We need an allied playbook.

yeah, having reserves and assets is sooooo important. I was playing a game where having American planes in the middle of Russia saved my biscuit. just about to move some mechs into s.russia for that very purpose.

I was thinking SOO for Russia would be cash. Between Africa, the Balkans, Manchuria and Scandinavia, Russia can loot their way to victory, grinding just short of Berlin and then “fighting a land war in Asia.” The Americans will take Berlin or die to make it happen for the Brits. They will then leave Italy for the Brits to take care of and head for Tokyo Bay. Literally. Bombers mug the seazone every round until cleared. Subs bring up the rear to convoy. Meanwhile all the transports from Europe arrive to form a grand armada that lands in Korea. The bombing and convoying halts all production. Up and over. Voila. Strategic Offensive Objectives.

@crockett36 Sounds like you fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia! :grinning:

@crockett36 It’s interesting to hear your personal opinion that your original objectives were defensive. I think that’s why I like the Taranto opening as it helps defend North Africa but also is an aggressive attack. I finally got Triple A to work and have been playing through different opening for the British. I find that as the UK I am deciding between investing in units for three areas: Britain for defense and future Dday, Egypt minor IC for NA campaign and push towards Greece, and Persia minor IC for India help and defense against Japan moving through China for Moscow. But three areas are a stretch, better strength investing in two of them.

@Guam-Solo

I haven’t checked any games out in a while but some people are stacking SZ 92 and not doing Taranto. Idk how that plays out. Another thing to consider though : )

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

I was thinking SOO for Russia would be cash. Between Africa, the Balkans, Manchuria and Scandinavia, Russia can loot their way to victory, grinding just short of Berlin and then “fighting a land war in Asia.” The Americans will take Berlin or die to make it happen for the Brits. They will then leave Italy for the Brits to take care of and head for Tokyo Bay. Literally. Bombers mug the seazone every round until cleared. Subs bring up the rear to convoy. Meanwhile all the transports from Europe arrive to form a grand armada that lands in Korea. The bombing and convoying halts all production. Up and over. Voila. Strategic Offensive Objectives.

Does the Axis have any say in that? ;)

It’s good with offensive plans (like in offense is the best defense), but for instance the only time Russia can go for an income push is if there’s an early Sea Lion on the table or Germany in some other way does not put pressure on Russia. If Barbarossa is executed, those plans for Russia will be rather suicidal since it gives away Moscow far too easily. The to some extent pumped up income will also more or less land in the German loot, helping Germany further.

I think you need to formulate a bit more short-term and realistic objectives in order for them to be constructive. Like Russia putting pressure on the German invasion in order to stall it as much as possible, UK disrupting Italy and controlling Africa and ME, US neutral crush in Spain or the Allies in the Pacific making joint measures to disturb and preferably contain Japan.

@barnee I got Triple A working - finally…

@barnee said in We need an allied playbook.:

@Guam-Solo

I haven’t checked any games out in a while but some people are stacking SZ 92 and not doing Taranto. Idk how that plays out. Another thing to consider though : )

If Germany takes S. France on G1, it doesn’t work out great.

In the 3 games I’ve played where my Allied opponent does it, Italy has had planes (and in one case, a battleship) left after sinking UK’s fleet. But I personally believe its worth Italy losing its fleet/planes to sink UK’s entire fleet and (hopefully) and 2-5 UK planes while Italy gets to use 2 transports to do something stupid.

/if Italy takes Morocco it makes a great landing spot for German planes to sink Allied shipping off Gibraltor

@trulpen I agree 100% with you on that.

It is almost never a good idea to be too offensive against a strong playing Axis Germany Player.
If you can’t achieve a 1 - 1 kill Ratio in battles, don’t even think about it.

What could possibly be the gain of attacking Germany as Russia other then the defeat.
It simply does not pay off very well!

It is a little bit diffrent, when you are able to snipe out Italian can-openers…

@aequitas-et-veritas

Yeah, a 1ipc territory isn’t going to pay off if you have to spend 1 inf/1 art to take out the 1 inf holding it.

Mechanized Russia can mean being able to take advantage of soft play by Germany - if they blunder at all with Sea Lion you might even win the game by taking Berlin round 5 or 6… - and give Russia some counter options. Certainly useful if your German opponent tends to split up their army.

Offensively one of the most efficient uses of Allied troops that I have found is a joint strike force of both US and UK transports in the Atlantic. If the UK can get enough units to make a serious landing in Europe any force parked in sz 91 can hit every thing touching the Atlantic from Norway down to Italy. This becomes a lot for the the Axis to defend.

Late game offensively a strong UK presence in the Atlantic is needed to take advantage of US can openers in my opinion. The difficult part of this is finding the resources to pull this off while not losing the game in other theaters.

@AldoRaine

Do you think it’s enough to let the UK carry the warships in the Atlantic, protecting US transports, while US can focus most of its war efforts in the Pacific?

@trulpen At the minimum U.S. needs a carrier or two and some can-opener transports in the Atlantic. If the UK is ONLY in the Atlantic and not in the Middle East, you lose a lot of flexibility in helping Moscow or India or Cairo.

Russia needs every piece, and the other allies need all those factory nodes. There may be some more breathing room with a bid placed in favor of Russia, but plans that vary from the extremely vanilla (stack moscow) seem like temptations…and nothing more.

The game is still dynamic and changing because player perception about what is optimal still has some room to move. I contend that having a vast experience and playbook is key so that you don’t go into the game with a rigid strategy that is easy to sniff out. A year or two ago leaving UK with a fleet was taboo but other players have left me with a fleet on turn 1 and then dealt with the rest later.

All why I like weddingsinger’s plan of a Play Option Sea Lion–you only commit to sea lion once you see what UK buys turn 1. Placing or leaving the necessary units West does cost a turn (or turn and a half) of russian advance if you decline the Sea Lion, but its much harder to discern what the German player is trying to do than if he buys CV or TT on turn 1 or steps out into SZ 112. Even the best UK players are tempted to spend money away from the Home Islands starting turn 1–the crazy part is that Germany can conquer UK in the later game if its poorly and inconsitently garrisoned, and especially if all the fighters left/tarantod/died.

Sea Lion is still a poor move–even when this gambit worked and I took UK with a fair number of units left, it doesn’t give you that much money, you need to add men and planes to defend it, it doesnt count towards 1 of Mark Movel’s VCs, and America knows what it has to do.

Thats also why 2 SB is the ultimate Germany buy–it doesn’t telegraph a specific strategy, not even dark skies, but 4 SB can be used to accomplish any germany objective and you can decide on G3 what the actual plan is.

@Guam-Solo yeah! we should play a game.

@trulpen perhaps you missed my rather lengthy entry around page 8 or so. I’m only setting up dance partners and assignments. I first did SOs that were defensive. But having long term goals and roles is crucial to tactical decision making. Try it out. It’ll make a difference.

@Guam-Solo correct analysis.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

But having long term goals and roles is crucial to tactical decision making. Try it out. It’ll make a difference.

Yeah, I missed any entry a few pages back. Sorry.

I don’t have anything against long-term plans. I use them myself. But hey, why don’t we have us a little game were you execute those plans you just laid out? It’ll be fun.

Start it up. Be warned. I am extremely slow. My life is full. AnA is icing on the cake

Great!

No worries. I can be slow too. ;)

I think I caught some info where you stated that you prefer OOB and no bid?

I’m ok with that (have never played BM), but also ok if the premise has changed.

oob, yes. I like tech. I just never buy it.