US 1st Turn KGF

@MrMalachiCrunch:

First of all you need a mix in fleet and in land units.  Second, even at 20 a BB would be a sitting duck for 18 IPC of subs.  3 subs CRUSH a battleship with an average loss of a single sub costing 6 IPC.  If all you had were BBs I would flood the ocean with subs and pick and choose when i want to fight.  So you would need some DDs but still subs would kill you, so you need air units combined with DDs to project power.  In order to get in striking distance of subs, because you have to move up you have to put yourself in harms way, let the enemy decide to attack you or not.  You might need blocking DDs to get your fleet close enough to project power onto the subs and force a retreat as they can’t stand a few DDs with airpower.  In other words, you need combined arms to win.  That is one reason I hate to use a single bomber against an AA.  Going from 1 to zero is a 100% loss of the service of a bomber and the power it projects over a wide swath of area.  Think about it, a single bomber might cause you to defend against it in 6 different places.  Even by doing nothing, the power it projects influences the battlespace.

The subs cost 8 IPC in revised
7 if you posses  ˝War Economy˝ NA

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

I usually start shipping troops and a small fleet to africa to threaten the underbelly of Europe, building up enough forces over several turns to eventually launch a strike or reinforce WEU.  At the same time I am slowly building a navy in the Pacific to make sure Japan doesnt go unchecked, and maybe if japan has their navy out of the way I will build a transport and take borneo, just to be an annoyance.

Lately I have been going heavy Kreigsmarine.  1 Carrier is silly if you don’t reinforce it.  2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 submarines, maybe another transport in there, now you are forcing England to build navy, not ground forces.  That’s almost the equivalent of removing one power from the game right there.

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

Actually, no one had superfortresses.  The only real NA ever used was Russian Winter and Fortress Europe…the rest were forgotten since no one ever played with them.

Meanwhile, if you can scare Japan into SZ 61 or destroy him, you have effectively contained the Jap fleet.  IF you can tkae SZ 60 even if Japan isn’t there, and hold it, you have contained Japan.  (At least you’ve removed their largest production facility.)

Japan is very flimsy.  Ask anyone who’s worked on a KJF strat.  One or two bad moves with Japan and Japan is neutrallized.  One or 20 bad moves with America and at worst Russia has fallen.

Fair enough :-)  My wife will probably be happy if I take a week off anyway :-)

Good luck on your current match!

Thanks a bunch.  Ill give that a shot. :wink: