What are some good strategies for newer players?

@Mark-Prinsen said in US strategy:

I see something in the rules about not being allowed to move units into neutral territories, and that you cannot move units on carriers or into transports of another country.
But nothing about this.

Find it in the blue box on page 14, Pac.1940.2 rulebook:

“The United States: The United States
begins the game neutral, and as such
isn’t initially part of the Allies. Being at war
with no one and having a strict isolationist
policy, the United States has especially
tight restrictions. It may not move land
or air units into neutral territories. It may
not move units into territories or onto
ships belonging to another power or use
another power’s naval bases, nor may
another power move land or air units
into its territories or onto its ships or use
its naval bases. In addition, the United
States may not end the movement of its
sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to
Japanese-controlled territories.”

Well put. Although I think you mean Norway rather than Sweden.

Appreciate some of your comments on the game.

Make it a little easier for them by moving the purchase new units phase to right after noncombat. Keep repair at the top of the round though.

Waiting till J3 is a pain, but it allows me to get more into the battle.

you end up getting blocked though which is the problem. unless you move naval over the islands you are going to take and have the boats loaded on J2.

usa tends to get everything to queensland still even if you can sink it (tend to just block with a dd or two).

no real advantage money wise waiting for j3. you lose the 10 NO. to pick up 12-13 in islands and FIC. usually -7 or -11 for allies. so usa getting his NO for the other powers to be weaker is the tradeoff.

The are two plans at work here.

The strict neutral strategy should not work against a good player because of all the extra infantry (18+) that the Allies get. But those infantry take a while to get into battle. The troops is South America take at least a few turns to get into the fight if there are no transports handy in the Atlantic. It may even be a turn or two before all the extra income comes on line for the Allies as well. And the Axis get to decide when to attack the neutrals, so they have initiative. I have never seen the Allies attack strict neutrals.

As far a turn 1 attack by Japan on the U.S. - Japan can defend Hawaii and the DEI for a least a few turns from the Western Allies and the Americans. Japan can build a Aircraft Carrier turn 1 with a Transport. Attack Midway turn 1 with Infantry and Artillery. Attack American Fleet around Hawaii with 3 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers, 2 Bombers, and 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine on J1. Turn 2 attack Hawaii with 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 3 Fighters and 3 Tactical Bombers. If any Destroyer or Submarine survived the turn 1 Assault on the sea zone around Hawaii they can help defend the fleet from the scrambling aircraft at Hawaii, or defend any American Assault on U.S. 2. There should be 4 Aircraft Carriers with planes and 0-3 support craft (Destroyers and Submarines). This should be more than enough to hold off American attack for a few turns. If there are any losses on the aircraft on any of the battles fly new planes to land on the Aircraft Carriers in the non-combat movement phase. The rest of the Japanese fleet, 2 transports, 2 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine can take Philippines turn 1 and can take Malaya turn 2. It can move on to capture the islands on turn 3 and later. Once the Philippines are taken, planes can be flown from China to cover the fleet at an airbase. The Japanese have enough fleet to match the British, Anzac and the Americans for at least a few turns. Japan does not have enough resources to fight China too while this is happening. So the Chinese will start producing 18 + income a turn and dominate the mainland. But this is the strategic problem Japan has always had. It has the initiative and not enough resources. IF you have to choose which Ally gets more money, choose the Chinese, as they cant leave China (except for Hong Kong and Burma).

All I ever see the Japanese do is build for a few turn or two, attack China turn 1 and 2, and then fight a traditional war against the DEI and try to hold on…

@Degrasse:

I just copied Young Grasshopper’s moves for the Pacific side, I haven’t studied that side much.  I’ve been intrigued by the Sea Lion puzzle and thus mostly have been thinking of moves and counter moves.

I played it yesterday, and I realized that UK India needs at least 1 destroyer left on the Pacific side to block the whole Japanese fleet for 1 round.

And to answer your question, a lot of people don’t do SeaLion b/cuz it’s not always a guaranteed thing. Depends on what the UK does. If the UK makes it as difficult as possible, then most likely the Germans can take it still but it might be a little dicey and leave them vulnerable to the Russians. If the UK makes it easier then the Germans will be more likely to do a SeaLion. I don’t think a successful SeaLion always means an Axis victory.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.