USA Fighter Strategy

I actually tried something like this once.  I didn’t build as many fighters per turn as you were talking about but I di go fighter/tac heavy and spread them along the US islands…Guam, Midway, Hawaii.  The idea was to be able to reach out a little further.  I found I needed carriers to make more effective and detroyers to help block the IJN in place for me to hit them.  I still think it can be used effectively if the right combination of ships and plains can be found.  I do like the idea in Europe as well; especially with an airbase on Gibralter.

Assuming a J1 DOW and full KIF / DEI strategy, if you buy:
3 CV on US1 and
3 BB + SB on US2
By US3 you can have a REALLY nice landing platform in SZ 7 to shuttle 6 FTR / Round starting on US4….  Japan’s not going to be happy having to allocate resources to Tokyo instead of Minor IC it has purchased to facilitate KIF faster.

Of course, you forsake ANY Atlantic presence and possibly Moscow, but if you build a minor IC in Persia on UK2, you can create some real problems for Japan’s KIF strategy and/or have a closer location for UK to help Moscow when the time comes.

This idea is OK, but the fighters are too short range to bridge the wide oceans.    The fighters going to Moscow is a huge detour and as you point out, they are not very useful while in transit.    Most importantly, you are taking a circuitous and roundabout path to plug a gap in a defensive wall rather than bringing the war to the Axis.

We were playing G42 recently, which doesn’t really alter this consideration;  Iwo Jima may be the only viable island to SBR Japan from, but the US can just as easily SBR Tokyo from eastern Russia.  In our game, Japan (me) attacked Russia, but this was a disaster and as usual I was spread too thin.  Worse, all of his Pacific US forces flew up to East Siberia.  I was nearly able to use what transports and ships were left as Japan to throw him out, but with only 2 fighters and 4 strategic bombers (plus all available ground fodder) he held his base.

Since the Russians are already allies, you can land defensive fighters up there and strat bombers at the same time.

The Russians supply the ground forces; there are two ways to go here–Japan attacks you and the US intervenes and lands on siberia (eventually) with a few of your troops to protect their LZ

or, wait until USSR4/US4 to declare war with Russia on Japan (which permits USA intervention right away).

So, I think I’d argue for a mix of fighters, strat bombers and transports being more effective offensively than a stack of roaming prodigal fighters would be defensively.

@teslas:

Then there’s the scenario where you go Western US -> Soviet Far East -> etc. This requires that some Russians stay behind in the far east to help you out, else it’s exceedingly simple to have Japan delay you by 1 or 2 turns, which is damning. The Russians also can’t as easily afford to plop down air bases for you as the UK can, but an air base in the Soviet Far east puts you in Moscow in 3 turns with a hop over Yenisey and is likely worth the 15 IPC investment if you can get two or more turns of fighters through it. But, it’s potentially easy for Japan to take the Soviet Far East on J2, even if you drop some planes there. It would require some navy backup. I am out of time or I’d explore this a bit more.

I’ve been wanting to try this approach for some time now, glad to see others have thought of it.  The air base might also allow the US to use the Soviet Far East as a staging point for its fleet, or a base to strategically bomb Tokyo.

The other routes suggested by everyone look interesting as well, I’ll have to give them a look.

Lots of variables with the Russian AB strategy, but how many US FTR would make up the difference by landing in Moscow to warrant the Communists placing the AB there?

I’m guessing 4-6 US FTR would be a serious game changer for the German attack on Moscow as soon as they arrive?

In subsequent turns, eventually the German income from forcing a Red Turtle on Moscow should return the odds back in their favor and even push far enough to cut off the intermediate landing point for those FTR.

Of course, Japan could swing from KIF to ANZAC and just let the Germans wait outside Moscow while they go for a Pacific victory with all the US resources going to FTR to reinforce a turtled Moscow.

For the far east route, Russia loses 15 IPCs of early game income (the fact that it’s early game matters, because that’s very flexible money, whereas midgame income is when Germany is already at your doorstep and your options are greatly reduced). That’s 5 inf that’s gone. Let’s just go with that for now to keep this simple. 5 hp, and 10 on defense.

And then you must keep some ruskies in the far east to keep Japan from screwing up the air base. Let’s assume this is at least 6, and be very nice about it. That bumps us up to 11 hp and 22 on defense that won’t be in Moscow by R6 or R7.

America would need to be sending in at least ~7 fighters to make that kind of investment worth it. More than 7, and it’s definitely been paid off… defensively. The loss of those 15 IPCs, however, also reduces any offensive moves Russia can make either early on or if Germany weakens its stack too much by sending units south toward the Caucasus and oil fields. But it’s not all bad, of course, those American fighters make bombing raids on Moscow much harder for Germany.

It’s a risky proposition, the eastern route, which is why I said in my previous post it would take a good bit of thought (and words) about all of the pros/cons. I would strongly prefer the Cyprus route as an Allied player, I believe.

@teslas:

For the far east route, Russia loses 15 IPCs of early game income (the fact that it’s early game matters, because that’s very flexible money, whereas midgame income is when Germany is already at your doorstep and your options are greatly reduced). That’s 5 inf that’s gone. Let’s just go with that for now to keep this simple. 5 hp, and 10 on defense.

And then you must keep some ruskies in the far east to keep Japan from screwing up the air base. Let’s assume this is at least 6, and be very nice about it. That bumps us up to 11 hp and 22 on defense that won’t be in Moscow by R6 or R7.

America would need to be sending in at least ~7 fighters to make that kind of investment worth it. More than 7, and it’s definitely been paid off… defensively. The loss of those 15 IPCs, however, also reduces any offensive moves Russia can make either early on or if Germany weakens its stack too much by sending units south toward the Caucasus and oil fields. But it’s not all bad, of course, those American fighters make bombing raids on Moscow much harder for Germany.

It’s a risky proposition, the eastern route, which is why I said in my previous post it would take a good bit of thought (and words) about all of the pros/cons. I would strongly prefer the Cyprus route as an Allied player, I believe.

So in your scenario the US needs to technically divert an entire round of income in FTR.  Based on timing to arrive on time, the relevance if those are starting FTR needs to be considered as well.

How long does this actually buy Moscow?  And more importantly, does it really matter once the Germans obtain the real strength - the economic gains in Russia?

For the record, I still prefer KJF over save Moscow.  Leave that to the Brits via a Persian IC.

It would need to divert ~70 IPCs to break even, yes, which means that it’s kind of a wash as far as time is concerned. To really make it worth it, you’d likely need at least a couple more.

Will it defend Moscow?
Yes, even with a crippled Economy, Russia is still producing infantry, and putting fighters on top of all of that is devastating for German hopes of goose stepping around in front of the Kremlin. If the Germans divert forces to clean up all of that delicious, sweet NO money in the south of Russia and Middle East, then this investment of fighters likely holds Moscow for quite a long while. We’re talking about turn 7+ of the game at the moment, so it’s very, very hard to make big generalizations, but I’ll pull a number out of my ass and say Moscow would be saved at least until round 9, and in the situation you’ve described, of growing German economic power with Germany steadily increasing in strength, Germany usually isn’t interested in taking less than very good odds (90%+, or even higher) to smash Moscow since it has nearly everything to lose and not much to gain by rushing in, so you could hold it until round 10-12, maybe more, depending on the game. And that’s just with 10-11 American planes and maybe a few more from UK in the later turns.

Does it really matter?
Well that’s the important question, and it’s a much harder one. You’d be depending on the UK to be holding its own in the middle east, out of some minor ICs wherever the UK feels like putting them (I love Iraq, and in this game, since the US is taking care of air support for moscow, you could easily plop down a second). The American fighters can also fly back and forth between Moscow and a UK stronghold in front of the largest German threat, slowing them up even more. The combined Russia/UK pressure, with this American help, is what you’re hoping buys you 1-4 extra rounds to have America smash Japan. It costs you about 1 and a half American rounds of production to do it, and that’s early game production, the most important production. Worth it? I dunno. I’d need to theory-craft for hours on this, or just play a couple of games.

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

@teslas:

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

It sounds like a plausible curveball against someone who prefers to run a general script / perfect play to get them out of their comfort zone.

Nothing more rewarding than taking advantage of mistakes because someone had their strategy rattled.