Aggressive America - how to stop it?


  • I’ve been playing with a new group of people lately, which has been great for seeing new strategies. However, one of the people loves to play a REALLY aggressive America. He responds to the “pearl harbor” attack with the west coast fleet + planes, builds new carriers, subs, etc. each turn. And his ultimate goal is to get situated safely off Japan’s coast.

    Now, I have no problem stopping him, but I find I have to get into a spending war which leaves Asia fairly untouched, and that pressure hurts Germany.

    Anyone have any suggestions? I’ve heard the aggressive america against Japan would never work for america, but it seems to be working out for him… any thoughts?


  • It is easy to play. While America is concentrating on Japan, you have a lot more breathing space with Germany. You have only 2 opponents left and you can pressure Russia easily enough while holding off the British.  You can possibly hold Africa for a lot longer than normal.

    Second. You expand with Japan, but not as fast as normal. Push forward, but you don’t need to pressure Russia that hard, because Germany is under less pressure. Just make sure your infantry on the mainland does not get destroyed!

    One last thing is bring everything you have to Pearl and maybe a tran if you know he is gonna retaliate. Means you buy three transporters on J1 instead of 2. You can also gamble to take Hawaii, so USA can’t sent that extra fighter, so the most he can bring is 1 fig, 1 bb, 1 tran and 1 bomb vs 1 cv, 2 planes, 2 bb’s (maybe 1 sub or tran depends what is left after the attack). He will prolly won’t engage against that force, but buys more ships. Now you are golden, because you can let him come now, and if he gets in reach of your airforce it is GG!


  • I agree with the above post….Aggressive America with Naval against Japan is just a bad strategy.

    Build/Maintain German Air Power with the breathing room this gives you.  Never allow British to maintain any shipping.

    BTW,  Seeing other strategies in other groups is the best isn’t it!!


  • I agree with the above but I think its incomplete. If US wants to be aggressive in the PAC theater I say let them. It will take a few turns to get to Japan’s soil. By then Japan isn’t out of the game you could have a huge push on mainland Asia with an IC there as well. Just keep in mind leave some troops at home for when US PAC fleet gets to you they may have transports with them ready for hostile take over.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Aggressive America can be a real b*tch in classic.  Best alternative is to build a defensive fleet, strong enough he can’t sink it, but no more then that.  Devote everything else to IC’s and infantry to walk through Asia.  Once you have Asia, you should be able to outspend America.


  • Not IC’s, TRNs.

    That way you add to the defense of your fleet AND move your troops from your unlimitted IC in Japan to Manchuria.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Yes, definitely transports.  If you are building ICs and inf (as Jen said), for a 15IPC IC you can only get 3 inf to asia per turn.  with 16IPC for 2 trns, you can get 4 inf to asia per turn.  Plus bolster your fleet for the inevitable fleet on fleet combat as switch said.


  • The other very handy effect from trannies is that you can use them as fodder if the US fleet comes to Japanese waters… Get your airforce in place and have some transports as fodder and it is bye bye US fleet…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, transports are nice, but they do you no good when you move to Hawaii to kill the American fleet.  That’s two rounds of no units going into Asia.

    A few ICs on the other hand, is a continuous stream of men and machines moving on Moscow.


  • Only 1 round… the actual round of combat movement.

    Surviving TRNs can be use to ferry troops to Asia the following turn, as can new TRNs.  And that is a heck of a lot of fodder for the US to chew through before they get to Japan’s capital ships and aircraft…  fodder that does not exist if you are focused on IC’s in Asia.

    There is a HUGE difference in Japan strats between Classic and Revised.  In Revised you HAVE to have IC’s as Japan, in Classic, they are a waste of IPC’s since the Tokyo IC is unlimitted in production and massed TRNs allow you to land anywhere you would put an early IC in a single turn without being out of position for teh TRN to be used the followign turn.

    Add in the naval fodder capability of the TRN’s AND the ability of those TRNs to then threaten North America if they survive the naval battle, and you have some very significantly increased flexibilty.  Force multipliers…


  • @Jennifer:

    Yea, transports are nice, but they do you no good when you move to Hawaii to kill the American fleet.  That’s two rounds of no units going into Asia.

    A few ICs on the other hand, is a continuous stream of men and machines moving on Moscow.

    Try not sending transports to the pearl battle! DUH…Then you still have a nice continuous stream heading to moscow via trn.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    My bad, I thought we were in the revised thread.

    However, I am right in that if you bring Transports just to stop the American fleet, you do not have any left (probably) to shuttle troops the next round.  Though, as Switch pointed out, you could buy more.

    32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?


  • @Jennifer:

    32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?

    32 IPC to be able to move 4 to 8 units per turn
    30 IPC to be able to build 6 per turn, but without any fodder for your fleet, no ability to shuttle forces wherever needed from Alaska to FIC in a single turn or Africa in 2 turns, no threat to the US, and no fodder and fleet defense if the US makes another go in the Pacific.

  • 2007 AAR League

    As Scarface said, you don’t have to send the trn against Hawaii if you don’t want to.  If you build IC, you wouldn’t have the trns in the attack anyway.  With trns, you can choose whether or not you need the extra fodder.  Or you can leave them in SJA continuously shuttling more inf than the mainland ICs can pump out.  WIN-WIN.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    @Jennifer:

    32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?

    32 IPC to be able to move 4 to 8 units per turn
    30 IPC to be able to build 6 per turn, but without any fodder for your fleet, no ability to shuttle forces wherever needed from Alaska to FIC in a single turn or Africa in 2 turns, no threat to the US, and no fodder and fleet defense if the US makes another go in the Pacific.

    15 IPC get’s you 3 units a round without tying up your fodder.

    16 IPC gets you 4 units a round, but you cannot lose the transports as fodder and they can be attacked and destroyed by enemy action.

    Much higher risk with the transports then the ICs.

    Better is 4 Transports, 2 ICs then you can use the transports as fodder without much loss.  Of course, that’s doubly true in revised where you have limited production anyway.


  • The errors in your calculations Jen…

    Each piece of fodder is a FIG, BOM or capital ship let alive after the battle that otherwise would have been sunk/shot down.
    SBR damage at new IC’s is NOT limited in Classic as it is in Revised…

  • 2007 AAR League

    Also, yes transports can be destroyed, but so can ICs be captured.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Those were not errors in judgement.  If I had a choice as America in a KJF between Japan throwing away transports and not having any Industrial Complexes or Japan throwing away fighters or having ICs and throwing away transports, I’ll gladly take the transport kills.  You have to build transports, then chose to use them as transports not fodder next round!

    ICs cannot be destroyed.  And they are at no extra risk then any other IC in the game.  Even 1 IC in Manchuria can be enough to turn the tide of battle in Classic against the Allies in a KJF maneuver.


  • In all honesty it comes down to simple game mechanics.

    In Classic you don;t have limitted IC’s, so why build more?  You don;t HAVE to like you do in Classic.

    IC’s don;t defend, they don;t attack, they CAN be targetted for SBR to take away your cash.

    TRN’s can defend, they can absorb damage by your offensive fleet, they can transport units to take them where you need them, they can send units to a LOT more places than a stationary IC and as such they force your opponent to defend more areas than they would against a fixed IC.

    Why spend money on an IC that can ONLY produce units and suffer SBR damage when you can already produce all teh units you need and instead build units that are mobile, get pieces wherever you need them, and are valuable for both attack and defense?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No, I see your point in terms of Classic.  However, even so, it’s convenient to have an IC on the mainland for Japan in Classic not only to free up transports for battle fodder but also because tanks take up a whole transport by themselves.  Thus 1 IC can produce the transport capability of 3 transports if you build tanks.

    Can they be targetted by Bombers?  Sure.  But you can also put an AA Gun there making them no more and no less targettable then any other IC on the map.

    Can they attack/defend?  No.  But they also cannot be destroyed or stolen from you (as in moved away.)

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 4
  • 8
  • 7
  • 18
  • 26
  • 8
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts