.

    Now, if you build two carriers and a fighter, those must be placed at Western U.S.  Japan will almost certainly have purchased 2-3 transports and/or an IC.  What happens next is either you advance, in which case Japan hits and retreats (those free hits on those battleships add up a lot, and it has superior attacking power because of the sheer numbers of air).  Or you stay back and build up, in which case Japan keeps its navy around Japan, shuttles infantry off the isolated islands, and reinforces Asia like mad.  Just before you get into serious attacking range, Japan builds all subs for a round, and you have to retreat again.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’d say get bombers and put em in Alaska with the American fleet there.  If Japan wants to make subs, great, just send in the bombers, clear the zone, and protect your 4 transports.  (Like you need more then 4?  That’s 8 infantry a round into Asia, plenty to protect against Japan.)

    What does Japan do?  They either keep their flagships at home to protect the subs, or they build destroyers to protect their subs.  Either way, you are now tieing up massive amounts of cash from Japan which spares Russia a little.

    Option 2 is to move into their Islands.  Now he has to come attack you and give you the defensive advantage. (And remember, 100% of fighters not on ACs are out of range of your fleet probably.  He’s going to have to stage them then you move your fleet and he has to restage them.)  All you need is Philippines and Borneo, that’s 7 IPCs and, with an IC on Borneo, you can successfully build defensive forces right there.  1 DD, 3 SS = 36 IPC.  And gives you a decent offensive and defensive punch.  Or you could go 1 AC, 1 SS, 2 FIG for 44 IPC, an easily attainable number for America.

    Japan’s options?  Attack, or do without.  Meanwhile, America’s building a fleet/invasion force to hit the mainland in striking distance and in close enough proximity to not need doubled down transports (transports at start and end points.)

    Hmm, come to think of it, I’d like to play a game like that.  See what happens, you know?  Of course, I couldn’t tell my opponent that I’m planning it. 🙂  Gotta have J1 stay “normal”



  • I’ve always believed that the best uses of the US were:

    1. Help take Africa back from Germany and be a threat to force Germany to defend western Europe

    2. Build a pacific fleet to force Japan to spend money on navy

    3. Strategic bombing whenever possible

    Remember the final result of whatever your move is; if you put a few troops in asia, you’re harrassing Japan, but it takes a long time to set up that gravy train of transports.  If you build a big fleet on turn one, then one of two things will happen: Japan will build a fleet, which means less money going into Asia, or they will not, which means you will have naval superiority and Alfred Thayer Mahan will be proud.


  • 2007 AAR League

    If US builds a navy on turn 1 in the pacfic.

    As Japan I laugh and continue into Asia. Your navy alone is strong enough to defend any US attempts at your seazones


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, your navy is strong enough to DEFEND, Mercy.  But can it counter US Aggression?  Now your carriers are whimps and your fighters are weaker.

    Also, how would Japan counter an Allied Airforce strat?  Hit their shipping in Japan, then bring in the warships to keep Japan on it’s heels?


  • 2007 AAR League

    Very easy to defend as Japan vs the US.

    I don’t plan on attacking anything the US throws at me. Unless they come to come and I just smash it with every jap fgt in existence + bmb. You can easily hole up on the outside seazone of Japan with BB’s and AC fgts…

    the thing is if the states go vs Japan… (the states wont make any headaway vs Japan compared to the Russians getting crushed by the americans and enjoying the Africa Income)

    the cons way outnumber any pros


  • 2007 AAR League

    As i said before, Japan Navy doesn´t need to kill the whole US one.

    It´s enought to attack and kill all US trn´s.  (if US takes expensive capital ships and figs as casualties they die quickly) if they take trn´s as casualties you can take a minimum casualties yourself and retreat the rest of the fleet if the numbers are against you.

    And then repeat the procces.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Nix:

    As i said before, Japan Navy doesn´t need to kill the whole US one.

    It´s enought to attack and kill all US trn´s.  (if US takes expensive capital ships and figs as casualties they die quickly) if they take trn´s as casualties you can take a minimum casualties yourself and retreat the rest of the fleet if the numbers are against you.

    And then repeat the procces.

    You’ll never get to the transports if you cower.  IF you do attack them, you’ll loose all your ships from defensive fire.  (You really think America’s going to put transports in range without battleship(s), destroyers, carriers, fighters and maybe a few submarines to defend them???  You’re in fantasy land if you think so!)

    So you cower around Japan making it so America cannot attack your fleet because you’re stronger defensively.  Meanwhile, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, New Guinee, Borneo, Philippines and East Indies are in allied hands dwindling your income to next to nothing.  But you have your fleet!!

    Now you have America (and probably England and Russia) putting infantry into your mainland holdings and over whelming you.  All they need is a British IC on East Indies, American IC on Borneo (worth 4 each) and their fleets near by to defend them from Japanese incursions.

    Now what?  You have to either build fleet to match the Allies and thus remove money from attacking Russia, or give up Japan and hope Germany can take out Russia (and minimal British reinforcements) before Japan is reduced to an island.


  • 2007 AAR League

    if the States go purely Pacific…

    Russia will fall long before the Japs ever will.

    How do you plan on killing there navy etc?  your talking about many turns of constant all out navy to get anything achieved.

    Japan starts with 2 trns, 1 SS, 1 DD, 2 AC, 2 BB, 6 fgts , 1 bmb (not counting first turn looses) + add some extra 2-4 trns and thats one nice defensive unit.

    trust me its just not worth it to go all out in the pacific, you will simply not get anything accomplished in time before Russia falls. One Russia falls… Japan definetly has a bigger economy then The States after turn 3-5 and it will be easy for them to defend themselves.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    3 Turns, remember you arn’t attacking the American fleet unless it’s next to you.

    42+40+38 = 120.  2 Carriers, 1 Fighter, 2 Destroyers, 8 Transports on top of 3 transports, 1 battleship, 2 destroyers and 3 fighters you start with and keep past J1.

    You going to attack that with 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 6 fighters, 1 bomber and 4-8 transports???  Or are you going to spend valuable Japanese income building ships to defend/attack that force and risk being pushed off the mainland by British aggression?  (And you’ll need a British IC in India or America’s wasting their time.)  Leave the transport on India, get the fighter there so you have 5 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 AA vs whatever Japan brings, the transport stops any Battleships from firing and allows you time to get 3 armor, 2 fighters more in there.

    You can put up a very manly attack force in India to counter a Japan who’s building navy to stop America.

    Yea, Germany will fight Russia and England. (England’s still probably moving 3-5 units into Russia a turn.)  And they’ll eventually over-whem them, but not before Japan’s off the mainland and is down some of her larger islands (East Indies, Borneo and Philippines.  2 of which will probably have American IC’s on them shortly to full their war machine so they don’t have to go back to the States for manpower.)

    Japan’s now stuck on her island with a few inconsequential holdings in the Pacific, unable to effectively prosecute the war and now you can start pumping out 7 or 8 tanks with America, 3 tanks with England and drive them into Germany.

    (And yes, I’m assuming USA/England still drop off forces into Africa to resecure it from the West.  Germany gunna bleed off forces from the Russian front to take care of 8 Allied units in Libya/Algeria/Egypt, or give up Africa?)

    As I said.  Your goal is to dwindle axis forces by pulling them way out of position and/or destroying them long enough to over whelm them with Americans.  If you let Mercy pull 40 infantry back into Germany you’re the one pulled out of position.  Much easier to crush Japan.  Now Geramny can turtle all they want, you’ll just hammer em over and over and over again.  (Japan’s stuck on their island anyway.)



  • @Jennifer:

    3 Turns, remember you arn’t attacking the American fleet unless it’s next to you.

    42+40+38 = 120.  2 Carriers, 1 Fighter, 2 Destroyers, 8 Transports on top of 3 transports, 1 battleship, 2 destroyers and 3 fighters you start with and keep past J1.

    You going to attack that with 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 6 fighters, 1 bomber and 4-8 transports???

    You post a 3 turn build up of USA, and compare it to what Japan has after J1

    To get your fleet, you are NOT countering Pearl, or you lose a chunk of those units.  Japan may very well add a DST to that fleet with ANY luck at Pearl (2 hits by US on average, wounding the BB, losing the SUB).

    Also, at the end of your great build up, you are still 2 moves away.  that is FIVE TURNS that Japan can IGNORE the US.  In 5 turns, Japan has added 48 divisions or more to Asia.

    If US attacks the Japan fleet, EVEN IF JAPAN DOESN’T SPEND A PENNEY ON NAVAL IN 5 TURNS, the US will win, with a 10% chance of having ANY transports alive.  Add 2 more turns of US builds and moves to get TRN’s to risk Japan.

    Meanwhile in Europe…
    UK has lost their fleet to a joint Kreigsmarine/Luftwaffe strike.  Germany loses their ships, and a number of FIGs, but they are immune to the UK for several turns.  Nazis turn $50 IPC war machine against Russia with no risk from the west.

    And about the time German INF is in Caucuses, West Russia, and Archangel Japan forces are in Novo, Evenk, and Kazakh.  Russia has an income of $8, UK an income of $15.
    London and Russia fall together, just before the US is finally ready to take out the big bad Japan fleet in US5.

    And again, that is without the Japs spending a penney on fleet except for 4 TRNs to empty Japan each round.

    If Japan spends JUST $16 on Navy, and adds their last 2 land based FIGs, then the great US attack has a whopping 30% chance of success.

    And I know you are going to post that US goes after Japan Islands.  Fine, they go after the islands.  But as US is taking Borneo, Japan no longer has to send anythign to Asia, Moscow has fallen.  And Germany no longer has to send anythign to UK OR Moscow.  Now the US has Borneo… but they better be buildign INF, because the Nazis are sailing from London for Washington, and Japan just dropped 8 divisions in Alaska…


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t think Japan is moving that fast.

    Not with 3 Allied Nations sending 2-3 units a round each at them.  That counters their builds on the mainland.  And yea, they build a couple of units and can defend themselves better, so what?  In a matter of a few rounds America’s dumping not 2 units from Sinkiang, but 9 units into Asia (2 Sink, 3 Phil, 4 Borneo), England’s got 3 going in from India and Russia’s turtled, maybe strafing Jap stacks to weaken them a bit.

    Germany’s gotta deal with 6-12 units into Russia a turn + 4-6 units from England and the loss of Africa to British/American Invasions on Turn 1, maybe a follow up on Turn 2.

    So yea, Japan HAS to sink the British Fleet and the American fleet.  If they don’t they’re in trouble from the word go.  They do poorly in even one of those attacks and they’re in serious trouble from the word go.  The only thing that can help them is DAAK.  Because I guarentee you they’re not farthern then Bury and China by the end of J2.  That’s 33 IPCs a round…yay.  J3 they’re Yak/Bury/China/SFE.  35 IPCs…J3 they’re loosing islands, maybe have Evenki/Novo if Russia lets them get that close to be strafed on Russia’s turn.

    I just don’t see how you’re getting 48 infantry into Asia when you’re under constant pressure by the allies AND building fleet to counter the American fleet build up.  hell, it’s 5-6 turns before America gets a decent supply of units going into Europe too, this is just faster!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 4
  • 36
  • 17
  • 5
  • 6
  • 12
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

14.7k
Users

35.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts