E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
-
So I've played a few games lately where Japan forgos the turn 1 attack on the US fleet and instead turtles in Japan Sea zone. My first reaction has been to breath a sigh of relief and set sail with everything for Panama - destination North Sea and a Germany First strategy.
I've seen though that this action basically means the Japanese navy can romp through Australia/NZ and move on South West Africa in addition to an unfettered transport train to Manchuria and French Indo-China. Japan unchallenged grows very quickly into a Moscow killing monstrosity.
So what do you do? Turn Japan loose and hope that Berlin falls the turn before Moscow or do you take Japan head on with the USA and force a naval arms race?
-
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
-
I have had opponents do the following as I never hit the US fleet on turn 1.
build fighters and transports. Start taking small bites out of the weaker Japanese held areas. At some point it builds into a big enough fleet to force the Japanese to pay attention to you rather than staying focused on Moscow.
-
Patrick Twitchell
United States
Ayer
Massachusetts
-
Japan and U.S. can completely ignore each other in the Pacific. In this case, U.S. puts all efforts into getting troops into Europe. A two front war for Germany will ease pressure on Russia from the west, even if Japan is moving in from the east.
U.S. needs to get fighters on the U.K. carrier, then 2 groups of transports that alternate--one group shipping out (to Western Europe, if possible, or Morocco, or at least U.K.) and the other group returning. This takes some logistical coordination, and is not easy at first, especially if the German navy has not been dealt with.
I think if Japan doesn't go after the U.S. in the Pacific, then the U.S. can do far more harm to the Axis in Europe.
-
E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
-
Ignore, yes - which leads to the problem I posted. If you think about it - the US moves fleets to Panama turn 1, East US on 2, UK (or Africa) on 3. But by turn 3 the UK normally has a carrier and a pile of US/UK/USSR transports in the UK sea zone. The addition of the US BB and carrier really don't add significantly to the defense and are a waste of significant resources if not used aggressively.
-
Jason Weed
United States
Memphis
Tennessee
how sweet the sound...
Fear The Hat !!!
-
moonglum01 wrote: Ignore, yes - which leads to the problem I posted. If you think about it - the US moves fleets to Panama turn 1, East US on 2, UK (or Africa) on 3. But by turn 3 the UK normally has a carrier and a pile of US/UK/USSR transports in the UK sea zone. The addition of the US BB and carrier really don't add significantly to the defense and are a waste of significant resources if not used aggressively.
Planes are too valuable, I will give you that the carrier is probably useless (except for added protection). Leaving the allies with an extra plane, extra transport and battleship (which can bombard and take out 2/3 of a unit per turn). If you kill the fleet, you usually take out the plane and at least a transport, maybe the battleship if things go well enough.
If my opponent leaves the fleet alone, i usually leave the sub and carrier as a nuisance in the pacific against stray transports and to keep the home fleet honest in sea of japan. I send the fighter to Europe where the US now has 3 fighters and a bomber to stage in karelia for defense and to threaten the EE-Germany-France zones with amphibious invasion. This makes holding Europe very difficult. The battleship and transport are available in 3 turns for use in the European theatre. Asia will fall to Japan anyway, and Japan could have taken Australia right after Hawaii had they attacked it, so the pass on Hawaii just saved the US units. This is a very bad option for Japan. Even if they trade a battleship to kill the carrier/fighter, that fighter is worth more to the US that both battleships to Japan.
-
Patrick Twitchell
United States
Ayer
Massachusetts
-
moonglum01 wrote: Ignore, yes - which leads to the problem I posted. If you think about it - the US moves fleets to Panama turn 1, East US on 2, UK (or Africa) on 3. But by turn 3 the UK normally has a carrier and a pile of US/UK/USSR transports in the UK sea zone. The addition of the US BB and carrier really don't add significantly to the defense and are a waste of significant resources if not used aggressively.
I leave the Western U.S. fleet where it is, (as moonglum points out) in order to keep the Japanese fleet in check. As U.S., I build a navy on the east coast to send to Europe.
-
Jason Weed
United States
Memphis
Tennessee
how sweet the sound...
Fear The Hat !!!
-
Desiderata wrote: moonglum01 wrote: Ignore, yes - which leads to the problem I posted. If you think about it - the US moves fleets to Panama turn 1, East US on 2, UK (or Africa) on 3. But by turn 3 the UK normally has a carrier and a pile of US/UK/USSR transports in the UK sea zone. The addition of the US BB and carrier really don't add significantly to the defense and are a waste of significant resources if not used aggressively. I leave the Western U.S. fleet where it is, (as moonglum points out) in order to keep the Japanese fleet in check. As U.S., I build a navy on the east coast to send to Europe.
By the US navy, do you mean the carrier, sub, fighter, battleship and transport? This strategy would work well for the axis, as you have units camped out that do nothing all war and they can take all of Asia and ferry troops without worry about a relatively small fleet posing any threat. Eventually, when they no longer need the ships, they could wipe out that fleet in one large blow at their leisure and then gobble up Hawaii, Alaska, New Zealand and Australia. Though they could take Australia from the opposite coast with just a bomber and transport anytime. If you then move south, that would leave Alaska and Hawaii vulnerable.
-
Patrick Twitchell
United States
Ayer
Massachusetts
-
Yes, by "keeping them in check", I guess I mean protect Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. As the U.S. player, I don't worry too much about Australia/NZ. The more Japan focuses on the Pacific, the less pressure they are putting on Russia, which is good for the Allies.
-
Jason Weed
United States
Memphis
Tennessee
how sweet the sound...
Fear The Hat !!!
-
Desiderata wrote: Yes, by "keeping them in check", I guess I mean protect Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. As the U.S. player, I don't worry too much about Australia/NZ. The more Japan focuses on the Pacific, the less pressure they are putting on Russia, which is good for the Allies.
True, but Hawaii isn't valuable, Alaska is easily retaken and the mainland is almost impossible for Japan to get a foothold without first a strong presence in Alaska bearing down. It takes Japan 3 turns to get units into Western US from Japan (1st build, 2nd move, 3rd move and unload). The US can see this coming far in advance and just build infantry if need be, in the mean time Russia breathes a sigh of relief. I would rather have the fighter, battleship and transport pouring it on in Europe. Also, the fighter can get from the North Sea or Atlantic sea zones (UK carrier) to Western US for defense or attacking Alaska (after a UK move to Canada sea zone if possible) with ground troops in 1 turn. The more flexible space is easily the Atlantic, therefore European theatre.
Ideally, 2 fighters on a UK carrier in the North Sea or Atlantic can potentially hit Eastern Europe, Germany, France, Karelia, Italy, Caucasus, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Alaska, Panama, Brazil, Mexico and West Canada. It can also be support for Western US in an emergency or as a deterent. This isn't even including sea zones for stray axis ships.
If you add another fighter and bomber landed in Karelia, Germany has a difficult time defending the France/German/Eastern Europe line from the US without spreading itself dangerously thin.
-
E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
-
Desiderata wrote: moonglum01 wrote: Ignore, yes - which leads to the problem I posted. If you think about it - the US moves fleets to Panama turn 1, East US on 2, UK (or Africa) on 3. But by turn 3 the UK normally has a carrier and a pile of US/UK/USSR transports in the UK sea zone. The addition of the US BB and carrier really don't add significantly to the defense and are a waste of significant resources if not used aggressively. I leave the Western U.S. fleet where it is, (as moonglum points out) in order to keep the Japanese fleet in check. As U.S., I build a navy on the east coast to send to Europe.
That does keep the Japanese battleships from wandering to far afield as they would need to get back to home islands in two moves to counter US adventureism (US builds transports (1) - moves to Hawaii (2) - causes mischief(3) ). That could keep them from sailing around Africa or into the Med with the bulk of their military units.
On the flip side, the US is committing a pile of resources to a strategy that at best might pay off in the end game and, as was pointed out, the Japanese fleet could just sail over at any point and crush the US fleet.
-
|
|
