Author Topic: U.S.  (Read 11622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
U.S.
« on: November 10, 2005, 07:12:12 AM »
OK, OK - so I am a converted believer that the U.S. has to start giving the UK between 3-7 production points every turn from the get go (sorry about that last time, James!).  I still think they have to lay down three factories out of the gates though. . .

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2005, 09:25:31 AM »
So why not just start with 2 factories and give the UK 12- 15 pp per first 4 US turns? It seems to me like it is worth getting product out on the board via the UK earlier. I would call this damage control... No?

John

Raybshot

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2005, 10:41:46 PM »
There are 2 ways to view the money.

Pre US and Post US.

Post US: If US will build say an extra 2 fighters and a carrier with the money it will come out post Pearl Harbor
Pre US:  If they gave the same money to UK/China its used to do damage (hopefully slowing) the Axis, If UK builds say 2 extra fighters what’s the difference, aside of more time those planes can hinder Germany & Italy.

I would love for US to do max lend but in all honesty that’s not practical, at least not all 8 turns as the US needs to build some stuff vs. Japan to slow there romping in the pacific till the US has there 125 to start building a real force against Japan.

So my thoughts are for the US turns:
1) (25) 2 factories, 10 UK, 3 China
2) (25) 2 factories, 10 UK, 3 China
3) (25) 2 factories, 10 UK, 3 China
4) (25) 2 factories, 6 UK, 3 China, 1 fighter
5) (27) 3 factories, 2 (UK or China), 1 fighter, 1 troop
6) (27) 3 factories, 2 (UK or China), 1 fighter, 1 troop
7) (27) 3 factories, 2 (UK or China), 1 fighter, 1 troop
8) (27) 3 factories, 9 to spend on carrier, battleship (or some long term ships that you will have come out on turn 12 with a large force of other navel stuff)

Now this obviously should be adjusted, if UK is doing well with the battles or German subs were wiped out with minimal damage and UK doesn't need 10 then toss more to China or build more stuff, if Japan isn't messing with China at all, they wont need any funds.

I'm also not sure on the turns how the fighters will work, but I think its important for the US to have at least 2 extra fighters on Hawaii so there is a potential of costing Japan more in Pearl Harbor (or maybe saving your battle ships there).

Why bother giving 3 to China or 10 to UK?  If China has 1 more troop out there that can help hold a territory it takes 1 production from Japan (per turn), or if the unit hits it costs Japan 3 (to replace that troop) as well as Japan has as very limited ability to build troops and they need them for the island hopping.  Same with UK, if UK has the money to put pressure on Italy, maybe it will slow them 1 turn coming into the war or might cost Germany more in France.

At the same cost, a unit now who can do things vs. a unit later who isn’t in play seems like an obvious choice.

You can also think of it this way, if UK had saved say 5 every turn for the first 4 turns (20) and waited for 4 more turns before spending it would seem foolish.

derdiktator

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: U.S. (Pacific Theatre)
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2005, 10:12:19 AM »
I think the US really should start building the three factories right out of the gate so that they get the slight extra bump of production after the first year, and more importantly, so that in the second year of the game they need then only be building two factories (rather than three) and will have more freed-up production to actually lend lease when the Brits REALLY need it.  I also am greatly in favor of the US building two carriers by Pearl Harbor so that they have pretty immediate options to pressure the Japanese from mid-1942 onwards.  This of course means I don't favor too much lend lease (maybe a few points a turn the first year and five or so per turn the second year). I have to feel that those  lend-lease points are generally better used to prepare against the Japanese. 

And I've said it before and I'll say it again - lend leasing the Chinese is a waste - every lend lease point up in the Chinese mountains is one less point to stop or slow the Japanese in the Pacific.  With patience, the Chinese can get by quite enough well entirely on their own, thank you.  Everytime I've run them they pretty much have kicked Japan all but off the mainland by early 1944 without so much as a buck of lend lease.  Doing so does require immediately falling back to the mountains at the start of the game and enormous patience, waiting for the right timing to come out of the mountains.  And yes, it is frustrating to spend four years hiding in the mountains and being kicked in the teeth by the Japanese (particularly their air force). But what the heck, they're only Chinese... ;-)

I used to think building two additional US carriers was a good idea (i.e., a total force of six carriers). However, I'm not sure of that now as island hopping in the Central and Southeast Pacific seems to work pretty well without carriers because the islands are so close together.  This may also be true in the Southwest Pacific, but the jury's still out on this for me as it's nice to have the option of by-passing Jap islands to bring pressure directly against Jap fleet units. 

I do like a strong force of US carriers (four at least), because the alternative, having no or few carriers, pretty much mandates an island hopping campaign to capture air bases to provide air cover. Having many carriers allows the US to early go for a Jap jugular.  With eight fighters on board a task force (plus four more flowing in a veritably infinite pipeline as immediate replacements), the US is capable of taking on ten, eleven, or even twelve Japanese fighters in a showdown fight - and this all in late 1942 / early 1943 if the US builds are correctly orchestrated.

If relevant, at the stroke of Pearl Harbor, I also like to rush all the US carriers into the Atlantic for two turns to break the back of any 1942 U-boat offensive that might be going on. Usually during these early US turns there's little the US fleet can do in the Pacific anyway except be a tempting morsel to the Combined Japanese fleet (though Mark begs to differ with me on this, I think, as I believe he's inclined to rush to the defense of Australia and which does have its points).

Currently, I think it's critical the US and the Brits get extra infantry into the Pacific before Pearl Harbor to be able to garrison as many victory point spots as possible and to act as speed bumps to Japanese amphibious advances.  Every un-garrisoned island is sooo much easier for the Japs to take than one with even a single infantry defender.  However, this last game I was totally out-flanked by Mark's Japanese even having got my infantry out to the Solomons & Philippines - somehow he just elegantly side-stepped, swatted down or crushed everything I threw in his path, so maybe I need to rethink this. On the other hand, he never was able to seriously threaten any of the US island possessions (Hawaii, Midway, Aleutians, etc.).  Australia was a different matter...

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, my major Pacific US strategy is to max out on subs and fighters with which you inundate the Japs.  The last several times I've tried this, the Japs were all but brought to their knees by mid or late 1943. And 1944 turns into an absolute cake walk.  Of course, it means the Brits are responsible for their own fighter defense in 1942 and at least part of 1943 (you can't have everything, I guess).

I found that in this last game I did not have to build even a single US surface combat vessel - just transports, subs, and the couple of carriers.  (It helped that the wimpy U-boat war never required a serious need for Atlantic DDs.) I found that fighters and a couple of carriers and a shoe string budget of a few loaded transports was enough to dominate much of the Pacific by mid-1943.  All those subs pretty much drive Japanese production to zero by late '42 / early '43. Even when the bugger kills the poor subs twice as often as he should... (grrr).

So, it seems many good things happen with this Pacific strategy, even given gross British naval incompetence that allowed Italian raiders out into the South Atlantic in early 1943 to put most of the US fleet out of supply for nine months straight (grrrr!!!). Next time we will NOT rely on the Brits to keep our supply lines open (grrrr!!!!@#!).

The fact that the US lost Australia  for the Brits is of course not relevant to the discussion...

dd

Uncle Joe

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2006, 04:32:52 AM »
I think the best US builds look something like the following (barring some disaster somewhere)

Winter 39:Â  Â  Â 2 Factories, a fighter, 1 infantry, 6 pts LL
Spring 40:Â  Â  Â  2 Factories, a fighter, 1 infantry, 6 pts LL
Summer 40:Â  Â 2 Factories, a fighter, 1 infantry, 6 pts LL
Fall 40:Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Finish 2 Factories, a fighter, 1 infantry, 6 pts. LL
Winter 40:Â  Â  Â  3 Factories, a fighter, 6 pts LL
Spring 41:Â  Â  Â  3 Factories, a fighter, 6 pts LL
Summer 41:Â  Â 3 Factories, 10 pts LL
Fall 41:Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Finish 3 Factories, 10 pts LL
Winter 41: (at war)Â  4 fighters, 2 infantry, transport, 4 pts LL

Most of the Lend Lease goes to Britain and all of the builds go to the Pacific.
In this way a constant flow of lend lease goes to England and it increases about the same time the Uboat war increases - making up for u-boat losses and keeping British production constant in the mid to upper 30's throughout 40 and 41.

Additionally, The US can do something in the Pacific quickly, bringing all of their fighters to bear there in the Winter, they would have 6 total fighters - enough to fight Japanese carrier planes.  They would also have enough infantry to garrsion important islands making the Japanese expansion much more difficult.

Once at war, US 1942 builds look something like this:
25 pts: LL to UK and Russia
32 pts: 8 fighters (4 out each turn)
18Pts:  6 infantry
15Pts:  3 transports
12 Pts: 4 destroyers
8 Pts:   2 Subs (one each turn)
Remaining points go to tanks, artillery, bombers and carriers as needed.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2006, 04:43:59 AM by Uncle Joe »

derdiktator

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: U.S. Production
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2006, 05:04:34 AM »
I still have my doubts about maxing lend lease to the Brits pre Pearl Harbor.  I think the Brits certainly need the lend lease, but the US also needs to prepare against the Japanese.  The last two games I played as the Japs, the US had nothing prepared against me and I (as the Japs)  pretty much wound up owning the Pacific sufficient to force an Axis victory in 1943 (albeit with a little help from miscellaneous SS parachuting into Moscow in the one game...). 

I basically concur with the 1942 US builds you suggest, except that I would not build the four DDs, would cut back on lend lease a bit (say 6-10 points), and use the freed up production to build armor that got pumped into North Africa.

If North Atlantic German subs are a desperate problem, rather than build DDs, I find it works better to send the US carriers into the North Atlantic during 1942 to wipe out the subs. The two times I've done this, German sub production collapsed when the German saw four or five defending North Atlantic fighters chew his sub force to pieces.

Of course then those US carriers aren't out in the Pacific during 1942, but usually they don't do much good out there at that point, and what the heck - there's always trade-offs.

My $0.02 worth,

dd

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2006, 02:26:23 PM »
A good option is to build US subs & really annoy Japanese shipping by hitting the shipping lanes  & thus reducing the Japanese spending power & when possible tag a transport when it's alone. Also, slowly & quietly build up & fortify the island locations containing a victory point marker. This keeps Japan broke & requires effort by the Japanese to obtain the victory points.  Don't give them anything away for free. The Japanese need to earn those victory points with blood, especially their own.

thenorthman

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2006, 09:08:36 PM »
In regard to the earlier post about giving money to the UK from the get go...I could swear I just read on the plane (purchased the basic game at GENCON) that cant start giving out Lend Lease right away anyways.  I will have to double check that. 

Maybe it was just to the Soviet Union.....couldn't give it to them until they were at war.  Really tired right now to think to much.  Sat on the tarmac for an extra hour and half waiting for weather, then had a seven 1/2 hour flight to ANchorage.

Sean

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2006, 07:01:51 AM »
The US & the UK must both bolster their Pacific forces. I did that for the US at GENCON 2006 where I slowly transferred 5 infantry and aircraft to the Philipines. When Japan decided to attack everything in late 41, the Japanese player left that outpost alone and hit all the unmanned victory points instead. The other Pacific action I used for the US was submarines. I kept Japan on her knees financially at about $12 per turn after the war started using the American sub force. I kept them scattered hitting the convoy zones & when opportunity presented itself converged several subs on some hapless Jap warships until the American fleet has gained some strength.

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2006, 09:02:24 AM »
I remember that very clearly. I was on the receiving end of that campaign! Ouch!

John

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2006, 06:43:29 AM »
That was "OUCH!!!" not just an ouch! That is what leads up to the invasion of Japan. Keeping Japan POOR

Uncle Joe

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: U.S.
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2006, 05:06:57 AM »
U.S. submarines are key to victory in the Pacific.  Once the Japanese can't build hardly anything it is easy to push them back to the home islands.