We need an allied playbook.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo Absolutely. I appreciated the video. I haven’t tried it myself. Have you? There are disadvantages to this. One of those zones will encounter heavy opposition. That requires massive amounts of navy. Real naval and air supremacy. What do you think? At least two loaded carriers, four destroyers, one battleship or a cruiser in both locations.

The crucial aspect is the wave portion. Not only do the troops need to keep being shucked, but the navy also needs to be constantly added to in case of catastrophe. I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost my shuck fleet on more than one occasion. I had a backup fleet drop in the water that same turn.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 No, I haven’t had the opportunity to try it. I don’t get many games in–but I’ll get to play one during Christmas and would like to try the floating bridge combined with the objectives you’ve lined out in this thread.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo I don’t play nearly as much as I would like. My son who likes Axis and Allies doesn’t like Global 40 so we play around with different versions and house rule stuff. Good times, but not helpful for “cracking the code”–an allied strategy that brings balance to the … force?! Game. Thingy.

[crockett36]

@crockett36 Now the most important thing about any shuck or even an assault on a large scale is the wave effect. They can see it coming or not coming. A large assault on Normandy will be handled differently by the enemy if he looks at way stations like sz 91 or Halifax and sees them empty. He can afford to throw everything at the invaders because they have no backup. He will have a breather, time to rebuild.

What will we do with the shucked troops? Normandy is right there for you to land them at your discretion. Normandy is also right there, two spaces away from W Germany. There are two ways to approach this landing. One would be a constant drip of 8 units landing every round. Another would be a significant build up, say double or triple that number. (more transports) Either way, they are threatening and must cause the German and Italian players to marshal soldiers toward the West.

What was true for Normandy is also true for S France, unless you captured Northern Italy previously or capture it simultaneously. General Handgrenade is a proponent of this location because it requires so few transports to maintain the shuck. It will require two large navies to protect two vulnerable sea zones.

Greece is a sixteen transport shuck for the Americans and requires protecting three different sea zones. It is the most obvious blind spot in the Third Reich and could even be a one-off, sending four transports to their doom to accomplish the spectacular feat of placing eight units behind enemy lines. Fun, at least, though probably not sustainable for the Americans.

Scandinavia has many advantages. You can capture it and then build a minor factory. You can bomb Germany and W Germany back into the stone age. It will probably never be contested unless the Axis’ balloon is mammoth or he left a force behind in Karelia. The navies have to move together. New builds for England and our reinforcements might be vulnerable. Keep those planes at the ready for scrambling.

The big question that looms over Scandinavia is is this landing a “rescue of Moscow” or a second front? Aside from a lone tank, sent to liberate territories and aircraft meant to help defend, the answer is a second front. You are right there. Across the water is Berlin. Don’t take your eyes off the prize. And pressure on Berlin will force Germany to abandon its perimeter. You may have successfully peeled the onion one more layer. Normandy might be yours for cheap.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 Which is the better sea zone to park the big allied fleet to protect the schucking of soldiers? 110 or 91? GHG’s floating bridge uses 91 which I think has greater flexibility for where to go and really puts pressure on the Axis to defend all it’s European coastal borders. I hate this as a German player–spreading thin to try and have a counterattack available for repulsing an invasion from anywhere. But 110 gives some flexibility (Normandy or Norway for example) but an invasion into the Med becomes obvious as it would take two moves/rounds. Axis could see it coming and set up for it. I like 110 though because it forces Germany to make available aircraft for defense or counter-invasion by keeping the Luftwafe close to the western front and out of the Russia battle.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 In this post I liked your emphasis on waging economic war on an opponent. You listed these objectives: Taking possession of territory (cash value of these), SB factories and convoys. I was thinking to add denying the achievement of national objectives to your opponent when possible. New players often miss this.

[GuamSolo]

@Argothair Of the 4 most plausible targets you list, do you think the US can realistically drive for two of them at once? In particular, drive for one objective each on both sides of the map?

[Argothair]

@Guam-Solo Good question, Guam Solo. In most games, the USA can push for one objective on each side of the map, but not literally at the same time – the push for one objective should start two or three turns earlier than the push for the second objective. The reasoning here is that during the first stage of your campaign, you will need transports and men and warships and some air support in order to safely occupy a sea zone and then gain control of your targeted land territories. This is very expensive and consumes 85%+ of the US’s resources. At best, your remaining resources can be used to garrison a region that is already Allied-controlled (e.g., stack Honolulu with infantry, or stack Gibraltar with fighters). However, during the second stage of your campaign, when you have already achieved regional naval supremacy, you generally do not need to build new warships, and you may even be able to recycle some of your transports by sending them on a loop back and forth between safe sea zones. You can re-fill four transports much, much more cheaply than you can build four new transports, fill those transports, build an escorting navy, and build an escorting air force – and the resulting savings can be used to open a new offensive campaign.

The exception to this rule is when all of the Axis powers press inward toward Moscow, without paying serious attention to contesting the USA’s attacks. If Germany sends its entire air force east and builds nothing but mechs and tanks while Japan sends its entire air force west while building nothing but minor factories, then you can probably get away with an all-out simultaneous two-front war, because your landing parties just won’t be facing much opposition, so you won’t need to build as many escort ships / planes to support each loaded transport.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo My preference is 110 because, in coordination with the British, you could land in Germany. I’m in a house rule game with Dessertfox. I had to abandon Paris and W.Germany because of his large transport navies and air forces. 110 makes it an existential war, knife to the throat. Do or die.

My purpose, though, is to be general enough to layout different plans of attack. Also, I will rarely ever do anything the same way twice. In addition, I will almost always have an experiment going on. Right now I’m playing Germany with only the original tanks. The extra money is going into an ever larger air corps. I’m also buying soldiers as Japan instead of tanks or mechs, the extra money going toward air and fleet maintenance. Just playing around.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 You made a video about UK turn 1 moves where you preserve units by consolidating the UK Med fleet with French ships and again consolidating off eastern Africa. The purchase for UK is 3 destroyers, but you never place them on the board. How would you allocate them between South Africa and London? And - Doesn’t this purchase go against conventional thinking for defending against sea lion (where UK1 purchases mostly infantry and a fighter)? Sorry for asking so many questions BTW.

[GuamSolo]

The video I’m referencing is on Youtube - English British Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtziXSzJR6o

[crockett36]

love the questions. I would place them off London. 109 specifically. I haven’t gotten to it yet, but I like to swing the American navy around to the Atlantic. That conveys a message, KGF, that should deter the Germans. The destroyers are pesky. Will the Luftwaffe attack such a fleet with fighters that might scramble? Either way is good for me. If they don’t, I’ll build more next turn and a factory in Persia. more to come.

[crockett36]

This post is deleted!

[crockett36]

Nibbling and Sandbagging

From an optical standpoint, attacking Western Europe would seem to be the needed action. From an economic vantage point, however, keeping Germany contained to around 55 IPCs might be enough to prolong the war until the disparity widens in our favor. Therefore, we begin a section of the US playbook on nibbling the edges and laying down sandbags that will hold back the flood and economically support what has been called Operation Ricochet.

Moscow will be attempted. It is the crown jewel for the Axis. If America enters the war early, fighters can make their way to Russia by turn 5 or 6. If every allied surviving aircraft that begins on the board t1 were to do so it would provide a strong dike. Planes built by the English can launch from Scotland and make their way there. Planes in the middle of the board can fight the good fight, make a difference and still make it to Moscow by five or six. Anzac and Indian fighters can battle in Southeast Asia and still make it. A factory in Persia built on t2 can produce units that can assist in the sandbagging of the Russian capital.

Alternatively, seventeen American bombers can make it to Moscow by turn 6. They could act as fodder, but more likely they would deter the enemy from ever attempting the assault. They could also be used to attack any lagging mechanized column that was supposed to ensure the success of the venture.

[crockett36]

@crockett36 Other sandbagging areas include Yunnan and by extension Bombay, Egypt, London, New South Wales, and Hawaii. These are all Axis targets, assuming one is playing with the OOB victory city conditions. Of these, Hawaii rests almost entirely in our hands. In the early game, it is easy enough to get three transport’s worth of troops to the island and a token destroyer blocker or two. If we were to see Calcutta or Sidney about to fall, prudence demands an entire build or two be put toward securing the waters around the island, complete with destroyer blockers. This is more effective than turtling there. One could assume that the bulk of the IJN would be in the Indian ocean. To get from there to Hawaii would take several turns. An air force and navy comparable to the enemy must be produced. Defensively, loaded carriers, battleships and destroyers are amazing. Offensively, a fleet of subs and bombers can do incredible damage on the cheap with versatility for later asymmetrical warfare Probably the most effective defense for the island proper would be a round of air power builds that could not be blocked from landing and be used for the offensive against the blockaders and the approaching fleet.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 I like the nibbling strategy. One questions for you on another part of this thread - If you use a transport from India on UK1 to land troops in Persia for the goal of building a minor IC then does this become part of the Pacific side, or rather a Union Jack roundel is placed in Persia? I was able to play a game over Christmas and utilized your opening moves for UK but got stuck when the consensus was that it was Union Jack roundel - and thus UK Europe could not place the Minor IC in Persia. What am I missing in the rules? Is every territory on the Europe map going to always go UK Europe despite British forces from the Pacific side crossing over and taking the territory (and vice-versa)? Thanks.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

@Guam-Solo The thing players need to understand is that UK is only one nation but with 2 economies. The only time you separate them is when it’s time to purchase, collect income, and place units. Other than that they are one nation. Any territory on the Europe side of the map belongs in the UK Europe economy while any territory on the Pacific side of the map is counted in the UK Pacific economy. It doesn’t matter where the UK units come from or where they end up, after they are placed they fight as one nation. So to answer your question, it MUST be the UK Europe economy that places the minor IC on Persia. UK Pacific could not possibly place it there because they must place their units on the Pacific side of the board. The Union Jack roundel does not get placed on Persia because it belongs in the UK Europe economy. The fact that the units that took control of Persia came from India is of no consequence whatsoever.

[A Former User]

But: West India on the European side still belongs to the Indian economy, while British Colombia and Yukon Territory on Pacific map belong to Europe.

[GuamSolo]

@GeneralHandGrenade Ah - ok. That settles it and totally answers the question, thanks again.

[Midnight_Reaper]

@Hecatomb said in We need an allied playbook.:

But: West India on the European side still belongs to the Indian economy, while British Colombia and Yukon Territory on Pacific map belong to Europe.

While true, those are also the only exceptions to the rule.

-Midnight_Reaper