How to use America effectively in KGF?

Logistics hmmm…, always one or two guys too many or too few, or 1-2 trans missing….

Buying US1 for me is usually 2 AC + trans.
Or 1 AC + trans, inf.
Navy investment depends on G naval buy, and movements.
Then I can focus on the shuck-shuck rather than worrying about the US navy drowning.
UK may borrow a ftr or two, but UK should also buy 2 AC imo, if G buys any naval units.
If G don’t move any ftrs to WE or Afr, then UK+US can meet in Algeria rnd 1.
Sometimes US can’t move until second rnd, because of G naval units in med., and
if G kills the UK fleet with sub bid in sz 2.
US should always aim for 4x4 and 5x5 (tanks+inf.) if game lasts more than 5 rnds.
I don’t see the need for more than 5-6 ftrs for US, some getting killed in attacks on SE, have to be replaced.
4 ftrs on carriers and 1-2 reserve in Libya/Algeria, or flown to Caucus.

I normally do the following:

US1: Buy 1 AC, 2 TRN, 1 inf, 1 Tank (save 2)
       If UK invade Algeria then
       NCM: 2inf, 1 art, 1 tank to Algeria (with two TRN 1 DD) joining UK fleet there (1 BB, 2 TRN)
       (If UK failed to take Algeria, this is made as Combat move)
       If UK do not invade Algeria then
       NCM: 2 TRN + 1 DD in Sz1, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 Tank to ECAN

Always: DD from sz20 to sz10, 2 inf from Central USA to EUS
      Deployment: 2 all in EUS.

Then my objective is to have UK and US fleets togheter in the first 3-4 rounds.
Typically going to Algeria, and from third turn UK goes to Norway while US goes for Mediterranean.
I go with US with a 3x3 shuk.

In US I ideal build whould be 2 I buy 1 TRN, 3 inf, 3 tank, 1 Fig. (but something may change the final count)

And after I try to get another TRN, 1 Fig x turn and inf and tanks to fill the 3 TRN.
Usually I aim to shuk to Africa with US and in Norway with UK, after the 3-4 round.
I split the fleets only when they may face a strike with decent chance of having some boat still floating after the battle, if attacked by German.

This sounds like a great topic! I have plenty of trouble getting America effective…

Could you please explain what you mean with 3x3 shuck?

Would that be constantly having 3 trns in ECO and 3 trns in AZO, shuttling troops into ALG?

Yes, i mean precisely that. IMHO is the easiest way of quikly ferring troops in Africa.
US Army from there may march to Egypt and then to Caucasus, or lands in WE or SE, or switch the transport ferryng to the other shuck route.
The other option is, going with TRN in Sz 1, and from there to sz 7 (Norway). This is a little slowest to set up but works better.
Land units produced in EUS, step to ECAN. The two shuck fleet of 3 TRN go back and fort between ECAN and Norway landing 6 units at turn (ideally 3 inf and 3 tanks, but also other combination work)

Naturally you have t pay attention to German fleet tha tmay be used as fodder for attacking togheter with Luftwaffe!

The other option is to use 4x4 shuck (two fleet of 4 TRN that goes back and forth), a little more slower to set-up and requiring more lands unit to ne buyed, so you have less aircraft.
You have to make your own attempts and select the one you feel beetter, fitting well to your playing style!

The superior build position for US forces is WESTERN US not Eastern.

It takes 1 round longer for INF to get to ECan, but once established, building in WUS allows the US to defend against an raiding Japan forces in WUS or WCan for no additional cost in units.  You double use the builds, first as defenders against Japan, then as offensive units once they are moved to Africa or Europe.

@ncscswitch:

The superior build position for US forces is WESTERN US not Eastern.

It takes 1 round longer for INF to get to ECan, but once established, building in WUS allows the US to defend against an raiding Japan forces in WUS or WCan for no additional cost in units.  You double use the builds, first as defenders against Japan, then as offensive units once they are moved to Africa or Europe.

I learned from being suckerpunched that building tanks in WUS and inf/art in EUS is the best alternative.

If Alaska’s taken early, or if Russia’s really pressured late game, US ought then to put up some sort of defensive build in W. Canada.

That is, I think the proper US route is Eastern US to Eastern Canada, and from there either taking two fleets of US transports (fleet one transports to London, fleet two transports from London to Europe), OR taking a single large fleet between Algeria and Eastern Canada.  It’s very difficult to secure the Algerian route in a timely manner; if the Axis manage to control Persia early on, the US has a hard time breaking through; conversely, if the Allies manage to secure Persia, that probably means an easy Allied victory.

The route ncsswitch refers to; W. US to W. Canada to E. Canada makes the U.S. player look a lot better, and allows the US to be more responsive to Japanese moves.  However, I am of the personal opinion that it wastes a turn that could be vital to the Allies.

The observation made by Switch is correct regarding efficancy in utilization of land units.

Really the need for doing that is related to the metagame. In my playgroup games Japanese player completely ignore USA West Coast, aiming at RUssia, Australia and Africa, that are mor eeasy to conquer and only after may try to take a shot to the USA.
In such scenario building in WUS is one turn more to estabilish shuck move for ECAN.
As newpaintbrush said it may be a waste of a turn.
However, in ssome scenario US landing in Europe has to be delayed, in such case it may be useful to use the WUS-WCAN-ECAN route.

Indeed, the real problem of US logistic is not route for lands units but buying the land units to fill the TRNs (avoding to have empty TRNs) and to having the TRNs to load all the units (avoiding units left in ECAN) at same time.

I’m in the building in EUS camp myself.

There’s a definite psychological factor in this game where people tend to over-value territory and under-value units.

Consider: Building in EUS leaves the territory of WCan empty (although I usually just leave the UK Inf there as a picket). That’s a 1 IPC territory.

Now, if Japan is willing to commit a loaded transport (16 IPCs) and possibly more to take that 1 IPC territory, I’m all for it as the US player. I will still be able to re-take it right away with Inf in ECan + possibly armor from EUS. That’s the real damage inflicted by the move - it draws off several IPCs of units from the march on Europe. I care much less about the 1 IPC that Japan gains than the fact that 8+ IPCs of units have now been drawn away from where I wanted them to go. However, it’s still a net loss for Japan because it has committed at least 11 IPCs of units (TRN + Inf) and I get to kill the Inf right on my doorstep. Japan has traded an active 3 IPC unit for 1 IPC which will go into production that gets placed back in Japan at the END of the next turn - that’s why units are more valuable than territory.

However, if you start building in WUS from the start, you give Japan that advantage for free - you have delayed a whole turn’s worth of production (40 IPCs) without Japan having to lift a finger.

If Japan lands a big force in WCan or Alaska, that makes me even happier - they will need to outpace me in terms of ground units in order to gain further territory, PLUS a lot of naval units will be tied up to support the effort. Russia’s life just got a lot easier!

Only if you do not execute the WUS shuck correctly does it take 2 turns.

By using the WUS, Alaska, and CUS forces, as well as shucking via SZ9 (and a PORTION of your land builds in EUS in US1 while the shuck is established) you will have an unbroken chain of forces hitting North Africa from the start.

I think that the real challenge of US Logistic is to match perfectly Transports with units.
The manoeuvre proposed by Switch have sure advantage. But it his a tactic for masters!

But for a newbie as me, being able to transport troops in Europe without having empty transport in Sz 1 or execess of land units in ECAN it is already a good result to aim for!  :-D

If Japanese want to land in Alaska or somewhere else, I see them coming one turn in advance and then may prepare and adequate welcome party!

@ncscswitch:

Only if you do not execute the WUS shuck correctly does it take 2 turns.

By using the WUS, Alaska, and CUS forces, as well as shucking via SZ9 (and a PORTION of your land builds in EUS in US1 while the shuck is established) you will have an unbroken chain of forces hitting North Africa from the start.

I’m a bit confused by your statement.

IMHO, there is going to be a 1 round break in the American shuck no matter what.  It might be a break by not shucking on round 1 or, more commonly,a break on Round 2 while you get the 5 infantry from Alaska/C. USA/W. USA to W. Canada then E. Canda and have builds following from there.  But it’s still a break, no?

I prefer the WUS builds and the US forces in Africa.  It has the effect of moving US forces quickly to contest Egypt and Persia as well as keeping the UK IPC total up by keeping Africa out of Axis hands.  This means that the UK and Russia, with some US fighter help can counter Germany, while the US/Russia can counter Japan throught Africa and Persia.

SS

Done correctly, the WUS does not sacrifice any time at all.

You just can’t buy 2 or 3 trns in US1 which is no big deal, and if you need to send US troops to London for protection on a potential Sealion it works out perfect.

I like to send US troops to Alg, so right there I cut my need for US trns in half for the Atlantic.  I can survive with only 3 or 4 total in the Atlantic, which means I only need to buy maybe 1.  Then I’ll gradually add trns for a possible Med move.

I like to buy an AC/ftr (or 2) or ground units on US 1.  Place the new ground units in WUS and you’re set.  No delay at all.  You land heavy in Afr in Rd 2 and then UK shifts to Nor and US covers Afr while threatening the Med.

Any US player that doesn’t place in WUS is asking for trouble in the mid game.

Japan always has trns to spare and needs one to pick up Aus, NZ, and can then move to HI anyway.  At this point it costs Japan nothing to invade Canada and with only 1-2 additional trns in Sz 60 they can be quite an annoyance since they should already have their ICs on Mainland Asia and a full 2-3 turns of reinforcements before the effect of the Canada move is even felt (if it is even felt).

As an Axis player I’d much rather mess with the US shuck-shuck in round 5,6, or 7 then have the US prepare for it in rd 1 or 2.

For the shuck moves, yesterday playing as US in a 5 player game I experimented the following .

US1: build 1 AC, 2 TRN, 2 Tank = 42 IPC.
      Move to Algeria to reinforce British landing there.
      Move fig from WUS to sz10
      Move fig from EUS to sz10
      Move 2 inf from CUS to EUS
      Move DD from sz20 to sz10
      Deploy all land units in EUS, all naval units in sz10

US2: 1 TRN in EUS, 4 inf 2 Tank, 1 fig = 40 IPC.

and so on, increasing to 3x3 shuck to Algeria.
After, I plan to build other three trn, when needed to switch landing in norway, without interrupting land units flow, or for landing in WE or SE.
I have still to reach this next stage, we played only three rounds, and “saved” the game to continue next time.

I’ll have a 3x3 up by Turn 3.

Round 1: Buy 3 Transports
Round 2: Buy units and move fleets around.
Round 3: 3 Transports East of England, 3 Transports West of England.