Yeah, I’ve read that and I believe it. I think until 1943 or 1944 the Americans had more ground units in the Pacific?
Yeah, the US built a ton of ships. For some reason the US never gets to seemingly similar numbers in the game.
We need an allied playbook.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@GeneralHandGrenade Ah - ok. That settles it and totally answers the question, thanks again.
-
@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
-
We can give New South Wales aid. We may be able to create a better sandbag there than in Hawaii, combining our naval might with the Australian ground forces. This should make Sidney nearly impregnable until turn seven at the earliest. This is a worst case scenario if and only if Bombay is in danger of falling or does fall. This could be made untenable if the enemy chooses Australia first. In such an event, however, Calcutta should become nearly impossible to capture, assuming an infusion of British units into the region via a factory in Persia, victory in North Africa or even aircraft from South Africa. Hawaii must become Japan’s final victory city. That should prove easy to defend, given our industrial output and the strategies listed above.
London may be sandbagged by some obvious and some oblique methods. The less obvious method is to draw the Pac fleet into the Atlantic, letting Germany know that any Sealion victory will be Pyrrhic. We can punctuate this by adding to the fleet immediately. Such a fleet needs additional aircraft carriers, aircraft, destroyers, and transports. If kept out of the war, one might stage the fleet in sz102. Given the green light, American aircraft could be launched from 102 and land in London during non-combat. As soon as America is brought into the war, ground units may do the Canadian Two-step. Move them to Canada and then shuttled your ground forces to London either in the combat phase for the recapture of the British capital or in the non-combat phase for reinforcement.
-
Staging the U.S. fleet in 102 - is this the move you mentioned earlier in this thread that is meant to ward off a Sea Lion invasion?
-
It’s a component. The massive investment in the Atlantic is the real clincher.
-
The other sandbagging will have to be done by the British, specifically Egypt and Yunnan or where ever you draw the line in China.
As to nibbling the edges, I am calling this Operation Ricochet. The Axis flood rises high. Many areas might be covered. Hopefully temporarily. For the enemy to reach the Middle East is no easy feat. With proper maintenance and investment, it should be an excellent area to begin taking back. For America’s part, parking a fleet next to Gibraltar can aid the English effort there by instilling a sense of fear in the Italians. A build or two will need be devoted to the potential defense of Rome. Those forces may never move for the rest of the game, nor be transported to North Africa nor can-open for Germany in the East. Meanwhile, you are free to choose from several edges where you might land: S. France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Albania.
Scandinavia is another area that may be easily nibbled. Economically, it could be called a money peninsula, given the gain/loss of IPC and bonus income. It can even be the sight of an American minor complex.
If some of the sandbagged areas are lost, a reserve force in the rear might easily retake the territory after the fighters have headed for friendly bases and the ships quieted their guns. Bombay is the classic case for this (unless the Japanese are willing to lose an airforce to gain a victory city with a minor complex on it). Such trades will most likely lead to short-term losses for you, but long-term gains.
In the Pac, the Caroline make for an interesting get for naval operations. Iwo Jima or the Soviet Far East is more intriguing for air operations. Iwo Jima, however, is not an edge, nor a nibble. Many like to move to coastal Australia and subsequently take back the money islands. Coordination with the Anzac navy can tip the scale defensively in our favor, particularly when Japan is clawing for the quick capture of the Jewel of the Empire. Planes can be launched like spears from carriers and land in the thick of the Asian campaign. If planned properly, planes leaving can be replaced the same turn with planes arriving.
-
@Guam-Solo Yes, the problem is that most of the NAs are slanted toward the Axis and very hard to prevent. Grasshopper has made an effort to boost the Allied NAs, but he added new Axis ones. Not a huge fan of NAs, but we play with them. The Med NA is a great one to try and deny.
-
I thought a bit about an according Allies strategy guideline and came to the conclusion, it would be best to find an approbiate answer to a J1DoW and a G2 DOW since these would be the most represented Axis strategies.
All the Input made so far is good but in order to make an Allied playbook that everybody “could” use, a J1DoW and a G2/3 Opening should be the starting set up.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas Good observation. I appreciate all the input in this thread so far and have used parts of it in my last couple of games. I think Crockett’s belief is that reactionary strategies are often (not always) lazy–or at least they cause vacillation or even paralysis in achieving strategic objectives. For a new player it can be difficult to comprehend how to spend the U.S. IPC’s, or that what you purchase rounds 1-4 say a lot about your strategic objectives (or lack thereof). I think new players also miss the importance of economic warfare on the axis. In this sense, sorting out allied strategic objectives (and necessary purchases to achieve them), and then calculating where to sandbag the axis (economic war) make for two very sound pillars of strength for the allies. Perhaps somewhat akin to Young Grasshoppers “4 Pillars of Strength” for the Japanese. As a new player I would find these immensely helpful (even now I do).
However, I think @aequitas-et-veritas’s suggestion of a J1 or G2 DOW context makes sense as well. The beauty of Cow’s Japan playbook is that it gives a new player a script to follow for several rounds. Turn order affects this for the Japanese and German playbook as they can decide when to attack and bring U.S/Russia into it–and especially the ability to strike at allied pieces before they can be repositioned for safety. In some J1 attack scenarios Pearl is attacked and in others it isn’t. So I think scripting is more of a challenge. The beauty of Crockett’s “playbook in progress” is that he has given us 2 pillars of strength with flexibility to respond to different axis opening moves. If I recall correctly, Cow was pummeled for his J1 DOW suggestion for awhile. It took some time for the community to change the widely held view that keeping the U.S. out was a better way to go. I see playbooks as a work in progress, with trial and error, working towards a coalescence of thought.
It would be awesome to see you, @aequitas-et-veritas, throw out a straw man J1 or G2 DOW script for the allies! I say that with respect and humility because so far I’m reading and taking a lot from the thread without sitting down and stabbing at strategic inputs myself…
-
US Playbook: summary
I began with the end. The goals of the strategic objectives that I’ve laid out has been to destroy the enemies ability to make war and eliminate the units on the board. The work of laying down a “floating bridge” GHG by creating an efficient shuck sets the Americans up to devastate the enemy by asymmetrical warfare while matching boots on the ground or planes in the sky with the Axis powers.
The enemy’s floodwaters might overcome a sandbagged territory or two. Hopefully, instead of profiting by these conquests they are spent and easily mopped up by reserves that don’t have to contend with the air force or naval bombardments when they attack the weary defenders. Operation Ricochet depends on this. We have begun to nibble at the edges. The question then presents itself. Which edges should we nibble? The short answer is the valuable ones. Remember that we are mainly attempting to dash the economic ambition of the Axis.
By my count, the Germans are making 47 pre-Barbarossa, with 10 IPCs of National Objectives. When they flood the Soviet Union they can grab around 16 easily and stand at the gates of Moscow, with 5 more IPC from another NO. This is around 78 IPCs. The Allies can not survive long if this endures.
Robbing the Huns of Scandinavia reduces that income down by 10 and forces them to sandbag or risk losing 8 more PDQ. Greece might be a stretch, but there are nine IPCs in the vicinity. Most of them are near sz 97. A fleet there would ensure the Italians stay home to defend and places the responsibility for recapture squarely on the Germans’ shoulders.
Here we see the value of multiple fleets surrounding the enemy. He might be able to wipe out our troops in the Balkans, but he has to fear landings in so many areas that he must defend the capital and place the rest of his forces in a reactionary position. -
@crockett36 In the Pac, from an economic standpoint, nothing jumps out at the American. However, if one assumes the responsibility for annihilating the IJN, the possibilities open like a flower in May. Easily the best get is the Philippines, with the NO. Malaya would be next in value for money made by the Allies via income and bonuses. As to theft and gain, stealing one of the money islands disrupts 8 plus dollars of the enemy’s revenue stream and puts some in your side’s as well.
-
US Playbook: summary
Turn 1: Buy all carriers, put them in the Pacific.
Turn 2: Buy bombers
Turn 3: Buy bombers
Turn 4: Buy bombers
…
Turn 27: Buy bombers
That’s the long version. The short version is “carriers then bombers for life” :)
-
AKA light skies
except it doesnt work too well
because you’ve got to have a safe place to land
and a fleet
and those bombers,
though the single most powerful unit in the game,
cannot protect or take territory or
hold blue water -
Well, we can agree to disagree.
I will just state this fact. a US bomber built in WUSA can make it to Moscow 3 turns later, killing Japan units when needed on its way from WUSA to Queensland to India to Moscow. Bombers can defend a large stack almost as good as infantry, and they sure get there a heckuva lot quicker.
So, as the USA you can focus on Japan while reinforcing Europe when needed. Or killing a med fleet if Moscow falls – making the capture of Egypt more problematic.
The bottom line is that they are very fast and very flexible.
And, of course bombers hold blue water (be they USA or Japan) – they create very large dead zones, thereby protecting said water on their way to protecting Russian land…
-
I agree with each of the things you are saying individually,
What I disagree with is the conclusion that buying any 1 unit idiomatically or based on a pat formula can win you the game. Even I was just espousing USA “subs subs subs” but its a “carriers first then subs then sbombers with dds mixed in” plan not just build 200 subs = u win.
-
@taamvan well of course it can be deeper than that. The first round of carriers is to support ANZAC. What the bombers do in addition to full board support is to keep Japan’s navy pretty much grouped together. Every game is different, but the key is this: keeping Japan from winning. If you can do that, and then shift to Europe/Egypt, the Allies have good chances even when Moscow falls.
In the end, Moscow will fall against a good German player. That’s really when the game begins, not ends. Keeping the Axis out of Egypt is the key. And, if the US can send planes to make the taking of Moscow more painful to Germany (and not the UK) and to clear the Med and so forth, then the UK can focus fully on Egypt. This is the key to Allied victory imho.
A bomber only costs 12 ipc’s. If you can hit a land stack in one go (say with 25 bombers) then indirectly those bombers control land. And, if you consider the costs of transporting US troops to the mideast, bombers are actually cheaper than infantry when you do the math (and more effective).
Everything counts in large amounts… :)
EDIT: Consider how far ANZAC planes can go on US carriers. US moves then ANZAC before Japan. Even more dead zones are created in the Pacific this way.
-
did you just drop a Depeche Mode quote in an Axis and Allies conversation? Bravo.
Sir, I salute you.
-
Well sometimes this is your last chance. After that, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and DizzKneeLand33 shows you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.😉
Suggested Topics
