@mike64 weird… probably another glitch in a game… they happen all the time.
Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB
-
An overlook then. Makes sense. Would you have used only air or chip in a sub?
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
This is my suggested build for US. The sb goes Atlantic, the rest Pac.
Not sure I understand why you are buying the two transports since you have a transport coming back from hawaii. I probably would just bring the one transport back in the pacific and build the one inf and then focus on navy and air.
I think fighters still have precedence over bombers because you want to be able stack the carriers to defend them
In the Pacific, I would consider using hte US fleet to take Marianas. It puts the air in range of Japan so he has to be mindful of that (although it looks well protected at the moment) and it also threatens Philly. Plus it will make it easier to grab all the islands around Caroline. This has less value in BM for income but it reduces the threat to Caroline islands since he loses places to land his air. You also might be in a position where you can split the fleet between Marianas and Caroline Islands in order to increase your threat in the south.
I’m not sure what you are thinking with the UK but I would recommend stacking the fleet and the subs in 98.
-
Yes, forgot to mention where the UK fleet in the Indian Ocean was heading. Either z98 or z80. I think I have a preference for z98, since that puts pressure on Italy, and we want that.
-
The two trannies is a mistake. Should only be one. I blame my kids.
-
I would like to get a bit more landing power, to be able to make heavier and more threats, like Tokyo, Korea mainland coast a s o.
-
Marianas is probably a better outpost than Iwo Jima.
-
I want to get the bomber-production going. When having Norway, it’s great for staging multiple SBRs all over Germany.
-
@trulpen :) I usually will just try to make sure that I have a transport chain of 1 in Hawaii, 1 in 10 and 1 with the US fleet. This allows me to sacrifice a transport if I need to without losing the landing threat and over time the number can accumulate (I try to prioritize trading ANZAC transports for Japan ones). I think the main thing right now is to have a threat of landing (ideally with both the US and and ANZAC). The chain also gives you a landing threat of 4 land units in Japan. Once I clearly have naval superiority, I might increase the land/transport build if I think I need to.
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
I want to get the bomber-production going. When having Norway, it’s great for staging multiple SBRs all over Germany.
Makes sense. I’d still see if you can get 2 to 3 fighters built so that on the next turn you can have 10 air on the US carriers in the Pacific and have the US carriers in the Atlantic loaded too. Maybe with the savings from the transport and reducing the sub build, you might be able to get that.
-
I’m planning to have 1-2 aussie figs on a US carrier, which makes a higher need for J to protect tr’s.
-
I’ll change the build. Can’t post atm, but maybe in an hour or so.
-
Um. There is real danger in attacking Norway. G can buy 3 CVs and attack with 4 ftr, 5 tac, 2 sb + 1 SS. 60-40% battle. But the Italians can soften them up, if they kill just 2 guys, the German attack goes to 90% with 70+ TUV swing.
-
Sacrifices Italian AF and much of Luftwaffe, but killing 7 trans + entire Atlantic fleet is probably worth it.
-
Maybe, but then Russia is safe. That build and sacrifice will be extremely costly for G. I looked at that earlier and am not worried.
-
The alternative is of course to land in Normandie, but I don’t think it puts enough pressure on G.
-
If we are going mostly Pacific this turn, which is a good option, then need to stay in the Med with the fleet. Taking Normandy is possible. We can reinforce the landing with UK units. Will need to buy more, but we would probably have a turn or two before the Axis and push hard at us.
I just hate having a large army, but no follow-on units to make it really hurt for the Axis to defend. Looking at it, I would say that Normandy is the best landing + easy reinforcement.
-
G has a lot of pressure already with his low income and lots of Allied fighters to stop. It’s hard to pull off, but I think a revamp of the plan is in order if Norway is off the table.
The most pressure would be to attack Italy. Big Atlantic build of transports and inf. Enter the Med with our fleet Eliminate his NO. Move the Indan fleet to Egypt and Meet in the middle next round. He can defend Italy, but only by pulling units away from the front. We still slow the advance on Moscow, but don’t lose 70+ TUV
-
If G does significantly move south to help the Italians, the large landing force can pivot to Normandy if he moves too many guys. Either way we can gain and he is moving around in central Europe.
-
I am concerned about attempting a Normandy invasion at this time, however. It typically requires significant investment in London inf to reinforce, which pulls $$ from ME, which isn’t safe yet.
-
@surfer I’m tempted by Normandy as well because the fleet is better positioned and the us can start using a factory sooner. Plus some of the fleet can still end up in 92 since 110 is pretty safe. But I think the fleet should be safe. It’s quite a risk for Andrew to attack. Trulpen can land UK air on one carrier. They would still be in range of Moscow if needed because the us carrier can move them in range. If he is attacked by Italy he can take one air as casualty and land the French fighter. And UK fleet in 98 might be enough to pressure the med. I’m on my phone though so maybe I’m mis judging but I don’t think the risk to the fleet would be the reason not to go to Norway.
Suggested Topics
