Posts made by trihero

You can try building a factory in Western Europe - that gives you lots of seazones to put a new navy in XD

Well it would be too devastating if Germany could attack the UK main fleet off of England in the first turn, considering Germany already decimates the Med fleet and possibly Egypt.

I think it’s a blessing and a curse for both sides. While the Baltic navy can’t reach 2 or 8, the same is true of the UK forces - those ships he builds there can’t reach the baltic in one turn. It turns into a question of who tries to move in range first, otherwise you’re both hiding from each other. Of course I guess this tends to bias it in favor of Allies since Germany doesn’t have time to build a navy, so the UK can safely build up until he’s ready, but on the other hand Germany can reactively build a navy if the UK tries to boldly move in from those hiding spots. I don’t think it’s really an issue overall though because the Uk will use an airforce to clean out the Baltic moreso than a navy.

The way the seazones are cut up is favorable to the Axis if the US tries to go in; it takes an extra turn to get into the Baltic from sz1, taking an extra turn for the US to set a shuck system (one from east canada to england, one from england into the baltic).

You have a very good grasp on Germany strategy. Definitely the fighter fleet is key to German defense/offense.

My comment is that the Allies do not have to overbuy navy as much as you might think. If you don’t buy a carrier the first turn, as UK I would build 1 carrier + 1 fighter and destroy your Baltic fleet and invade Norway full on, and deploy the carrier/fighter with the battleship/2 trans. Only 4 German planes will be able to try to attack that fleet if the Germans invade Anglo-Egypt seriously. After that I would build one more carrier with the UK and have the US land his fighters on it. Along with the US’s two destroyers and 1 battleship, the combined navy is strong enough to repel any aerial assault on it unless you insist on building fighters.

That’s quite an interesting thought about building 1 fighter every turn, though. I never thought of trying that to force the Allies to buff up their navy a bit to respond to that. The problem to me is that you could have gotten 3 infantry instead of that one fighter, and still have 1 IPC left over. If all the Allies are going after you, you pretty much want all the fodder you can get. Although maybe the fighter will be worth it if it forces them to build up more ships. It seems to me an economical waste overall though maybe, because every fighter costs 10 but transports only cost 8, which is what the Allies would be taking casualties on if you assaulted them. They could just overbuild transports and rely on 2 loaded carriers + 2 battleships + 2 destroyer for their firepower while you’re hitting easily replaceable transports with your costly air force.

Another alternate strategy I thought of with Germany is trying to research rockets if you’re convinced they’re all out to get you; like spend 15 IPCs in the first few rounds on 3 dice to try to get it. The investment usually manages to pay for itself before the game is over, and it can really put the breaks on the Russians since they’re losing about 6.5 IPCs on average which is devastating. With Japan coming from behind with anywhere from 6-9 tanks from factories every turn, Russia can quickly collapse, allowing Germany to quickly blitz its territories back. Or potentially the game would be over if you’re playing with 9 victory cities if Germany hasn’t lost any of his.

Destroyers negate both submerge and opening casualties. You’re probably thinking of Pacific.

Well here it is:

Turn one, buy 2 fighters and 1 infantry.

I know this sounds really weird, but I think it opens up a key strategic opportunity that may at least be interesting, if not entirely effective - usually an aggressive German player will take Anglo-Egypt the first turn with his bship/trans sitting in seazone 15. Have your 2 initial fighters land in Caucasus the first turn, and mobilize your 2 newly built ones in Caucasus as well. On turn 2, your 4 fighters can assault the battleship/trans in sea zone 15 and usually destroy them! This is a harsh blow to Germany who is relying on that transport to get units into Africa, and the loss of the battleship is equally devastating because it removes both protection of his future transports there and the ability to bombard.

Germany will have to build a transport and some sort of good naval defense in Mediterranean if he ever wants to go into Africa again after that.

Of course, this lessens Russia’s ability to defend because you could have build a total of 8 infantry instead of 2 fighters and 1 infantry, and you’re losing maybe 2 fighters on average, so I would suggest only doing this either for fun or in combination with a true Kill Germany First strategy where the Western Allies can pressure Germany enough so he’s unable to take advantage of the lessened defense for Russia. Russia has done a good service in helping the UK keep Africa as well as allowing the US an easier time to sail through the Mediterranean.

I think the gains for this is at least worth the try once - it may not be as tried and true as the mass infantry defense, but it does have some alternative viability in it and provides for variety you don’t see with the 8 infantry build that is done nearly every game.

I’m not sure precisely what your question is. I think rolling a crappy NA and the enemy rolling a great NA will definitely skew the overall battle - say if Germany gets Panzerblitz (crappy) and Japan gets Dug-In Defenders (useless, I’ve never seen a Japan player get infantry on his islands to defend, and US usually has battleships to bombard your infantry before they fire, and Japan itself is not an island so….), but UK gets Colonial Garrison, Russia gets Salvage, and US gets either Chinese Divisions or Superfortresses, then the Axis is generally going to lose.

Are you asking how much NAs change your build orders/attack strategies or how much it influences the overall game balance?

I don’t think you ever should roll for NAs. They’re really not equally as good as each other so I think it’s better overall if you somehow choose NAs, like choose 1-2 good ones or get the rest of the crappy ones. It is fun to do something like roll for an NA but don’t reveal it until you use it for surprise, but this can get you really stupid NAs you never use.

If a sub surfaces in a sea zone with enemy units in it, nothing happens that turn - the combat phase has already passed for this turn so no more combats occur. During the next combat phase in which the player controls something involved in that sea zone, he decides whether to stay there and fight, or run away. Read your rulebook under the combat move section; if a territory starts with enemy units in it while you’re in it, then you have the option to run or fight. But this counts as a combat move, so you can’t move any more during noncombat even if you just retreated.

Your counterattack on Manchuria will only have 1 BB since the one in Pearl Harbor can only bombard Buryatia.

The UK can easily support 5 tanks per turn. I quite understand Egypt is wiped out, but those 2 tanks down there can really stall the German effort to gain many IPCs for free.

How does Germany get units to India without Caucasus? Russia is just there to delay Germany while Japan goes down; he can do that fine with mass infantry. Are you using the transport to get units to India? If you are, then UK will have an easy time dominating Africa if you’re not using those units and are trying to threaten India.

Caucasus may be the gateway to India, but you have to control it first with Germany…

That sounds good in theory, but I don’t get a couple of things:

How does Germany quickly annex Africa with 1 tank when the UK has the factory down there and is pumping out 2 tanks every turn? How does Germany meet up in India? To me this sounds like you’re building a lot of transports in the Mediterranean, and with that many IPCs going to transports then Russia can crush in a bit and gain IPCs from you.

And for the record, the US never ever has to engage the Japanese fleet offensively. He will always force Japan to attack him, not the other way around. If you go down to Solomon islands from the West Coast, you can hit Borneo, East Indies, and Japan itself. The Japanese fleet can’t split itself even into 2 forces because they’ll get individually crushed by the American fleet. The US takes either Borneo or East Indies without a fight because the Japanese fleet can’t defend both, then sits a complex down there and pumps out naval units on Japan’s doorstep. Japan can’t focus on both a navy and hold his land territories, so then Japan is forced to build a navy to deal with US but then loses 9 IPCs on the mainland, sending him into a doomed state with 21 IPC income.

Taking Australia is all well and good, but the US can very easily liberate it once he sails down to Solomon Islands.

I think you have the right idea in building like 3 transports on the first turn, then funneling troops and such to Manchuria, but again I think the main problem is that the US fleet can maneuver around the Japanese one, forcing the Japanese to attack him and taking severe casualties. Also the US has superior IPC income that is solely focused on training a navy; Japan is not only splitting its money between land troops and navy, but he has a lower income level.

Wiping India from the mainland is going to be tough before the US navy arrives. With 3 tanks building up there every turn, you can barely match that much in French Indochina with 4 transports trafficking back and forth because it’s two spaces away from Japan. If you use your fighter force you are likely to lose at least 1 of them to the anti aircraft gun there. And Russia can always spare his couple of fighters to help defend India, especially if Germany is maintaining a pipeline.

I just think Germany is going to be bogged down before he can save Japan from doom. If Germany is going for Caucasus then Russia has nearly a free hand in sending all his defending troops down there. Germany is going to have a hard time maintaining a pipeline into Africa to fend off those UK tanks coming from the African Union as well as maintaining a quick and winning offense against Caucasus. It’s true that Germany has many fighters and such but they mainly have to be in West Europe to discourage the UK from landing in Norway. Germany can build infantry to free them up but that means it’s many turns before his offense is going anywhere because he has to spend the next turns building an offensive land force whereas the first one he built is going the opposite way of Caucasus. Not to mention the 2 bombings he’s receiving from UK/US.

Maybe Germany should start with something zany like 1 carrier + 1 transport + 5 infantry. This way his med fleet and therefore his west coast is defended adequately since the UK is focusing his cash elsewhere, so he can send his other fighters down south to quickly finish off the African IC. The extra transport would go into the Med to help get more troops there quickly to deal with those tanks. But even in this case, it takes a long time to muster the forces necessary to deal with Russia.

I think overall this is the strongest strategy for Allies to pursue. Germany can do very very little directly to help Japan; killing Russia doesn’t help Japan since Russia didn’t dedicate a single IPC to killing Japan, just sent a bulk of his initial troops over there, as well as even if Germany did get the capital he’s still quite a ways off to defeating the American lock on the fleet. It’s easy for Japan to help germany by going into Russia, but not the other way around, so I think it’s easier to go after Japan first.

I’ve hit a brick wall here. What happens is:

Russia sends all infantry that are east of Russia, to the east. 2 tanks from Russia head east as well. The rest he conducts as normal, taking West Russia and planning a mass defense. From here on out he just builds infantry to stall Germany and uses those forces in the east to take and hold Manchuria for a good long while.

UK builds 2 factories, 1 in Africa and 1 in India. Combat is a strategic bombing on Germany. Sends infantry from Persia into India and from Trans-Jordan into Persia. Combines Australian/Indian fleet into Sea Zone 30, minus the destroyer who kills the kwangtung transport, and the fighter who goes help defend India. Beefs up England with the Canada forces. From here on out he masses tanks in the 2 complexes to stall Germany from taking Africa as well as threaten Indochina/Kwangtung. The combined fleet hangs on the periphery in the south, threatening Japan’s islands and running away when necessary.

US builds with 1 battleship and 1 carrier. Sends all fleets and troops to the west, leaving nothing behind. From here on out he keeps massing battleships/destroyers. His strategy is to drop down to Solomon islands, then undercut Japan’s IPC islands Borneo and East Indies. If Germany bothers to take its time to send the transport/bship to the west to take Brazil, just let him have it and build a few minimal troops to defend the capital. He sends his extra fighter and bomber up to UK to both help defend it as well as strategic bomb.

I have a very very hard time with this strategy. I can’t last long as Japan because in a few turns either I lose my land territories or my sea territories. If I focus on sending all forces to the land, then the US comes in with this massive fleet and cuts off Borneo/East Indies, then builds a complex there and proceeds to bully me into the ground. If I focus on a large navy to stall the US, the Indian/Russian forces sweep up 9 IPCs from land territories, which is very difficult to take back without complete attention due to the initial number of Russian infantry and the 3 tanks coming out of India each turn.

I understand that it is solely up to Germany to win the game now, but I don’t see how Germany can do this quickly enough. The African complex is contesting Africa with 2 tanks every turn, which sucks up a lot of time and resources. Germany is also getting bombed once by US and once by UK each round. Russia with a full infantry build can delay you for a very long time. Trying to pressure UK’s capital is almost certainly folly; it takes you many transports/fighters to threaten properly, and if you do that he simply forgoes 1 round of tanks and beefs up his main with 7+ infantry. Then you’re left with a lot of transports that aren’t going to be doing much since it’d be a waste of time to invade UK, and with all those useless IPCs sitting around Russia gets more time to buff up his defense. If you continue to pursue many transports and such, you will end up screwing up any chance you have of winning because the UK can build infantry very easily and Russia will be crashing your backyard while you’re loading up those transports.

I just don’t get how to counter this, and I don’t know what to do with Japan to stall long enough while Germany goes in. The 2 bombers doing runs and the factory in Africa can really slow down Germany’s invasions. Meanwhile Japan is forced into a defensive position almost from the start. If I attack China or India turn 1, then Russia will push in from Buryatia along with his tanks. If I attack Buryatia with full force the first turn, then pearl harbor goes unmolested because I’ll be using the battleship/transport and fighter/bomber from Japan, not to mention whatever surviving force I have will be countered by 2 tanks + 4 inf from Russia in Yakut, and one of the Asian territories will be captured by either US or UK for lack of reinforcements.

Any suggestions like general strategies or build orders to counter this?

You’re a little bit off.

Submarines can use submerge after the attacker and defender have fired (at the end of one round of combat). When a submarine does this, it is no longer in combat but remains in the same sea zone in which it submerged. As long as it’s submerged it’s immune to attacks and can’t move, and doesn’t affect enemy ship movement; consider it to be just hiding there and not affecting anyone else.

Subs automatically resurface at the end of the noncombat move. This doesn’t trigger combat with enemy units because the combat move has already passed.

You can’t submerge except in combat, and you never remain submerged past the end of the current player’s noncombat move, and you can never use submerge to retreat to another sea zone (this was the case in the old axis and allies but no longer).

Destroyers prevent submerge.

Wait you’re not being smart. If you send your transports/destroyers immediately west, then who’s to stop Germany from landing in Brazil? I always send the east coast troops into brazil before I send the transports west, otherwise you get sneaked upon by Germany’s mediterranean fleet. That’s 3 IPCs you hand Germany. You would have to spend more to dislodge him because he probably he has his battleship lurking around too so you need to not only build a transport and troops, but a battleship or destroyers of your own if you ran away from brazil the first turn.

Even with that sort of fleet, would you honestly attack a defending force of 4 transports, 2 battleships, 2 fully loaded carriers, and probably the destroyer that survived Pearl Harbor? Even if you won, which you just might, your navy is in absolute shambles. You will have no transports left (hopefully you didn’t load them) and probably missing some fighters/carriers. You have no chance in hell of invading Japan without transports (which you will have to rebuild), while I spend minimal IPCs boosting it with inf each turn so by the next 2-3 turns before you can get there again, you can’t invade it. I don’t care if I lose my fleet because I have my 1-2 complexes down on the mainland. You have to spend many turns getting enough ground troops after our fleets get trashed which takes forever using transports.

Get the Larry Harris tournament rules. It was compiled by the original game designer (look at the inside of your rules book first page it has his name on it, he was lead designer of the game).

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701

It has some very good revisions in it to the Revised rules.

For one, techs apply at the end of your turns now, instead of immediately. This nullifies the turn one SeaLion.

For two, it enforces a total combined bombing limit for rockets/bombers. You can’t deal more IPC damage in one turn than the territory’s income value. In the rulebook out of the box you can because the limit it enforces is per bomber, not in total, which is gay.

These two rulings make the game more interesting; no more turn 1 German wins and no more lame mass bombings by US/UK on Germany.

If you insist on playing with instant techs, that guy above me is absolutely correct. Send the two Russian fighters to UK and it will more than likely stop the assault. Also send your sub to “block” his fleet; it probably won’t do squat but at least it has a chance of sinking something……

You seem to think that Japan needs to build a navy in the first few turns, if at all. Japan’s navy is plenty strong as it starts. The US needs to lug a lot of transports and other fodder to blow past 2 battleships + 2 loaded carriers. As US I built a straight armada (I even had the Pearl Harbor fleet alive since Japan was busy with a combined UK fleet in Australia first turn), and believe me even though you have the equivalent bulk of Japan’s navy in the first turn (build 1 carrier and 1 battleship which makes for a total of 2 loaded carriers and 2 battleships equivalent to Japan’s force), it takes 3-4 more turns to get enough forces to actually overwhelm his fleet as well as have the transports and such to invade. I usually just wait for the transports from the East Coast since I’m busy building offensive naval units on the West coast.

The thing about the war between Japan/US is all about who forces who to attack. Loaded carriers with some fodder provide ridiculously good defense, so it’s a question of forcing the other guy to attack you. Japan has no need to build more naval units for the first few turns anyways because he already starts quite strong in that department while the US has to catch up. Japan can just take that time to wipe out India/china/sinkiang.

I’ve never seen a US player put pressure from the coast of Alaska, so I have no idea how well it works. It would take a great deal of resources to get enough transports and troops to threaten mainland Japan.

I admit I’ve probably never seen anyone play exactly the way you do so you’re probably right. But from my experience playing Japan I have very little trouble running over India before the US fleet can get there. The US players I play against usually try to island hop instead of going up from the north off of Alaska.

First, I never said that India can be taken first turn. I said early, which to me means like 2-4.

Second, I never said that India can’t be defended. I just don’t think it’s worth defending unless you have the US supporting it, either with his Sinkiang IC or a navy. I don’t think the Russians can afford to send his fighters down there with Germany breathing down his neck.

Third, I don’t believe you’ve seen Japan build an IC or 2 on the mainland. If the US is not threatening Japan, I always build 2 ICs on the mainland within the first 2-3 turns and dump out 6 tanks per turn. Your Indian IC isn’t looking good at all then. In fact, thanks for setting it up so I can eventually use it. UK alone is not a good idea to stop Japan. I will quickly ream India and send tanks up Russia’s rear end. This can happen more quickly than the amount of time it takes for the US to gear up into Germany.

The AA gun is really pretty crappy defense against 6 fighters and I forgot to mention the one bomber Japan starts with as well. Rolling ones on the first turn isn’t going to help very much unless you score many hits, and in that case it is luck more than strategy.

I don’t think you’ve seen what a good Japan player can do to India if Japan has the freedom to do so. You’ve never seen a Japan player with 1-2 ICs down, or really using all his fighters and bombardments and troops like turn 2-4 which can really weaken you. He also has a lot of stuff he can ferry with transports. In my experience I’ve never been able to hold India as UK if I’m the only one investing over there. It’s silly to think that your one IC producing 3 units can hold off the entire Japanese nation for the whole game without some extra support from the US navy (or some weird support from Russia which can really only come after a few turns if the US chooses to go after Germany). It makes me cry to hear you suggest Russia supporting India when he needs every man he can get his hands on to hold off Germany.

It might seem “too expensive” for Japan to take the IC there, but he should do it anyways if UK is the only one actively producing units to stop you and as early as possible. When Japan takes the IC he has gained 15 IPCs there. He has also forced the UK to spend a lot of IPCs there. The UK has gained nothing for his side except some time, which is valuable yes, but he hasn’t taken any territories or threatened the viability of Japan.

And the one transport you sink with your destroyer isn’t that important IMO in the long run. I always start buying 3 transports, which can quickly reinforce Indochina then grab some fodder infantry from Indies and such and meet up with a large invasion force in India.

I agree India is not that hard to hold, but it’s not based on the UK’s effort alone. You need some distractions from US/Russia.

And in case you haven’t yet, get used to not counting on your fighter in Anglo-Egypt. A good Germany player can easily take that position first turn (use 1 inf 1 tank from libya, 1 inf 1 tank from transport sending your bship and 1 fighter to take out the destroyer guarding it, then also 1 fighter from balkans into anglo, one bomber from Berlin into anglo will easily destroy UK’s 1 inf 1 fighter 1 tank there) leaving you one fighter down that can’t be sent to India.

The Indian IC is only a good idea if the US is going to focus entirely on a navy in order to occupy Japan (indeed I think this is one of the best Allied moves; US can easily outmuscle Japan in a few turns considering it produces more IPCs as well as can focus entirely on a navy while Japan has to muster land forces to invade Russia.)

If you just build an IC in India without a very large deal of US support, you basically just give Japan a complex. Japan can run India over very early on if he uses all his 6 starting fighters and 2 bombardments from the battleships.

To explain myself.If one uses the invade uk 1st turn strategy with the long range, the only way that the axis loses is if it doesnt hit a 4 in 8 dices.Difficult,and it has happened only once to my group.If though ger invades uk the game is over.Even if the us takes it back,it still is lost again when ger plays.In the meantime

Now if one uses the strategy of ger taking over the atl than the game is again over.(only really bad dice on gers behalf can stop it).All airforce is focused on eliminting ships and all ger ships too.Neglect ussr as the ground forces are enough.In this case a buy of 2-3 fighters is necessary with the initinal buy and the rest in tanks.The new plane will continue pushing the uk left ships in 2 rounds.Eliminate the uk bb ship in med with bb and trannie and fighter and in the next turn uk is alive and isolated in its island.just use all air and ship to blockade europe and thats it.nothing cans stop the gers from kiling gradually the ruskies.if the japs do their thing and establish on coast asia-game over again.

First, get the LHTR rules

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701

They’re in the forum on this site. This has updated official rules released by the game designer (Larry Harris, his name is in the rulebook first page).

Note that one of the major changes is that techs are applied at the mobilization phase, instead of immediately. This means the techs you rolled this round won’t apply during your combat/noncombat phases. This means it is impossible to invade UK with all your fighters first round, and you cannot end the game that soon. So take that off your mind.

Germany cannot take over the Atlantic unless the UK is a stupid player. Uk should attack the Germany fleet with his 2 fighters and bomber first round. Although you can lose 2 fighters in some bad circumstances, you usually will lose just one while Germany loses his 2 subs, trans, and dest. A smart Germany will stack his fighters in western or norway, but the UK should just hide his ships in sea zone 3 until he thinks he has a big enough fleet to challenge Germany (build carriers and fighters). Germany can’t hit sea zone 3 unless they land all their fighters in Norway. If they land their fighters in Norway, you can see that and immediately move your fleet away during UK turn to sea zone 2. If Germany rolls for long range aircraft, which usuallly takes a lot of IPCs, Russia should take the advantage to take territories since Germany didn’t purchase units to reinforce, and UK should immediately dump out a carrier and as many fighters as possible. A loaded carrier can cause havoc on air fleets. You have to see that the initial Baltic fleet can’t attack your UK fleet in one turn, they have to move up or you have to move up. That gives you the chance to strike at it hard.

Germany can do stuff like beef up his navy first turn, but then UK should just be glad and hole up with infantry while Russia takes the opportunity to drive into Germany. Germany has to use most of its resources to sufficiently threaten Russia, since his factories are farther from the front lines. Even though Germany has superior production, Russia can more quickly reinforce his lines unless Germany is going for a full tank build. In any case, Germany cannot do both threaten UK and threaten Russia at the same time. React to what he does. If he tries to threaten UK, which takes a massive amount of resources with carriers and transports and troops, then Russia should find itself an easy time crashing his lines.

Germany doing a full tank build is fairly scary, especially if he’s smart enough to use their 2 movements to threaten many different Russian fronts. In that case don’t have the UK build a factory in India. Just concentrate on building a couple of carriers and load them up, then prepare transports to invade his coasts. Germany will eventually slow down with UK and Russia hounding him. At this point US should really try to put the brakes on Japan by building up a massive fleet. US produces more and Japan is focused on getting land troops so you should outdistance his navy and prepare to island hop.

One of the best moves I think for UK to do first turn is to move his Indian/Australian fleets and meet them on the west coast of Australia. This forces Japan to kill that fleet and leave Pearl Harbor alone. If he doesn’t kill this fleet, it can invade his islands easily. If your African fighter is still alive land it on the carrier as well so you can inflict maximum damage when the Japan navy comes to you.

You can’t buy 2 tanks per transport. The limit is one infantry and one tank. I accept that you may not buy more tanks than infantry as naval nations, but I also find it very difficult to believe that you buy more infantry than tanks, because the transport ratio is 1:1 and you want to squeeze in as many tanks as you can with that sort of ratio; it is to me a waste of time to put 2 infantry on board unless you’re fighting a purely holding action. If you had 8 transports as UK, then that’d be pointless since UK’s deployment limit is 8 units anyways; the most transports you’d need is 4 because 4 transports x 2 units = 8 units total. The only reason you’d have so many transports is if you’re saving up for a big attack, and even in that case you wouldn’t be concerned with building 16-20 tanks because transports can’t hold 2 tanks.

That’s a poor example with 4 infantry vs 1 plane. First, it’d be more like 3 infantry vs 1 plane for more equal IPC cost. Secondly, this is pointless when you’re not considering naval nations. I’ve already said a million times that infantry is easily the most valuable unit for Germany and Russia who have to prosecute large land wars. That’s never been the argument. For some reason you still argue that infantry is the most valuable for everyone, when this is most certainly not true.

Even if you just count the number of infantry for US/UK/Japan, you do not build more numerical infantry than other units, much less spend more IPCS on them. This is because you have to use transports to get land troops anywhere, so you are building infantry in equal numbers with tanks. You honestly would load transports with 2 infantry rather than 1 infantry 1 tank? In that case then yes infantry would be more valuable if people actually did that, but that’s not the case. You don’t build primarily infantry as naval nations, ever, unless you’re fighting a last ditch effort and you’re going to lose anyways. You’re busy matching 1 infantry with 1 tank, and tanks cost more, so tanks are the more valuable, and if you had the opportunity you would put 2 tanks in the transport since you need to muscle your way through and space is limited so it’s not a question of which unit is cheap fodder more like you need quality units in the transports.

Infantry is obviously most valuable if you don’t have to use transports and your deployment limits are high compared to your income (Germany/Russia). For other nations you’re busy building equal numbers of infantry as tanks, and you’re busy constructing navy too, so infantry can’t be considered the most valuable for those nations. If you’re doing amphibious assaults you don’t try to attack with mass infantry because you need good muscle, and because space is limited on transports you need all the muscle you can pack in.

I vote US. They’re not in any immediate threat, can invade UK territories pretty easily =)