America/Soviet Role

@the-duke

You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.

@Tutti Thanks for reading.

The original post addresses purchases after the US enters the war, once its industrial complexes have been upgraded and income is augmented by National Objective bonuses. Thus, “USA1” refers to America’s second turn after entering the war, which would be the first turn they have ~70 IPC to spend. Up to that point, my recommendation is to make those necessary “security” purchases - carriers, destroyers, aircraft, etc.

I understand your aversion to buying ground troops, only to have them sit for a turn while you buy transports the next. When the US is at war, you can certainly do several turns of 5x5x5 buys (5 infantry, 5 artillery, 5 transports for 70 IPC). I’ve done this many times, myself. If your goal is to assemble an invasion force - a force large enough to make a successful amphibious assault and survive an enemy counterattack - the 5x5x5 system will work just as well as the (10x10)+10 purchases I detailed, but only in the Atlantic. Because the US only has one IC on the Pacific, the (10x10) +10 is still the most efficient method of assembling a force to invade Japan.

As for the troops America starts the game with…they can easily be incorporated into your invasion forces, but I usually have other uses for them. To give just three examples: 1) I use the Atlantic transport to activate Brazil and shuttle the Brazilian infantry to Gibraltar or Morocco, 2) The American armor and mech infantry, when parked in the Western US, can deter Japan from invading Alaska, and 3) As soon as the US enters the war, I like to use the transport off Hawaii to capture the Marshall Islands. If the Japanese don’t have carriers within striking distance of Hawaii, taking the Marshalls eliminates the threat from Japan-based strategic bombers, allowing you to safely move undefended transports to Hawaii.

I wonder if it is worth taking Norway as USA early on, with USSR assistance in taking Finland. A few things remain unclear:

Does this make USA ineffective against Japan Should USA follow up with a Normandy landing? Or something else?

A few things seem to work though. You can hold Moscow G6, doubtless in part because air can reach Moscow via Finland. Also killing the Scandinavian troops reduces the assault. If Germany kills the USN with the Luftwaffe, it loses too many planes to support the Moscow assault. If it doesn’t kill the USN, it needs to defend Leningrad against an amphibious assault which ties up a bunch of troops.

@knp7765:

So you are suggesting that the British player loses his capital so that he can sink the German navy? Seems kind of far fetched to me. Yeah, I guess if the German navy were taken out, it would help the US Navy later on and they could liberate London possibly. In the mean time, Germany got to plunder the British treasury and run hog wild on Russia while Italy gets strong in the Med and Africa since the UK can no longer replace their losses there. I suppose India could send stuff over to face Italy, but what if they are being pressured by Japan?

Yes, but Germany spent 2 rounds of income on a fleet so they essentially lose their ground units, probably some air units, the French treasury and whatever ground they have left would be sitting on London, assuming this worked/works.

So what’s holding back the Russians at that point?  They can DOW the round London falls.  (great, now I have that Fergie song in my head!  Bastages!!!)

I really wanted to do the J3–take India & not have to worry about anything coming from there again, to be the proverbial—thorn in my side (thats what my original post for help with the J3 Crush thing was all about.  Then wanted to take DEI & start pushing the Anzac’s & US on my terms.  Not fighting this attrition battle & running for defense from behind with the Allies on the offense & pushing me.

This is where I thought this was heading with this sort of offense from Japan–take out the Chinese & UK fronts while the US was out of it & the Anzac hadn’t had time or resources to do much, then only fight on my terms w/ the US & Anzac on two Pacific fronts & maybe chip away @ the Russians if I wanted to help germany a little?

The way this has turned out, however, is by J2 I am now @ war w/all allies & have 5-fronts to still to deal with & fighting a war of attrition & defense.  Seems like the same ole Axis games where the Axis are always fighting a war of attrition & on defense.  I know this is the way it was in history, but I was hoping for a little different w/ a new game thats suppose to be slanted towards the Axis anyway, new rules that have been reworked 3-4 times & some killer new strategies that I hadn’t tried before?

I’m just a novice that has been playing this game on & off, mostly off, for the past 25 years–so I haven’t had the dedicated time to work up alot of these 3-4-5 move strategies like some of the dedicated Veterans here.  So I guess forgive my poor applications of some of these strategies, they all seem good & I’m sure work w/ the right set of circumstances & responses.  I guess I’ll just have to play more to practice more.

Boy, wont my wife like that one  :x  But I know my Kids & I will.  Thanx again all for help & posts & keep them coming.  :-)

@ 94 Canuck

I did some cross checking on the Charts player aid charts you made for your +3 version & they WILL work for the 2e & with the +3.9 set-up charts that “Sehxual Panda” made also.

So I guess with some research on my own, I figured it out &, they will all work together  :-D
So I’m stoked.  All good charts with no changes needed.  Thanx for your response & sorry for the confusion.

But now with 1914 coming out, you know your gonna have to get busy & make some more cool player’s aid charts for that too, don’t ya.  :-o

When the Germans start going around moscow, push a small amount of your units around to attack, or begin pushing back west. If Germany spreads out, that leaves an opprotunity for you.

I see what you’re trying to do with these ideas, but you need to be careful or you’ll make the US-China partnership in the game become a penility for the US which wouldnt be fair. Ideas I have heard have been to do things like;

If the burma road is open allow the US to replace the Chinese fighter if it gets destroyed.
If the burma road is open AND the US is at war allow them to purchase 1 unit for the Chinese per turn.

I like both of these and would better represent the US’s support to the Chinese, and also the importance of the Buram road. The second idea would need to be limited to land and air units only (obviously) but to have no more then 1 of each non-infantry/arty unit type (no more then 1 fighter, tatical bobmber, tank, mech infantry, ect…)