AA Tactical Question

[AdamF]

In Multi AA, NT, reg dice

Round 1
R- takes WR and Ukraine (albeit with heavy losses), No Bury stack
G- loses bid to retake UKR, takes Egypt with only 1 tank remaining, kills UK med boats but loses 3 Figs on it's turn, moves SZ5 boats to 7
UK-Sinks all of SZ7, retakes Egypt, fails to sink J SZ59 Trans, and end turn with CV, BB , figs and 3 Trans in sz7
J-Builds 2 IC's and sinks Pearl remaining there with BB, CV, DD and 2 Figs
USA-What would acceptable counters be for USA in the above results

Comments welcome

[BKBrawler]

In Multi AA, NT, reg dice

Round 1
R- takes WR and Ukraine (albeit with heavy losses), No Bury stack
G- loses bid to retake UKR, takes Egypt with only 1 tank remaining, kills UK med boats but loses 3 Figs on it's turn, moves SZ5 boats to 7
UK-Sinks all of SZ7, retakes Egypt, fails to sink J SZ59 Trans, and end turn with CV, BB , figs and 3 Trans in sz7
J-Builds 2 IC's and sinks Pearl remaining there with BB, CV, DD and 2 Figs
USA-What would acceptable counters be for USA in the above results

Comments welcome

If the US is doing anything but getting itself into high gear against Germany with all those birds missing and a lame duck Africa, its doing a serious disservice to the Allied cause- that is a Germany poised to fall relatively quickly.

[GuderianKrieg]

buy carrier,2transports 2armour.

dump 4 ground into algeria with destroyer support,ussr sub to support too been ger airforce so low uk fleet is fine.

no brainer,germany is the weak link with 3dtrs down,press it hrd and fast.

[Demandred]

Agree completly w BK here, USA should full bore to Africa, then decide if its shucking north or Med.

W 3 birds down for Hitler, i wouldnt even consider buying a carrier w usa. (although I almost never do anyway)

Trannies and boots, and then more boots, and then some air, and usa will not be stopped rolling east all game long

[Slowroller]

Agree completly w BK here, USA should full bore to Africa, then decide if its shucking north or Med.

W 3 birds down for Hitler, i wouldnt even consider buying a carrier w usa. (although I almost never do anyway)

Trannies and boots, and then more boots, and then some air, and usa will not be stopped rolling east all game long

100% right, imho. A US carrier purchase can often be avoided even without the Luftwaffe hurting, but is completely unnecessary here. A 7 infantry, 1 tank, 2 transport buy US1, with 3 US troops in WUSA/Alaska troops moved to WCanada, means the US will have a 5 transport/10 unit shuck out of East Canada established by US2. US 2, US builds 9 land units and then starts contributing to extra transports for an near-future pull into the Med or eventual switch to the north.

[AdamF]

Ok, thanks all

Nobody is concerned with Japan's speed to Moscow with 2 ICs in Asia?

[Slowroller]

Ok, thanks all

Nobody is concerned with Japan's speed to Moscow with 2 ICs in Asia?

Not I. In fact, 2 ICs on Asian mainland gets fewer troops further from Russia slower than a transport build on Japan's first turn. Try the two out methods out and you'll see what I'm talking about. A japan IC should only be built when Japan's production exceeds 8 units per round with transports to move them.

[commander_chaos]

I like to use my 2 Jpn IC's pump out an armor scout force and get all the easy money- and if the US decides to go for the Pac ill switch to just buying inf.... So yes IMHO any and all Jpn IC's are something to worry about

[bmaster]

J with 2 IC's and 2 surviving trannies on J1 is nothing to scoff at, though yeah poor germany in this scenario.

I think in the near term you have an edge in africa (J is low in trannies) and should be careful in terms of how much usa should focus there. There may not be a need for overkill there and it's a slow way to reinforce russia. What i would focus on vis a vis africa is a quick take-down of the german med bb and trannie.

SO this scenario might call for more of a northern shuck. And if russia can't take norway maybe get a usa IC going there early.

b

[kemal81]

I hope you didn't post this while the game is still going. Otherwise this will be an unfair gaming.

[lukalion]

Ok, thanks all

Nobody is concerned with Japan's speed to Moscow with 2 ICs in Asia?

Not I. In fact, 2 ICs on Asian mainland gets fewer troops further from Russia slower than a transport build on Japan's first turn. Try the two out methods out and you'll see what I'm talking about. A japan IC should only be built when Japan's production exceeds 8 units per round with transports to move them.

Hm not true in this scenario Japan can put 10 new units on mainland on J2 (6 on ic-s and 4 from trannys) while with 4 trannys can put only 8 on J2. Furthermore if he builds 1 more tranny on J2 on J3 he can already start pumping 12 units per turn.

[UtzChips]

Ok, thanks all

Nobody is concerned with Japan's speed to Moscow with 2 ICs in Asia?

Not I. In fact, 2 ICs on Asian mainland gets fewer troops further from Russia slower than a transport build on Japan's first turn. Try the two out methods out and you'll see what I'm talking about. A japan IC should only be built when Japan's production exceeds 8 units per round with transports to move them.

Hm not true in this scenario Japan can put 10 new units on mainland on J2 (6 on ic-s and 4 from trannys) while with 4 trannys can put only 8 on J2. Furthermore if he builds 1 more tranny on J2 on J3 he can already start pumping 12 units per turn.

Lukalion,

Are you saying that you subscribe to buying 2 ICs on T1? Inquiring minds would like to know what those in the Champ's Div are doing!
I thought the pros [when no threats are posed by Russia/Britain] that they prefer the mobility and options offered by trannys as opposed to having 2 more inf in the mainland on T2.
Those 2 trannys at FIC at the end of T1 can ONLY go back to Tokyo and unload in Bury or Manchuria. With a 3 tranny buy & 2 inf, the 2 trannys at FIC are free for other possibilities and J can buy an IC for FIC on T2, along with another tranny! Now J has a shuck just about complete to start supporting Egypt, since she received no pressure from the Allies.

[lukalion]

I have never stated that ic build on J1 is a right move , I only metioned that is not true that with tranny build u will get more troops on the mainland rather then with ic-s build.

[rockismyreligion]

Ok, thanks all

Nobody is concerned with Japan's speed to Moscow with 2 ICs in Asia?

Not I. In fact, 2 ICs on Asian mainland gets fewer troops further from Russia slower than a transport build on Japan's first turn. Try the two out methods out and you'll see what I'm talking about. A japan IC should only be built when Japan's production exceeds 8 units per round with transports to move them.

Exactly. The odds of Japan building tanks is almost inevitable, and most Japanese players do not value the better move of building transports and infantry first, then moving to tanks at the end-game when Russia is turtled in Moscow. Russia produces more infantry than Japan will tanks on the ground, and losing tanks for infantry is seldom if ever wise.

I must also reiterate what my partner has said. USA better high-tail it to Africa to mop up, and get a lot of transports rolling with some infantry to get the numbers up on transporting units. USA will not need a carrier all game.

[UtzChips]

Agree completly w BK here, USA should full bore to Africa, then decide if its shucking north or Med.

W 3 birds down for Hitler, i wouldnt even consider buying a carrier w usa. (although I almost never do anyway)

Trannies and boots, and then more boots, and then some air, and usa will not be stopped rolling east all game long

100% right, imho. A US carrier purchase can often be avoided even without the Luftwaffe hurting, but is completely unnecessary here. A 7 infantry, 1 tank, 2 transport buy US1, with 3 US troops in WUSA/Alaska troops moved to WCanada, means the US will have a 5 transport/10 unit shuck out of East Canada established by US2. US 2, US builds 9 land units and then starts contributing to extra transports for an near-future pull into the Med or eventual switch to the north.

I have a question about this premise that USA doesn't need to buy a carrier.
Scenario:
USA has been spending 100% of its IPCs on boots,art & tanks [at ratio of about 6 inf 1 art 1 tank] & has 6 trannys & is trying to have 12 units available for a shuck to Algeria every round, but would also like to have more than 3 fighters & a bomber.

I brought the British carrier & tranny from India around to Algeria & I also passed on trying to kill the J sub and just brought 2 inf towards Africa with the tranny/sub from Australia. So I have at sz12:
USA: battleship, 2 destroyers, six trannys
Britain: carrier, sub 2 trannys

Britain has been able to trade with G in the deadzones, along with Russian help, & Russia has kept J at bay in the east. However, J is growning in numbers. Mostly inf, but just about ready to do a major tank dump any turn now.

The problem:

Axis has been able to keep Egypt [but will soon have to give it up] and has been able to keep Egypt this long primarily [in my view] because I didn't buy enough offensive units for USA.

Because USA has no presence whatsoever in the Pacific, J has been able to park her whole fleet on the Indian side of the Suez Canal. G fleet was sunk some time ago by USA, who lost 2 fighters & spent 20 IPCs replacing them, thus a turn or two not buying 12 units to shuck. ALSO: J hit Alaska once to break up the shuck.

If USA were to go to SE, J could come thru the canal & wipe me out.
If Britain goes first with carrier sub 2 trannys & 2 USA ftrs, they will also be wiped out.

Because of this, G has not had to guard SE. All that was required of them is 10 inf, a couple of tanks & a few fighters in WE.
Reason is: although Britain has 4 trannys at Arch, and could dump 4/4 in WE followed up by USA, Allies will barely kill it and that will leave deadzones for G to compete with Russia who has been keeeping J at bay in the east, G takes back WE & Japan can come thru the canal.

Now I partnered with a very good expert recently as the Allies. His win rate is in the 70s & his strat is for the USA to QUICKLY obtain 10 trannys while at the same time bringin' units to Algeria. With 10 trannys & 20 units of equal inf/art & tanks, or slightly more inf, he is poised to strike anywhere, much earlier than I.

I lost a game today, not because of bad play, but because of ONE strategical fault:

USA cannot afford to just dump 12 units of 8 inf 2 art & 2 tanks into Algeria every round [except when they are replacing their airforce]. They are out of the game.

AND, as stated earlier, I couldn't threaten' SE with those approx 30 units in Libya because of the threat of the J navy as stated earlier.