Only based on your bidding rules. My bids puts them in a power’s treasury (so they have to be spent later).
We need an allied playbook.
-
@Argothair Thank you for the kick in the pants to collect it, give it shape and wrap it up. I was almost there, but now I’m done with the theory. Onto specific plans on my vacation next week.
-
@simon33 The plunder rule has got to be changed in the next edition, Hear me, oh CREATOR of this little boardgame! Should be just the SV of the capital and only once. Please, Larry!
-
@Aaron_the_Warmonger If you captured Scandinavia with the Russians and you built a complex in Persia as the British, all may be seized in the same turn.
-
@crockett36 Thats a lot of moving parts, is there an estimated turn when this kicks off? i’ve thought about beachhead before, but i can’t seem, barring incredible good luck, being able to cobble the resources to knock out the big neutrals and keep up the regular war…
-
turn 4 or 5.
-
Wow. Thank you Crocket for the time it took to think this through, both in strategy and in writing it. Plus I heard somewhere that you moved in the last year? And have 7 kids? So…that’s a busy schedule and you finished a great piece of writing.
-
Thanks Guam Solo! I am going to read the thing on Youtube today and hope to get to the British strategy as soon as I get a new laptop. I find England to be the most challenging of the Allies because they have to do so much with so little. Really cool that the game imitates history so well. Egypt is the key. I have that from a very high source!
-
@crockett36
Eventually - when time permits of course - I think it would be great to see you sitting in front of the map and summarize it all while walking people through the board. But I don’t say that to take away from any of the work you’ve done. Blessings! -
I have some fairly strong allied strategies, primarily for UK that I will have to summarize in a form of playbook. They’ve all been tried against me or used by me with good success rates and tend to keep the Allies competetive. When in doubt, Attack!
-
@M36
Well I’d love to see that. -
@Guam-Solo I shall write one up in my notes and post it as soon as it’s complete.
-
I played a game this week as Britain and the axis won. It was a learning game though as all the players were new except for Germany (and myself as UK). The German player just throttled UK and land locked them. The game is hard to assess in terms of strategy because the newer players are either too cavalier with units or turtle for lack of experience. But the UK struggled so I’m interested in any UK ideas that other players employ.
-
@Guam-Solo That’s interesting. What do you mean by ‘landlocked’, exactly? Is the idea that Britain couldn’t keep a navy in the water, so British forces were confined to the UK and Africa, without being able to land on islands or in France?
-
By ‘landlocked’ I meant that there was no Royal Navy present and not enough UK aircraft to help. G1 took out 110 and 111, built an airbase in Holland and parked a small German fleet with an aircraft carrier in 110. I had a round of destroyer builds in 109 but the Luftwaffe just took it out. By UK 2 the Med fleet was gone primarily to one sided rolling. I saw Crocket36 combine the UK Med fleet with the French destroyers off of the coast of Southern France. This worked for me once before, but in this game it went terrible. The Italians rolled hits with nearly every roll in round 1 of the battle and the UK landed one hit… Order of casualties was tough because the Italians took Southern France first which meant I couldn’t take a hit on the UK aircraft carrier because the 2 planes would have nowhere to land and die if Italy withdrew. So Italy ruled the Med investing in ships each turn while the US was kept out of the war for as long as possible. The UK would have been fine in the long run, but the game was lost early when the (novice) Russian player threw a lot of his forces at a concentrated stack of German Armor/Infantry in Western Ukraine. Russia lost 85% of his attacking forces in the battle and ultimately opened the door for Germany to Russia. The trouble with new players is knowing how much to coach vs. letting them play their own strategies out while not controlling it too much so that they don’t have fun. UK would have recovered in a longer game, but the first two rounds really set them back.
-
I can also add that the UK went with a middle earth tactic and had help on the way to Moscow if the Russians had stayed in the game even just one more round…
-
All right, sounds like an interesting learning game. Sometimes you do get diced in an early battle (or three of them) and then that reverberates across the game. Especially if Japan is not declaring war on the Anglo-Americans, then there’s not much wiggle room for the UK & Russia to defend Moscow; a few bad battles or a few bad choices and Moscow can fall really early, and that’s all normal. I would have discussed the overall strategic situation with the Russian player, and explained why it made sense for them to sit tight and wait for British aid to arrive from Persia/India, but it’s hard playing just one country all day, and sometimes you just want to make a frigging attack, you know? It can be a lot more fun making one big attack and losing badly because of it than literally sitting around all day biding time and then having your friends argue about whether the resulting position was slightly favoring the Axis or slightly favoring the Allies.
I almost think you have to discuss strategies like that ahead of time, and figure out what countries to give people based on what their playstyle is. Especially in a game of Global with multiple newbies – if you’ve got a reckless attacker, give 'em the Germans or the Japanese. If you’ve got a timid turtle, give 'em the Russians or give 'em UK Pac + Anzac + China. That’s hard to suss out; a lot of people aren’t self-aware about what their playstyle is and may not admit to being a turtle even if they know it, but I think as the host you at least have to try to have that conversation.
As far as strategy, I think the British destroyers have to be built in Canada (SZ 106) when the Germans are doing an aggressive forward deployment with carrier and airbases. Building in Wales (SZ 109) is just a gift; it lets the Germans sink 'em for cheap. I’d also be very careful about moving into the Southern France sea zone when the Luftwaffe is still intact, because the risk-reward ratio is all wrong. If your fleet holds, then you deny Italy its Mare Nostrum NO for 1 turn (5 IPCs), and you get some additional boats into the Battle of the Atlantic at the cost of giving Italy a credible threat against Eastern Med targets like Egypt, Jordan, Crete, and Syria. It’s not clear that those results are better than just doing Taranto and sinking 2 Italian transports, which likely denies them the New Roman Empire NO (5 IPCs) for the rest of the game, and that’s what you get when everything goes well – as you saw, if it goes poorly against either the Italians or the Germans on a follow-up G2 attack, then you lose both your Atlantic and your Med fleets and you have very, very little to show for it. But you knew that. :)
Anyway, if Germany is buying an airbase and a carrier on G1, that’s the entire G1 economy, so they have no destroyers on the board. That means one interesting British purchase is submarines for the Atlantic! Hit the carrier, hit the battleship, hit the convoy zones in Norway and Normandy…just generally make life uncomfortable for the Kriegsmarine, and if you bait Germany into buying a couple of destroyers on top of the airbase and carrier, then at that point Russia should be rich enough to hold its own. Alternatively, if Germany retreats into the Baltic, the subs are useful against Italy in the Med.
-
@Guam-Solo nice report
but you could use some paragraph breaks for easier reading : )
-
@barnee Will do!
-
@Guam-Solo Wow, sounds like en epic battle. Germany took out both SZ111 AND 110? When I’ve done this I find myself spread a bit too thin and the Luftwaffe takes casualties due to scrambles. That’s actually a win for UK if you trade your fleet for German planes because it reduces their strategic flexibility. As mentioned Canada is the best spot to start building ships. If the Luftwaffe is in range they will just get sunk every round for minimal German casualties.
I’m curious about you’re statement that the fighters from UK couldn’t reach the action in the Mediterranean. Even if they’re guaranteed to be lost should the carrier have to take a hit I always send them. Trading UK planes for Italian ships is a positive for the Allies, because you can build more fighters, while the Italians can’t build ships.
-
@M36 On UK1 I took out the Italian ships in SZ96 next to Malta with one destroyer and a fighter. With that SZ cleared of enemy ships I moved the remaining UK fleet in the Med to SZ93 where they merged with the French cruiser and destroyer. I then landed 2 fighters on the carrier that combined with the French ships in SZ93. The tactical fighter that starts on the carrier was sent to Ethiopia to take out the Italians there.
London fighters were lost in scrambled defense of UK fleets and the Med fleet was lost when the Italians hit SZ93. The issue in that battle became order of casualties because a hit to the carrier meant the planes would have nowhere to land if the Italians only fought for one round. Which they could do and then leave the remaining ships for the Germans.
Suggested Topics
