AI for MWiF - USA

[npilgaard]

The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.
Usually I build such units for Europe mostly, as it seems easier to just to invasions in the Pacific (longer range and often lots of naval movement anyway), but the ATR-approach has at least one advantage, I think: island-hopping can be done during land impulses. So even when engaged in Europe and having a hard time squeezing in a combined/naval impulse some advancement on undefended ports/islands etc. (not the big ones of course) can be done.
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] ), and maybe that can be somewhat cut down if using a few ATRs. Without ATR and if (to some extend) avoiding combined impulses, then the Japanese will get a chance to react when the invasion forces are sailed to a sea area during a naval impulse, in order to invade the following land impulse.

As mentioned I haven't tried focusing on ATRs in the Pacific (or seen it done in a game before), but it might be a worthwhile step to give a try from time to time.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.
Usually I build such units for Europe mostly, as it seems easier to just to invasions in the Pacific (longer range and often lots of naval movement anyway), but the ATR-approach has at least one advantage, I think: island-hopping can be done during land impulses. So even when engaged in Europe and having a hard time squeezing in a combined/naval impulse some advancement on undefended ports/islands etc. (not the big ones of course) can be done.
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] ), and maybe that can be somewhat cut down if using a few ATRs. Without ATR and if (to some extend) avoiding combined impulses, then the Japanese will get a chance to react when the invasion forces are sailed to a sea area during a naval impulse, in order to invade the following land impulse.

As mentioned I haven't tried focusing on ATRs in the Pacific (or seen it done in a game before), but it might be a worthwhile step to give a try from time to time.

This would seem to have broader application, and usable in Europe and the Med at times too (e.g., Germnay's historical invasion of Crete).

[brian brian]

Interesting. Would go hand in hand with the CW Air / US Land strategy in Europe too, though the US has longer range ATRs than the British do. One of the best Japanese defense tactics, in my mind, is to have a counter-invasion force ready at all times from 42 onwards. So if you drop PARAs into a sea zone without a USN presence, especially ones that just flipped attacking an undefended hex due solely to expending too many movement points (easy to to in the Pacific), they might be a little vulnerable to an IJN riposte. One of the best US investments for their oodles of BPs is to spend an Offensive Chit once per turn on a SuperCombined impulse to get around some of the action limit problems mentioned. Without that, they need at least one naval impulse per turn just to move units out to the combat theaters anyway. And I haven't had too many problems with the standard Naval/Land combo over two impulses, except when weather in the landing zone becomes an issue and sometimes you have to make hay while the sun shines. True, the IJN can come out and take a swing at USMC forces afloat prior to landing, but you kind of want the Japanese to come out and fight sooner rather than later. The USA is like that Doritos commercial with their units - "Don't worry, we'll make more."

I call that tactic in Europe the 1st Allied Parachute Army, a WiF Fantasy unit if there ever was one, but it can be effective for the Allies.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
Often the US ends up doing many combined impulses (in spite of the US player having promised himself beforehand not to fall into that trap - again... [:)] )

LOL
Oh -- we've all been there.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
The US player in the (ftf) game I am currently participating in has given building a decent lot of ATR/PARAs for use in the Pacific a try.

I also like to have at least 1 PARA & 1 ATR in the Pacific, when I already have 2 PARA + 1 DIV in Europe, to add an extra threat for the Japanese to think about. That's not "focusing" on PARA in the Pacific, but I agree they are usefull there too.

[composer99]

The US has a 20-range ATR (something like that) that can paradrop; it's a handy piece of hardware for the Pacific. The "mere" 15-range ATRs (or CW/Fr ones) can be used in Europe.
 
The other thing is that the US is probably the only Allied MP likely to have & use paratroops in the Pacific (the Chinese might do so in China/Formosa, of course) whereas the CW and Free France will probably have them available for use in Europe. So if you want a paradrop threat in the Pacific, the US is the one who will have to supply it.

[Gurggulk]

USA Naval and convoy Deployment, using Limited overseas supply or not.
 
5 convoys each in, West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands, Central Pacific, for trade route to Japan.
3 convoys in Caribbean Sea for 3 oil from Venezuela
1 convoy each in West coast and Gulf of Alaska for the oil Resource
2 convoy points in reserve, placed in Honolulu
 
East Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.
 
Do you want a Free Setup for the USA also?
 
Are the Islands of Attu and Kiska named for historical reference on the game map?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk


USA Naval and convoy Deployment, using Limited overseas supply or not.

5 convoys each in, West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands, Central Pacific, for trade route to Japan.
3 convoys in Caribbean Sea for 3 oil from Venezuela
1 convoy each in West coast and Gulf of Alaska for the oil Resource
2 convoy points in reserve, placed in Honolulu

East Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 2 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

Do you want a Free Setup for the USA also?

Are the Islands of Attu and Kiska named for historical reference on the game map?

If you are referring to CWIF's Free Setup, then no. The optional rule has been removed from MWIF. There are just too many setup restrictions and removing them all changes the game too much. Choosing which restircitions to keep and which to remove was too much bother for a marginal benefit.

Here's the Aleutian island chain.

[Gurggulk]

What a very nice screenshot of the Aleutian islands chain. Thanks! [:)] Im happy to see all the islands named.
 
No Free setup is cool.

[composer99]

For USA initially I think it is better to have all transports on Pacific side. The US doesn't need sealift on the Atlantic seaboard until they have units ready to go to Europe and are 1-2 turns away from entering war vs. Germany/Italy. By contrast it is a simple affair to load up Hawaii, Dutch Harbour & Pago Pago with garrisons early on.

[Gurggulk]

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.
 
So we could have Option B
 
East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.
 
 

[brian brian]

I like putting CPs out from Hawaii to Manila to get that resource back to the USA as soon as possible when new CPs start to arrive first in Mar/Apr 40 and then in May/Jun 40 the chain can be completed....or possibly extended to Hanoi or Rangoon to goad the Japanese into closing the Burma Road and rolling for a USE Chit.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: composer99

For USA initially I think it is better to have all transports on Pacific side. The US doesn't need sealift on the Atlantic seaboard until they have units ready to go to Europe and are 1-2 turns away from entering war vs. Germany/Italy. By contrast it is a simple affair to load up Hawaii, Dutch Harbour & Pago Pago with garrisons early on.

Definitely. All TRS and Amph should be built up to war and I usually have only 4 late arrivals going to Europe. Even the 3-3 TRSs are invaluable in the Pacific to re-org new carriers as they come out from the West Coast.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

Some transports is often needed at the East Coast when USA enters the war. US can at times enter the war fast and a some transports on the East Coast could save UK from beeing conquered.

At times I even send fast TRS with units from the East Coast to India. It is a 2 turn transfer, but it is as fast as the Pacific route to India, and it is a safer route to India. Much safer than to try and send them past the Japanese navy to India from the West Coast.

[brian brian]

upon DoW, it's also fun to send them on high-risk runs to the Philippines or other Allied ports the Japanese weren't able to occupy on the DoW impulse. I can hear it now "but they'll get killed by the Japanese". True, especially if use of the oil rule leaves them disorganized at the destination. but a reinforcement delivery (of the white-print units you had holding a Pearl Harbor not now under direct threat from the Imperial Guard) like that can seriously wreck the Japanese timetable by an extra turn or two, and that is what the game is all about.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

San Diego is a better place for SUBs also, as they can go deeper in the Pacific than from Seattle.

[Gurggulk]

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]
 
Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Placing all transports on the west coast is perfectly acceptable.
My deployment suggestion has a symmetry that balances the east and west coast fleets. [:)] Which made me happy.

So we could have Option B

East Coast Fleet in Norfork
West Coast Fleet and 4 Transports in San Diego
Submarines in Seattle.

San Diego is a better place for SUBs also, as they can go deeper in the Pacific than from Seattle.

And the crews will be ever so much happier in San Diego.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]

Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]

In an Oil game, every drop counts. No point doing the extra re-orgs.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Considering the USA is about to go to war in about 2 years, subs could be placed in boston and still be ready for war when it comes. [>:]

Sub base Seattle has such a nice ring to it. Besides a little variation never hurts. [:D]

In an Oil game, every drop counts. No point doing the extra re-orgs.

Right.
Also, no need for SUBs in the Atlantic, let's all of them setup in the West Coast.