We need an allied playbook.

@taamvan Maybe another way to get some value for this thread out of your perspectives and experience would be to ask you what you consider to be appropriate compensation for Moscow.

Like, let’s say Germany takes Moscow on G5 with 5 tanks and 10 planes remaining; let’s just say that’s a given. What would the Allies have to own in the rest of Europe at the end of UK5 for you to feel that the Allies still had an even or better position? Would North Africa, Rome, Normandy, and Norway be enough? If not, what would theoretically have to be added to that list? I say “theoretically” because I’d love to get your take on what the territories are worth even if you think it’s not practically feasible to seize them by UK5. I’m much less interested in what you think is possible or impossible, and much more interested in what you think would be adequate or inadequate.

As far as the UK only earning $28, when playing Balanced Mod I routinely get up to $40 with the UK. $26 base + $3 for original territories + $3 for Malta/Cyprus/Crete + $3 for no enemy subs in Atlantic + $4 for the basic territory value of Iraq and Persia + $1 for Ethiopia is already $40, and it can go up even further from there if you wind up in Greece and Sicily, as is often possible after Taranto. This makes it possible to build 6 units in the Middle East each turn and still have a meaningful budget to spend in the Atlantic.

I see your point about the UK’s most efficient role based on turn order being the provision of fighters for defending recently-captured land territories…but if you adhere rigidly to that principle of efficiency, that might be part of why your German opponents are able to send everything to Moscow without needing to defend against the western Allies in the opening. If Germany doesn’t build any boats or airbases, then the UK should be able to sink the German Baltic fleet in the first three turns, after which a UK invasion of Norway or even Normandy becomes much harder for Germany to respond to in a way that allows Germany to obtain favorable TUV exchanges. Yes, Germany has more land units and more income, but they can’t be everywhere at once, and the British navy can.

@Argothair Balanced Mod is a mod. I don’t play it (though I like it) so we are running in circles on that consideration–it isn’t canon or “balanced” and would affect any strategy guide considerations…many players have never heard of BM so playing with such an extensive patch immediately puts them at a disadvantage.

The allies usually don’t hold any of the Europe mainland territories, either in my club games, or against dave. They capture them back and forth, losing money and units each time, and Germany and Italy blast them off with ease. That’s why I was saying the Allies should go over the top (US takes Scandinavian and both allies contest karelia). There arent any money bonuses in OOB for taking those junk territories worth 2-3, they are a distraction IMO. With the paris factory and the italian slow movers, axis can retake them with ease, fighting on the coasts is not the game, its consistently retaking them.

With enough effort, Italy can be destroyed, but losing Italy isn’t like losing Russia. And, the Germans can make it so difficult to take (with mech and fighter support as needed) that the Allies end up in a new, isolated boondoggle down there.

I appreciate that your play or competition may be different, and have different ideas. All I know is that I created a monster–Dave used to be my student and now he’s consistently beating me at all versions and sides (we switch teams each game). He doesn’t play Tripple A, and I find it incredible tedious, so the only proof in that pudding is to come to Gencon (or KC) and whoop me at one of those physical locations.

The last advantage I have over him is that I’m still reading these forums + FB to get new ideas, and he’s not… Jon

@taamvan
You could print out the BM3 rules. That’s what I did. Other than reading over vichy rules a few times it isn’t that hard to commit to memory.

Maybe you need to make UK one economy in your taamvan mod.

I am just throwing in my two cents here. I think i am one of the few that actually have tried the tamvan mode.

I think it adresses the problem with the oob version differently than bm3. It changes the stup by giving soviet a fighter and a tank. This doesnt affect anything but changing the setup is so so. What it does good is, it takes money away from Germany as opposed to bm3 where the solution always is to throw out more money. This is infact a HUGE weaknes with bm because the games last forever.

Because of the nov/moscow/vol/cauc objective is changed to 3 it also becomes more evident to go after Norway as the allies i think. Maybe this becomes too predictable in the long term

In the end. an easy and elegant fix, but it is probably not enough

I like that taamvan mod. I just feel it doesn’t do enough just yet. Maybe throw in my china mod would help balance out the japanese a bit.

@Mursilis It adds a complexity that is hard to convince my teammates to play with. Also, the china gureilla rule is easy to exploit because dave will buy a bunch of bombers and sacrifice those to make china rage.

I tend to think the balanced mod China guerrilla rule is a bit much (I originally thought it would be a limited number, like Japan’s Kamikaze tokens).

I’ve been in a couple of games with the UK sz 92 stack instead of Taranto raid and it hasn’t gone great for UK. 2 out of 3 times Italy was left with planes and even a wounded battleship, and the benefit of 2 transports instead of 1. Small sample size so far.

@taamvan I am not sure this is an exploit tho. I think this is by design. Japan can easily conquer all of China, Siberia and the money islands. This will bring in close to 80 ipcs a turn and this does not include India. This is to much for the allies to stop as long as Germany is in anyway competitive. The allies need a way for China to stay relevant.

@AldoRaine I should use that term more carefully as it has an extra connotation in internet gaming era–I only meant “take full advantage of” the rule. Its a good rule, because Japan could even want to put some AA guns with their infantry backers to dissuade a bomber spread. It does seem a bit too powerful, without having playtested it against a USA bomber strategy.

The overwhelming income of the Axis is their key to victory in the long game.

Another variation I thought would be reasonble for China is each territory is pacified after a set number of turns, like 4. With a little counter in the corner of the terrirtory.

As it is, it requires a minimum of 36 ipcs of inf to just sit in China.

@taamvan Oh you are playing it wrong then. My idea is to remove the guerrilla rule completely and make yunnan, szechwan, burma, and india worth 1 IPC each to china. Then china can get artillery if either 1 territory is allied controlled or china just gets access to artillery no matter what. I tend to think giving china access to artillery no matter what territories are captured is the best option.

@Mursilis No, that’s the balanced mod guerilla rule: the Axis need a land unit sitting in each of China’s non coastal territories, otherwise a chinese infantry spawns in each of those territories each turn. I happen to think it works fine, but it does, as taamvan says, require about 36 ipcs of babysitters.

@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:

dave rarely buys mechs. he buys strats, then tanks, then more strats. With the can opener and G1, its an R5 attack the allies cant stop.

attack 110 only
rush the russian fleet and wreck it so it cant block
move up 1 strip per turn
hes on you G5 with a 80%+ whether you counterattack or not, and regardless of what you built

I also suggest mark movels VC card…it makes the game fun and well contested until a clear turn (i think its 10 turns). i really dont like house rules, even my own, but after 199 games, its clear that all the versions are quite imbalanced (except dday)

This report confuses me. UK should be able to stop a G5 Moscow crush with the combination of UK planes bought in Persia arriving UK4, starting UK planes from the med and/or India.

@simon33 , not only this but UK should be able to destroy all German Navy with the remaings of sz111 and London Ftrs.
Because of the same pattern people use in Live games, they should allready adjust to a solid counter strike.
Available options also are:
• early Finnland Landing by UK.
• Neutral Crush
• Green Skys (US Bmbr swarm)

But enough since this derrails only the topic of this thread.

Maybe we should start groupe to like out each nation?
Thoughts??

@simon33 Yep, for example, UK2, once you see Germany isn’t doing Sea Lion land your starting fighters on Scotland then in Russia on UK3. 2-3 more fighters to add to the 3 a turn via Persia.

@weddingsinger said in We need an allied playbook.:

I’ve been in a couple of games with the UK sz 92 stack instead of Taranto raid and it hasn’t gone great for UK. 2 out of 3 times Italy was left with planes and even a wounded battleship, and the benefit of 2 transports instead of 1. Small sample size so far.

Too right small sample size. Note then when you attacked my SZ92 stack you had ~35% of victory and kept 2 units. Draw was about 18%. Italians hit with every roll (low luck) and the Brits didn’t.

Still AldoRaine would have kept his fighters on the ground G1 and I scrambled. That makes a pretty big difference. I think not scrambling G1 is a big sacrificed to execute this strategy.

@simon33 So you’re a strong advocate for UK scrambling against Germany G1 in both sea zones?

I kind of keep going back and forth on it, and am having a hard time deciding. I am inclined to think costing Germany planes, even if its an even exchange, is worth it. So I suppose I do think scrambling is (usually) worth it.

I do like scrambling G1, when both fleets are attacked. You can often kill 4 planes for losing 3, and I value the Luftwaffe more than the RAF.

The downside is you lose the TT SZ106 and there’s no J1 DOW, and also you lose the Scottish fighter you have no real moves UK1. So if you’re dead set on the SZ92 stack you probably can’t scramble to SZ110.

Hey, update. I’ve avoided posting because I’m putting theory into practice in the playbook game. Question that just popped into my head:. Which one of us is Larry?

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

Hey, update. I’ve avoided posting because I’m putting theory into practice in the playbook game. Question that just popped into my head:. Which one of us is Larry?

I’m not following your logic. If you’re asking if one of us is Larry Harris, the answer is, “none of the above”. If you meant a different Larry, you may need to specify.

-Midnight_Reaper