US Pacific Strategy



  • The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

    If Japan did a FULL consolidation in SZ30, then you have 2 TRN instead of 1 as Japan at the start of J1.  That is a nice advantage from the start for Japan.

    If the Allies Consolidate, do the same as Japan…  Do Pearl Ultra-Light, take China, take Bury.  Build TRN and some INF.  Consolidate the Japan Fleet into 2 combat groups, with a straggler unit or two.

    What does UK do then? 
    Run Away to the Atlantic?  4 turns that the Axis gets to largely ignore those forces
    Protect Australia?  The US better be spending money in the Pacific, or the UK Fleet is going to get sunk in short order with minimal Japan losses.
    Shield/Counter Egypt?  You are going to run out of land units to transport in short order, leaving a UK fleet with no real threat in the Indian Ocean.

    Against the SZ30 Unification, Japan simply builds TRNs (with the remainder as land units) and groups their starting fleets into 2 major clusters.  Anchored with 2 BB’s and 2 AC’s plus SIX starting FIGs, the UK fleet is pretty much worthless as an attack force against the Japs.  The only concern for Japan is a merge of the UK and USA forces… and a “fodder TRN” build J1 pretty much blocks that effort from the start.



  • @ncscswitch:

    The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

    Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    @Cmdr:

    The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

    I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…

    A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.

    I was not referring to you, however.  I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Bunnies:

    @ncscswitch:

    The trade off with skipping SZ30 is what you need to look at…

    Man, I KNOES you aren’t talkin to me.

    That’s the only reason I DO a SZ 30 unification with England.  I want Japan to attack me.  Even if I lose worse than expected, man, the Allies come out on top!

    A)  You don’t have enough to do Pearl now. Luckily no one caught my mistake so I can correct it myself, the forces I listed to attack SZ 52, if you hit SZ 30, CANNOT BE DONE.  The only units you can bring are Transport, Battleship, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber.  The reason is that the SZ 30 carrier is already designated to go to SZ 38 and retrieve surviving fighters, therefore it cannot ALSO be ordered to stand by and recover fighters from SZ 52.

    B)  I’ll trade you some British units 4 rounds from the action for American units that can be used immediately against Japan to press the advantage.

    C)  I’ll trade you 4 dead fighters with Japan to save an American fighter.  Especially since Japan normally doesn’t lose ANY fighters on Round 1!



  • @Cmdr:

    @ncscswitch:

    @Cmdr:

    The point I was making was that there are a few blunderbusts out there who spout off vociferously about how easy SZ 30 is to attack and sink with Japan winning on J1 that, when presented with the opportunity, never do.

    I think I may have been one of those about a year and a half ago…

    A few quality Allied players showed me my previous error, which had been promulgated by previous lesser players.

    I was not referring to you, however.  I never got a chance to use it against you, you stopped playing me when I demonstrated that KJF did not result in Germany reigning supreme over Russia in short order.

    Actually I stopped playing you for a completely different reason that shall remain unspecified here.



  • The attack is French Indochina fighter plus 2 East Indies sea zone fighters vs SZ 30; Caroline Islands sea zone fighter plus bomber sub and destroyer hit Hawaii’s sub/carrier/fighter.

    As I wrote before, UK can do a vicious counter under some (even most circumstances) after Japan strafes SZ 30 then retreats to SZ 38. (Even with the vicious counter, I still do NOT recommend an all-out attack), and that’s assuming there’s no bad dice on the Jap 3 fig 1 carrier 1 btl vs 2 trns 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 fighter attack.

    But it IS feasible to hit SZ 30 and still do Pearl and China - particularly under Low Luck.  Which I am not a fan of.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    If you are sending 4 fighters, battleship, carrier to SZ 30 that does not exactly leave you in a good position for SZ 52.

    You’ll have Submarine, Destroyer, Battleship, Transport and Bomber left to attack.  Win, sure.  But not strong enough to stop a counter attack.

    China is still doable, however.



  • You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.



  • @ncscswitch:

    You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.

    But then you can only get 2 FIG to SZ 30.

    @Cmdr:

    If you are sending 4 fighters, battleship, carrier to SZ 30 that does not exactly leave you in a good position for SZ 52.

    You’ll have Submarine, Destroyer, Battleship, Transport and Bomber left to attack.  Win, sure.  But not strong enough to stop a counter attack.

    China is still doable, however.

    I know; that’s why I wrote you hit Pearl with sub/destr/fig/bomb.  You chance more of your air, but you don’t lose your battleship on the counter.

    Pffft, nobody reads my s*** anyways.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    You can get 2 FIGs to SZ52 as well, if you want to send them.

    But then you cannot send 4 fighters to SZ 30, as was previously mentioned.  The problem is that carrier in SZ 50 cannot pull double duty and be ready to collect fighters from both SZ 52 and SZ 30, even if you know none of your fighters are going to survive, you still have to pretend you’ll win without loss, so no kamikaze pilots.

    And Bunnies, you CAN send 1 fighter to SZ 52, but you’re shorting yourself a fighter in SZ 30 and that’s going to seriously risk the loss of both Carrier and Battleship in that battle.

    Any way I cut it, you lose a battleship if you do BOTH SZ 30 and SZ 52.  Maybe I am just blind, but with the forces available, based on their start positions, I just don’t see a way you can seriously win all battles realistically. (Of course, there are the extreme cases, but we are not including those.)



  • Sorry, I forgot about the 2nd AC needing to declare movement to SZ30.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    Sorry, I forgot about the 2nd AC needing to declare movement to SZ30.

    No prob.  I originally made that mistake as well when I out lined the tri-fecta attack plan, then realized my mistake whilst driving to work yesterday.

    Easy enough mistake!



  • As to the original question a Battleship and carrier first turn followed up by a Battleship, transport and 2 Infantry the following turns can get real annoying for Japan real quick. Depending on how the starting US ground forces are used a sub can be substituted for a transport early.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    a44:

    I think you are tacking along the right path, but I feel you may be more interesting in two carriers, fighter on US 1 instead of Battleship, Carrier on US 1.

    This gives you 4 fighters, 2 carriers, destroyer, transport in SZ 55 on US 1.

    After that, I personally, think a battleship a round is a decent idea.  Eventually you’ll have enough battleships that you won’t be taking damage when hitting Japanese fleets. (Like round 8, but so what?)



  • I will have to try the 2 CV round one approach. My concern would be a lack of a BB hit early on .

    I think the real beauty of the dedicated purchase is that it allows to go ahead and fight the battles earlier where you DO take losses to the Japanese. Your losses are already being replaced and if Japan is buying Navy that is pressure off Russia.

    Two battleships and two transports can also be a tempting target for Japan and we all know how well the Liberty ships defend never might the tips.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but the battleship gives you one shot.  The two carriers + 4 fighters gives you 6 shots.  That’s a vastly increased amount of damage vs the battleship.



  • Question on a J1 SZ30 attack:

    I was looking at scenerios where Japan might retreat after the first round (doing sufficient damage, but wanting to save fighers), but having problems with logistics.

    If Japan hits SZ30 with 4 fighters, they MUST bring the carrier as well, right?  The FIC figher is 4 spaces away.  So basically, they CANNOT retreat?  If they brought the battleship……its moved its max as well, right?



  • @Cmdr:

    Yes, but the battleship gives you one shot.  The two carriers + 4 fighters gives you 6 shots.  That’s a vastly increased amount of damage vs the battleship.

    No respect to your math.

    If your US1 buy are two carriers and fighter, you get a fleet that roll 6 dice with 14 attack factors and 22 defend factors.

    If your US1 buy are one carrier and one battleship, you get a fleet that roll 4 dice with 11 attack factors and 15 defend factors, and soack up the first enemy hit, and shore bombard Solomon so you wont loose your two infantry


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Defense:  2 Carriers (6 Punch), 4 Fighters (16 Punch), 1 Battleship (4 Punch), 1 Transport (1 Punch), 1 Destroyer (3 Punch) Total Defensive Punch: 30 or roughly 5 hits in round 1 of a battle

    Defense: 1 Carrier (3 Punch), 2 Fighters (8 Punch), 2 Battleships (8 Punch), 1 Transport (1 Punch), 1 Destroyer (3 Punch) Total Defensive Punch: 23 or just shy of 4 hits in round 1 of a battle.

    Add to that number of units:

    Scenario 1: 9 Units
    Scenario 2: 7 Units

    Add to that flexibility:

    2 Battleship shore bombardments, 2 fighters
    1 Battleship shore bombardment, 4 fighters

    Honestly, give all three advantages for the two carriers and a fighter build (with consolidation of everything else in SZ 55) I think America is better off.  After round 1 purchases I usually fall into battleship/transport/ground units in a KJF game.  But the sheer advantage of starting off with the same number of carriers and being more flexible because of it vs having my units tied up in a central mass makes it better, in my opinion, to have the carriers.



  • wow, wish I could give you a + karma but they are bound for my Hun



  • @Mach:

    Question on a J1 SZ30 attack:

    I was looking at scenerios where Japan might retreat after the first round (doing sufficient damage, but wanting to save fighers), but having problems with logistics.

    If Japan hits SZ30 with 4 fighters, they MUST bring the carrier as well, right?  The FIC figher is 4 spaces away.  So basically, they CANNOT retreat?  If they brought the battleship……its moved its max as well, right?

    You don’t need to bring the carrier if you declare intent to move the carrier into SZ 30 during noncombat.  This is true even if you don’t intend to or have no chance of clearing SZ 30; all you need do is declare intent.

    That said, you should bring the carrier to SZ 30.  It attacks on a 1, which is better than nothing.

    The FIC fighter is stuck. The rest of the units can retreat, including the battleship and the carrier, though the battleship and carrier moved 2 spaces to get to SZ 30.



  • doh! 
    :oops:

    Yep, you’re right….dont know why I was thinking that the battleship couldnt retreat after moving 2!

    Yep, only the FIC figher is stuck.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    lol… 😄


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 14
  • 11
  • 1
  • 15
  • 47
  • 5
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts