Is there a perfect strategy?

^Reminds me of those late night infomercials trying to sell you their tapes with the ‘the secrets’ to getting rich quick and easy.

@MeinHerr:

With the rules as they are , I will say YES!

There is a perfect strategy for the Allies.

Will not mention it though, because if i do, they will change the rules of this game.

In fact, I shall not even give a hint … because I truly love this game as it is.

All Iam willing to say is that… If I were to play Allies… i do not want ANY money… in fact Iam willing to GIVE the AXIS 10 IPC .

You may think iam arrogent, but i assure iam not.  If i tell it, then , everyone is going to slap their foreheads and say …  “Of course”…  and then will come a Rule Change.

With TMG, already there are people asking for rule changes… not giving me credit for the name etc…  that is as far as i would like to stretch it.

Started playing ( in fact “discovered” ) GLOBAL in Oct 2013…  and believe iam very proficient in it.

There is ONE guaranteed way , with current rules ALLIES will always win.

I leave it you all to come up with it.

MeinHerr

PS: It always amuses me , when i see 25 IPC bid for Allies from Axis… and i shake my head… oh… if you only knew…  :)

I challenge you to a duel!

The bombers get to yunnan on germany’s 6th or 7th turn. They come from caucus.

@TheMethuselah:

If you get a bid at 25+, how would you spend it?

Free money! Assuming one unit per territory, I would spent this as follows:

Burma: 1 infantry
Yunnan: 1 infantry
Hunan: 1 infantry
Egypt: 1 UK infantry
Anglo-Egypt Sudan: 1 infantry
Moscow: 1 infantry
Belarus: 1 artillery
Ukraine: 1 infantry

My goal here is a general strengthening of the Allied position across the board. I know a lot of folks prefer pieces that allow them to attack faster, but slowing the Axis down is just as good in my opinion. (Yes, some folks will say this is boring, but a win is a win.)

The two infantry units in China slow down Japan’s ground game and hopefully chew up its mainland forces. The infantry in Burma is a nod to more defense for India, but the positioning in Burma increases the possibility of countering Japan on the mainland.

The three units in Russia are positioned far enough back that a G1 can’t kill them. Three more Russian units makes a “big stack” German attack on Moscow significantly less likely to succeed, and the addition of the artillery as one of these increases counterattack options in the north if Germany isn’t going big stack.

The two UK infantry in Africa slow down Italy significantly.

The overall effect should be that the Axis is slogging through molasses in their early attacks. The psychological effect on an Axis player who is used to stock opening moves would be pretty significant.

I specifically ignored France, as adding anything less than a fighter there would not cause a significant number of defensive hits.

Marsh

@MeinHerr:

With the rules as they are , I will say YES!

There is a perfect strategy for the Allies.

Will not mention it though, because if i do, they will change the rules of this game.

In fact, I shall not even give a hint … because I truly love this game as it is.

All Iam willing to say is that… If I were to play Allies… i do not want ANY money… in fact Iam willing to GIVE the AXIS 10 IPC .

You may think iam arrogent, but i assure iam not.  If i tell it, then , everyone is going to slap their foreheads and say …  “Of course”…  and then will come a Rule Change.

With TMG, already there are people asking for rule changes… not giving me credit for the name etc…  that is as far as i would like to stretch it.

Started playing ( in fact “discovered” ) GLOBAL in Oct 2013…  and believe iam very proficient in it.

There is ONE guaranteed way , with current rules ALLIES will always win.

I leave it you all to come up with it.

MeinHerr

PS: It always amuses me , when i see 25 IPC bid for Allies from Axis… and i shake my head… oh… if you only knew…  :)

Is it, USSR build all inf and all allies (including Australia) send all their fighters to Moscow? Then Germany can never take Moscow.

There is only one perfect strategy in order to avoid losing and that is not to play.

@ghr2:

@MeinHerr:

With the rules as they are , I will say YES!

There is a perfect strategy for the Allies.

Will not mention it though, because if i do, they will change the rules of this game.

In fact, I shall not even give a hint … because I truly love this game as it is.

All Iam willing to say is that… If I were to play Allies… i do not want ANY money… in fact Iam willing to GIVE the AXIS 10 IPC .

You may think iam arrogent, but i assure iam not.  If i tell it, then , everyone is going to slap their foreheads and say …  “Of course”…  and then will come a Rule Change.

With TMG, already there are people asking for rule changes… not giving me credit for the name etc…  that is as far as i would like to stretch it.

Started playing ( in fact “discovered” ) GLOBAL in Oct 2013…  and believe iam very proficient in it.

There is ONE guaranteed way , with current rules ALLIES will always win.

I leave it you all to come up with it.

MeinHerr

PS: It always amuses me , when i see 25 IPC bid for Allies from Axis… and i shake my head… oh… if you only knew…  :)

I challenge you to a duel!

Oh… if only Cow were still around.

That would be a fun matchup ;-).
Although, the Prince of ‘Whales’ will be gone before any point can be (dis)proven with it because Cow just attacks J1 by default.

So true ItIsILeClerc

For an ailed bid, I’m not on the side of allowing the allies to drop units anywhere, especially if those units will engage in the first round of play either offensively, or defensibly. This type of bid can completely change a smaller theater like the Med where the UK feels pretty secure these days because Sea Lion is such a big risk to the Germans (even if successful). In light of that the UK generally smashes the Italian navy UK1. As a consequence the UK loses the Med navy in an axis counter attack, brings over the Indian fleet etc…… A bid of UK planes/ships in the Med reduce their risk/loss and Italy becomes even more boring.

I’m not to crazy about how the UK looses most of its fleet in the opening round (in pretty much every AA game LOL), but I also realize that if it keeps it, then they rebound to quickly, and the Germans would need to be beefed up at set-up to compensate…and that opens up a big can of worms that should be avoided IMO.

With that said, I think that Gibraltar is extremely under represented at at set-up. Stripped of the air base, and no starting ground units at all really doesn’t sound like “The Rock” to me. The starting ftr on Gib generally fly’s off because it it could be a sitting duck if it stays, or is used on mission. Gib is often left completely defenseless (talk about unhistorical). The Germans pressured Spain to join the war for many reasons, one of which was to allow them access to “The Rock” by land because the axis simply didn’t have the means to take it by sea (w/o great loss or major diversion of units). I know why the air base was stripped away, because it becomes to potent of a base for the allies, but the axis should have to fight there way in if they want it IMO. I know that several of us fought to get an inf maybe an AA gun placed there through the Alpha’s, similar to what Malta has (oztea comes to mind).

I also liked how Young Grasshopper handled this in his rule sets and simply placed a UK ftr in Canada. It would take a while for it to make an impact, but will help in the long run (allies are all about the long game).

So instead of a general bid for allies, I would be more inclined to have a universal set-up change (not necessarily official). Maybe 17 IPCs in units for UK, but they couldn’t use them to crush Italy, just to reinforce positions.

Something like a standard:

Gib add 1 inf, 1 AA
Ontario add 1 ftr

How does that bid help the allies though? If a fair bid is 25 that can be placed anywhere, then how is a 17 bid that can only be placed in Canada and Gib fair?

Because if that’s the case you might aswell have the axis player take off what ever pieces you feel like you think is fair …

Personaly the game is fairly well balanced and that it’s the players them selfs that have the issues if you play a high caliber axis player your gonna loose if you play a high caliber allied player your gonna loose until you feel like your skill and strategy in the game is up to there level other wise play smarter and make 0 mistakes it don’t take as big of risk

I agree with Whitshadw and Wild Bill.
The game is indeed very sharply balanced, except for 1 point (I feel): Gibraltar indeed.

Only with Bill’s example of a standard setup change (INF ART FTR) I’d also like to see another AB in Canada as well. It’s Canada, not some underdeveloped minor country so why should it not have an AB anyway.

Interesting thought perhaps, now that Wild Bill mentions it:
Why NOT allow the UK to keep all it’s ships in the Atlantic? Very historic, not too painful for the Italian fleet (which is done for anyway). Since this is indeed too much of a threat to Germany (early invasions), the Germans can be beefed up by adding additional INF.
I don’t think Russia is in too much danger because Germany would (should) need those INF back home to defend against such early invasions from the allies. If Germany sends them into Russia, UK invades UK1/2 should be the deal, so Germany keeps them home.

Maybe a second balance-flaw as well: I don’t like it that the USA must do something about Japan first, as oposed to go ‘Germany First’, in order to be safe. Japan grabbing Hawaii J9/J10 is so much of a threat that it drains too much US resources into the Pacific. I completely understand that the USA had to be slowed down in Europe after the first edition, but the way it is now just feels too much slowing down.

ItIsILeClerc I agree with you that the Canadians should get an AB, especially when you consider that the AB at Gib was removed.

I have played w/AB on Quebec (maybe during the Alpha runs?). I think it would be ok as long as the ftr started on Ontario. Quebec w/ftr and AB would be able to scramble against the G1 sub attack on sz106, and like I said I don’t like to make changes that will effect the opening round of play.

An AB on Quebec would allow Canadian ftrs to get to London, or Gib in one move, which I think is a good thing as the game progresses. If this was done originally (ftr in Ontario, AB on Quebec) they wouldn’t have had to beef up UK def so much IMO by adding so many AA guns. The English could have that Canadian ftr in UK on UK2 for added def if it starts in Ontario. Plus I believe there is a historic value to it too, because the UK established a pilot training base in Ontario. It wouldn’t aid the US in getting air to Europe (London) any faster, still would take two moves. It would give them another option though that would be safer then Gib or Iceland (but not really an advantage).

As for making changes to allow the UK to keep some of the RN in the Atlantic, that would be a much larger undertaking effecting multiple powers. The US going Europe first, I’m undecided on. It would be more difficult, but I’m not sure if it isn’t viable. You would obviously need to def against Japan making sure they don’t get/keep that final VC (A VC on the 4th map quarter). One of the biggest concerns going into Alpha+3 was the US going Pac. They added the 5 IPC NO for liberating Paris to entice the US to the Europe map, maybe it still falls short (IDK).

ShadowHAwk, I agree that the UK could indeed garrison Gib, but they have bigger fish to fry, or they might be more worried about getting troops to London. I know the UK  has the option of forgoing an attack on the Italian fleet, and move every thing to sz92 on UK1 (setting up blockers etc), but I still feel that Gib shouldn’t be left w/o any ground at all at set-up.

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed on how they handled beefing up the UK against a Sea Lion threat in Alpha+3 (adding a couple inf and a bunch of AA guns). I would have liked more UK units on the board that would have a chance to get to London like the Canadian ftr in Ontario (AB on Quebec), and a couple units at Gib. Maybe even a transport w/cruiser in sz91 (even if it meant Germany gets something).

Agreed. Ft. in Canada makes sense. Lose 2 AA from England.

Uhm, if you feel Gibraltar needs an airbase to balance things, why not just bid for it? :P  After all, that is the point of the bid, to balance the game and to balance the players playing the game.

Personally I don’t have an issue with the airbase being taken off.  I wouldn’t have an issue if Larry Harris decided to remove the naval base either.  It’s a game, if we were to try and make it perfectly historical, then we would have to write a rule that says that Germany must be destroyed before Japan can be, and that the Axis are prohibited from winning no matter what - because that’s what happened in history.

As for the death of the Royal Navy, that has been a traditional part of this game since forever and before forever ago. hehe.  Seriously it’s always been the #1 objective of the Germans to sink that blasted navy just because if England keeps it, then Germany is lost.

Didn’t say that the AB should be reinstated for Gib (actually said I understand why it was removed). What I said was that Gib def was underrepresented (no ground units). I also thought that because the UK lost the AB for Gib at set-up that an AB for Quebec seemed reasonable IMO, and that the Canadians should probably start with a ftr (in Ontario).

BTW I would also agree w/wittmann that if the Canadians get a ftr that you could reduce the def of London.

@wittmann:

Agreed. Ft. in Canada makes sense. Lose 2 AA from England.

I would say have all the aa guns and the fighter.

Honestly, I would agree that maybe England could use an INF in Gibraltar and remove one from N. Africa.  But now we are moving into House Rules and away from bids and strategy.

I have considered and I wonder if an allied bid (say 25 due to mention above) could be useful for an Aircraft Carrier with the Cruiser west of Gibraltar and a Submarine north of Egypt.  The Carrier would deter a German attack of the cruiser by added 2 more hits to the defensive line and add 2 punch to the defensive setup thus making a Submarine fight there virtually useless (1 SS vs 1 AC + 1 CA) and even if it is damaged, there is a NB there to “heal” it.  Then you have another landing zone for more aircraft to come to Taranto so even if Germany puts a fighter in S. Italy you should still have really good odds of winning (and assuming one of the two ACs are undamaged, you have a nice Convoy set to hurt Italy even more.)  The submarine north of Egypt is there, of course, for another casualty at Taranto, and a little extra punch.  You’d still have 3 IPC which you could use for whatever - or turn the SS into a DD and have 1 IPC for later use.

With the added threat to S. Europe, perhaps the US can afford to spend more in the Pacific.  I would imagine either the Luftwaffe is gone or Italy is a non-factor with virtually no income left, perhaps even both.  A slightly more aggressive England and Russia might even contain the Germans (never defeat them, but contain them perhaps) allowing for the US to stop a VC win in the Pacific.  Or maybe the Russians could send air and ground forces into China early on and play a defensive war while the US Builds to come help in the Atlantic - it would require ANZAC/UK/USSR to be at war with Japan early, but it is doable.

Just rattling off the top of my head - feel free to punch holes.

I’m with Whiteshadow and would add that I simply don’t see the immense advantage the Axis supposedly have.

I play the game almost daily; another board member lives 90 seconds up the street and we probably get in a game a week at this point (usually playing a couple of rounds a day or thereabouts).  While the Axis definitely have an edge I would argue it’s 60/40 at most, not the 80/20 or 90/10 that most on the bored seem convinced of.  We’ve run JDOW1 to the letter several times and its been a 50/50 proposition thus far.

Lately I’ve found that heavy Atlantic buying early on for the US really strains the Axis.  I’ve been doing a US1 all Atlantic buy of 4 trannies, a carrier and a DD.  Along with that I’ll bring over the tranny and some units from WUS and load up the carrier I bought.  From there I’ll try to get another carrier in the Atlantic as well as another couple of loaded transports.  By turn 3, assuming Japan has attacked (which they usually have by now), I’m bringing 8 loaded trannies to Gibraltar with two loaded carriers (you can always use UK planes if need be) a DD and a C.  Assuming a successful Taranto raid on UK1 the US is left with far too many options for the Axis to defend them all.  At this point the UK should have built up some naval presence (either out of Canada or by utilizing SZ 109 i.e. being able to scramble from London and Scotland) and now the Allies can start looking at Norway, Normandy, Southern France, Rome, etc.  With the Atlantic looking strong US can now play catch up in the Pacific (admittedly, easier said than done).

Not saying this strategy is perfect but it has been a pain in the butt for the Axis in our recent games.