• If you build heavy in WUS on US1 (land units, not naval units, no need for Naval in the Pacific, unless Japan is going KUSAF (in whcih case smile, build lots of INF, and just let him smash his units on your Pacific Wall).

    You need about 3 turns as the US to build up aTRN network anyway, by which time those WUS forces are waitign for your TRNs in ECan.  And with them in ECan instead of EUS, you can “out and back” your TRNs from SZ12, 8 or 2 to get forces to Algeria or UK every round with the same TRNs.  Add a second set of TRNs in the SZ3/4/5/6/7 area and you ahve 2 turn TRN from US to Europe, with a solid pipeline of forces coming from Western that also serves as all teh defense you need against all but a KUSAF move by Japan… and still be 100% KGF as Germany.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But there is no US delay.  You need time to get your fleet up to maximum production anyway, so why not move your infantry the long way, provided you always have full transports?


  • I was in no way advocating any sort of US naval build in the Pacific. I simply advocate that building units you can’t move to Europe yet but will be able to down the road in the WUS puts you in position to counter any moves without a hiccup to your logistics. You are including a counter Canada Shield contingency plan in your logistics.


  • The earlier the TRN network starts, the earlier Africa is retaken, the earlier Persia can be reinforced against attack from India, the sooner W. Europe and S. Europe can be threatened and exchanged with Germany, bleeding off units from the eastern front.

    Running infantry from EUS to ECA is a necessary evil because you don’t want to be stuck with three transports per two transported ground units.  But running infantry from WUS to WCA to ECA means that whatever’s in WCA are units that could have been at Germany one turn sooner.

    If Germany doesn’t send the Med fleet west, I often unite UK battleship, 2 UK transports, 1 US destroyer, 2 US transports west of Algeria, with total UK forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank, US forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter at Algeria.  My build on US1 of 3 transports, 3 tanks, and 1 infantry lets me hit again next turn.  US2 I build 1 transport plus 8-10 ground (if Germany has run through Africa, I get tanks), and send the 2 empty transports from Algeria back to E. US, and send full transports to Algeria.  US3 I send 3 full transports back, run 4 ground units to ECA, and put 3 empties back on EUS, build 8-10 more ground.  US4 I use 2 empty Algeria transports to grab units from ECA and send 3 full transports from EUS to Algeria, so now there’s 10 units in Algeria threatening WEU and SEU with UK help - and more on the way from a feed from EUS-ECA.  There is NO TIME TO SPARE; the US landing on US1 allows progression US1 Algeria, US2 Libya, US3 Anglo-Egypt, US4 Trans-Jordan.  If the US does not press hard and fast through Africa, Japan secures Persia to threaten the Caucasus, almost impossible for the Allies to crack an infantry wall there, because the Allies must ATTACK to take that crucial territory.  But if the Allies manage to unite at Persia on US5, Japan is probably NOT going to be able to push ground through the Caucasus; it will have to take on units from three different countries; US, UK, and USSR - not much from each, but the combined strength is very great.

    That is why I don’t think I would ever run infantry through WUS.  I would let Japan hit me, early or late.  Early, and that’s less early pressure against Russia (good).  Late, and I can deal with it.  (good).  (Note that I didn’t say that late, it’s less pressure on Russia - because late game, infantry transported to Soviet Far East - Yakut - Novosibirsk would take TOO LONG to get to Russia.  It is far more effective for Japan to just open a can of whoop-ass with eight transports and start slugging Alaska and Canada.  Problem is, by that time, UK should have its transport fleet set against Germany, and the US can use its already mobilized units near Europe, so it’s UK/USSR/US (in order of strength) hitting Germany, USSR vs Japan, and US playing a back seat role in keeping Japan from reinforcing its Asia position.


  • @frimmel:

    I was in no way advocating any sort of US naval build in the Pacific. I simply advocate that building units you can’t move to Europe yet but will be able to down the road in the WUS puts you in position to counter any moves without a hiccup to your logistics. You are including a counter Canada Shield contingency plan in your logistics.

    Ah.  Well, I did mention that I played those US moves with the German Med fleet NOT moving west; I suppose a Canada Shield contingency plan could work quite well if the Germans DID move west.  Or would I build fighters instead?

    Can’t argue with Khan Noonian Singh!

    THE MAN!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.

  • Moderator

    @Jennifer:

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.

    QFT.

    :-D

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    @Jennifer:

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.

    QFT.

    :-D

    I espoused it before your game with me, DM. :P

    BTW, if anyone cares, I’m battling Arsonist with the German IC in W. Europe concept.  I still don’t think it’ll be more then an anchor tieing up Germans, but let’s see, shall we?

  • Moderator

    Yeah, I know.  I just wanted to quote you b/c I agree with you in this case.

    US can go toe to toe with Japan and that doesn’t mean Germany will run wild.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, the reason for that is America can offset any advances by Japan through exploitation of her islands.  Couple that with the massive fleet Japan has to build up just to keep America from owning everything and killing her Asian units from the rear and you have a mess for Japan.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 3
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts