What about an American Battleship strategy?

@Ender:

It’s a case of Battleships being a silly thing to buy in bulk. Japan CAN deal with it, and in the meantime Germany has overrun Russia.

Nuff said.

Note, units that are stared are built that round

End US 1 (42 IPC):
SZ 55: *Carrier, Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, *3 Submarines, Transport
SZ 20: Destroyer, 2 Transports
W. USA: Fighter, Bomber

End US 2 (40 IPC + 2 Saved):
SZ 62: Carrier, Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, 3 Submarines, Transport
SZ 55: *Carrier, Destroyer, Fighter, *submarine, 2 transports
Alaska: 6 Infantry, Armor, AA Gun, *Industrial Complex

End US 3 (38 IPC + 1 Saved):
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, Battleship, 3 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleship (#2), *Fighter (#4)

End US 4 (38 IPC + 5 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 2 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleships

End US 5 (38 IPC + 19 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, * 2 Battleships

End US 6 (38 IPC + 9 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 5 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleship

End US 7 (38 + 23 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 6 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, 2 Battleships

By this point, Japan better have done SOMETHING because they are facing a SERIOUS threat.  From here on, basically, America can focus on filling those three transports every round and pummeling Japan. (8 Shore bombardments at the loss of 1 infantry at the very least can almost negate any builds Japan puts on the mainland.)

Of course, that’s just taking the Battleship strategy for America to a silly extreme. (Using Revised income for America assuming the fleet was lost in SZ 52 on J1 and that Japan takes China on J1 and Sinkiang on J2 but does not get Hawaii after that for fear of dieing a horrible death to American naval supremacy.)

Honestly, at this point, it’s more a matter of stacking Buryatia and the building up fighters.  See, the point is not to over load yourself on single use equipment.  Submarines are ONLY good for naval battles.  Battleships and Fighters are good for amphibious assaults as well as naval battles.

Great analysis, except for - what’s missing - hmm… oh yeah you don’t account for Japan doing anything for 7 ROUNDS!!!

Guess what - I could checkmate Garry Kasparov in 7 moves if I can work with the assumption that he doesn’t make any moves to counter mine.

Japan Round 4: 2 Submarines
Japan Round 5: 6 Submarines
Japan Round 6: 11 Submarines
Japan Round 7: 16 Submainres

So from Round 4, Japan has to basically STOP feeding units into Russia and build submarines just to counter America, meaning the Allies win that engagement. (Russia can lightly press back and recover land if it needs too, however, honestly, it only needs to liberate Novo and Kazakh.)

So yes, I did look at what Japan can do.  (BTW, I am also assuming Japan bought a carrier and has all 6 of their fighters there to defend.)

I did not assume Japan did nothing.  But let’s look at it this way:

To Counter America, Japan has to spend 144 IPC which is 144 IPC that is NOT attacking Russia anymore.  On top of that, Japan has to have their navy centralized, probably in SZ 60 and all their fighters at sea (meaning they cannot help trading anything further in then Yakut or China (China assumes fleet in SZ 61, not 60))

Also, Japan’s almost definitely buying 3 Transports (to get them up to 4) if not more.  So tack on another 24-40 IPC for transports to the total amount of money NOT being sent into Russia.

Every round after this, Japan must buy 3-6 submarines to negate the 1 or 2 battleships America builds to stop America from strafing their fleet.

Not saying it’s a perfect strategy, just pointing out that I did, in fact, look at Japan when I worked on this.

Okay, so it bleeds off Japan’s efforts against Russia.

But you have also completely bled off US efforts against Germany.

So how much breathing room will Russia have from Germany to expend against Japan.

Whoopee.

Fundamentals: BB’s cost $24 each. That means you can’t afford a lot of them. That means your enemies will have way more units, and on land where it counts more, even if they have to expend some on navy to counteract your top-heavy BB fleet.

@Ender:

Great analysis, except for - what’s missing - hmm… oh yeah you don’t account for Japan doing anything for 7 ROUNDS!!!

Guess what - I could checkmate Garry Kasparov in 7 moves if I can work with the assumption that he doesn’t make any moves to counter mine.

LOL

Try it out once before you condemn it.

It doesn’t sound like much, but your Japanese fleet is checkmated.  That means America has free run in the Pacific so I’ll be bleeding off a lot more then just some units from Russia, I’ll be depriving Japan of resources from the Pacific AND bleeding units from the Russian campaign.

That means it’s Russia and England vs Germany.  54 IPC vs 40.  That’s a lead for the Allies.  Is America helping?  No.  Does America really help in KJF before round 7?  No.  (They help a little, but honestly, the trickle of one or two units while cowering behind England’s skirts isn’t very significant until about round 7 when you FINALLY have enough there to actually attack something.)

Meanwhile, you COULD run the battleship strategy. (There’s a submarine one, a carrier one, a fighter one, and a conglomerate one as well.  I’m not a one trick pony.  But the title of the thread is “What about an American Battleship strategy” so I listed a battleship strategy.)

I notice you enjoy just declaring by fiat that something won’t work but, like a political candidate, you refuse to post a plan on how you will stop it.

I think Russia should try an All-Battleship strategy. How could it go wrong? I mean what with all the bombarding and repairing that battleships can do, it’s fool-proof!

Russia and England won’t be totalling 54 anymore if all America has been doing is building a navy of battleships.

Without US help, Japan and Germany will take away most of the UK’s land base pretty damn fast, long before the US is in a position to really threaten Japan. That tips the income balance in the Axis’ favour, and then Germany and Japan can focus their joint might against Russia, taking Caucasus early on.

@Cmdr:

Meanwhile, you COULD run the battleship strategy. (There’s a submarine one, a carrier one, a fighter one, and a conglomerate one as well.

ORLY?

Are you telling me there’s a strategy in which I build all subs, one in which I build all carriers, one in which I build all Fighters?

And then there’s one in which you purchase a variety of units? Wait, stop, that makes my brain hurt. Isn’t it best to just choose one unit and only build that? Mixing different units, that just sounds like asking for trouble. Then you have to remember the differences, etc… I would only recommend that for ADVANCED players maybe.

:-P

Silliness aside, yes.

There is an all submarine one
One with carriers in it
One that is almost all fighters (very little carriers as opposed to the one with lots of carriers and fighters in good proportion)
and the Battleship one.

Honestly, I like the battleship one.  7 Battleships are going to play all kinds of hell with the Japanese navy and their maneuvers on the mainland.

Without Japan helping in Russia, Germany’s going to be hard pressed to earn 22 IPC against Russia and England.

@Cmdr:

Without Japan helping in Russia, Germany’s going to be hard pressed to earn 22 IPC against Russia and England.

How about
@Sensible:

Without US helping in Europe, Russia’s going to be hard pressed to keep Germany at bay.

or
@Another:

Without US helping in Europe, England’s going to be hard pressed to make any inroads on Germany.

You continue to amaze and surprise with your ability to apply logic on one side, and not equally on the other.