Another attempt at an Allied playbook.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    Nice presentation Aldo. A couple questions.

    You advocate for holding Egypt, but consolidate your forces in Africa. Do you rely on counterattack then ? Also, fortifying Gibralter sounds as if you don’t do Taranto raid then ?

    I haven’t followed any recent games so maybe that strategy (Taranto) has changed.

    @crockett36
    I think people that have played hundreds of games against multiple opponents have proven the oob axis advantage.
    That being said, new or less experienced people probably don’t need a bid. You are correct in that most suggest USA should go big one way or the other. Early on Pacific was preferred but I don’t know if that has changed.

    Good work by you guys :+1:

  • 2024 2023 '22 '19 '18

    @barnee I realize that I am being controversial. However, suspend disbelief (or rather belief, since you are repeating orthodoxy) if we changed the name of the game from Axis and Allies to Sack Berlin ASAP, could it be done fairly quickly. I think so. Imagine, every Allied dollar and unit going for one purpose: kill Nazis and invade the Fatherland. Every move is trying to make it happen and, if the piece can’t have said effect, use the piece to stretch out the game.

    Argumentum Ad Absurdum. If the Allies lose the whole world, but gain Berlin by turn 6, we have learned something. Then we dial back from absurd and see if we can keep x as well as capture Berlin. The next time perhaps turn 6 and keep x and y and so on. Has anyone done this? I haven’t found it.

    I think, perhaps, that people are playing the game they want to play, not the game we have. The game we have demands that you choose one theater and not both. That feels wrong. But it isn’t. I haven’t found an example of this kind of experimentation, excepting Sired Blood’s Green Shores strategy. I have asked for examples of tripleA games that definitively prove the imbalance. I used to call G40 the Axis wet dream. I’m rethinking it and having fun.


  • @crockett36
    heh heh i do recall Cow saying you will probably lose west germany for a turn when going all in on moscow. Perhaps one could build off of that. I’m really not a very good player, just repeating what I’ve seen others say : )

  • 2024 2023 '22 '19 '18

    Well if cow says the West Germany has to be taken oh, we should take it nuff said


  • A far more effective strategy for me as the allied player is a meat grinder. Sending enough units every turn to Normandy, Holland, Denmark, or western Germany, having them take it back, rinse and repeat every turn. Thats forcing them to buy and reserve units for the western front. Eventually they will have to give in because of the needed consolidation, especially if German tries and fails to take Moscow.

  • '19

    @barnee Yes i usually will try for a counter attack. A lot of different things can happen after round 1 and i will also admit that my strategies are not gospel but i try to wait to go on the offensive until the USA has entered into the war. I find that as the allies I worry more about Italian troops in Russia than I do in Africa. I also focus on the Atlantic side as the US in most games. As far as i see it, the US’s easiest target is Italy so that is where they should start. They do not need to conquer Rome but they should be keeping them stuck in Europe.

    If Italy has grand ambitions of conquering the Middle East and Africa by itself, it will leaver herself very vulnerable to any US/UK western front. This is why I like to keep the UK navy in sea zone 92 instead of trading ships with the Italians. If Germany moves too many planes down into Africa early round 2 I have been able to land UK units in Western Europe that round. This really can potentially throw a wrench in the German advance into Russia.

    I realize i am sending somewhat mixed messages when i say that i want to keep the Italians in Europe but also fear them the most there. This issue is central to the disadvantage the Allies face in this game. Italy cannot be allowed to control the Med unchecked. But this leaves them to can-open for the Germans. If anyone has good advice as to how to deal with this, i think we can rethink the advantage the axis have. Until then you will have a hard time convincing me the allies do not face a serious disadvantage with bid games.

    As the allies in the early game, I focus on holding the line at London, Egypt, India and Iraq. I will abandon Gibraltar after round 1 if necessary and let the US retake it once they join the fun.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    Great go at this @AldoRaine !

    I have some comments/questions

    1. Same units have different in game value is a great point I think. Take German AA guns in Russia defending an inf or two vs american AA guns in central usa…
    2. You say you match Russia with bombers vs Germany? Why? I have never in a single game both more than 1 russian bomber, in most games 0. I buy a tac from time to time. two bombers = 8 inf. Hmmmm
    3. If anzac can send fighters to India/middle east, then yes, buy as many as you can. If not 3 fighters are enough. The rest is transports, men and subs (+1 destroyer)
    4. In BM syria is a great position for an airbase. One move to Moscow, and India and protects egypt sz. However, it is not easy to pull off most of the time
    5. Good point about middle east factories should always produce at full. I am not sure that persia is the ideal spot. It is much harder to defend Persia than say Iraq. I agree Persia is tempting early game. I think it is a weaker spot middle to late game, when Germany breaks past Rostov
    6. Many good points. Personally I almost always sacrifies a transport UK1 to put two men on gibraltar. If you are not carefull gibraltar will become an axis stronghold. It is costly for the axis, but also very nice for Italy and it is a pain to deal with for the allies
  • '19

    @oysteilo I didn’t catch that part about Russian bombers. Thanks for catching that. It is meant to say that I like to match Russian fights to German bombers if possible. I will make the clarification.

    My thought with ANZAC and buying fighters is that, like you pointed out, you can fly them to the Middle East. There they are obviously great for defending but can also kill Italian can openers. Also, fighters are one of the few units for them that can also work on defense. Once India falls the allies need to secure both Hawaii and Sydney. If Anzac has 6-8 fighters that are parked on carriers there are multiple locations where they are 1 turn away from either location.

  • '18

    @AldoRaine said in Another attempt at an Allied playbook.:

    Experience has EMPHATICALLY shown that the most efficient use of units for UK turn 1 involves purchasing an air base for Gibraltar and moving any navy that can reach to sea zone 92 while leaving at least 2 fighters in Gibraltar

    the air base seems like a big spend on T1 w/ the UK… seems like you give the germans a real chance to take London???


  • @Aaron_the_Warmonger Even without the risk to London, as the Axis I’ve faced off against the UK stacking sz92 3 times now.

    If UK doesn’t max the planes there (including a U.S. fighter) then Italy usually has assets survive (bomber and battleship or fighter).

    So the BEST case scenario appears to be the UK has fighters, Italy still loses its navy but gets 2 transports instead of 1.

    I think the net result is that it shifts some losses that often end up Germany’s on G2 (finishing off UK’s navy after Taranto) and pushes them onto Italy OR results in a stand off.

    (might matter that as Germany I always take S. France on G1. Always)


  • @Aaron_the_Warmonger said in Another attempt at an Allied playbook.:

    @AldoRaine said in Another attempt at an Allied playbook.:

    Experience has EMPHATICALLY shown that the most efficient use of units for UK turn 1 involves purchasing an air base for Gibraltar and moving any navy that can reach to sea zone 92 while leaving at least 2 fighters in Gibraltar

    the air base seems like a big spend on T1 w/ the UK… seems like you give the germans a real chance to take London???

    It may seem so but the actuality of it is that unless there has been a sea lion buy G1,. bringing the fleet up to SZ110 as well as the planes, is enough to defend London G3.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '19 '18

    of all the axis strategies, I use to fear this one the most. With a robust American respoonse, I now fear it the least. If we think in terms of setting up dance partners, normal strategy sets up a Russia/Germany waltz. Japan does a foxtrot with everyone but Russia. America must try to cut in to the European festivities, but often arrives too late.

    In a Sealion, America and Germany must be paired–to Germany’s doom. It demands nearly 100 percent of resources to take it back or keep it. Thus. isn’t Russia unleashed to kick Japan out of the Asian ballroom

    I’ve only played one game against a sealion. I retook London and Russia was crushing the Eastern front and retook Calcutta.


  • @AldoRaine

    Just so I am clear you are suggesting a SZ 92 Stack with nothing but the SZ 98 Fleet, the SZ 91 CR and then of course scrambled fighters?

    I have seen a SZ 92 stack on occasions where Germans go to light on 110 and the U.K. BB survives but never without that.

    With this strategy I imagine Italy has a good chance to take Egypt And/Or Iraq. But perhaps I am wrong. I would love to hear more about this SZ92 stack and the Italian and British implications that go with it.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Hey crew!

    I think we are still trading around some great ideas. To throw in my two cents about the original post, I’d suggest some of the following

    Going all Atlantic or all pacific isn’t historical, but its much more effective than splitting
    Going KJF is much more satisfying in some ways than KGF–with KJF you stand a better chance of toppling or surprising and seriously disrupting Japan than Germany.
    However, you can’t defeat Japan and while you’re suppressing Japan: Germany takes the game and so we need to prepare USA for a KGF regardless of what the Axis do or what their plan is
    This dynamic means that the everything the Allies do should flow towards moscow and be in place before the culminating battle

    ANZAC 3 planes to java (dont forget many players think you cannot land on dutch islands without capturing them that is incorrect) and then all 6 of those allied planes go to persia, then russia

    You cant lose on the pac board, so ANZAC should turtle after the intial 3–includes infantry because of limited production then protect sydney.
    Taranto must be done, but that costs you alot of fighters–so UK must be garrisoned starting from turn 1 and continuing all game, no exceptions (and no factories, airbases, or tank SA buys until its clearly safe and Germany is headed elsewhere). Not doing taranto makes Italy rage which is way worse over time for the UK than just dealing with them from game start
    UK East wants sumatra and ethiopia but you should take persia turn 1 and do what you need to do to keep egypt safe all game (tobruk? turtle? up to you)

    The best KGF I’ve seen has the USA transition directly from SZ 91 to norway, then finland, building bases as we go–so at some point you’ll want to destroy the German fleet to ensure they can’t do anything about it. If Germany wastes time or flinches you will be able to go over the top and take back leningrad thats 3 factories pouring out tanks

    A combination of US north and UK south rescue forces is the only thing that can prevent the income flop whether moscow dies or not
    for russia, more fighters is better than armor or mech or tacticals because they dissuade the crippling stratbombings
    for UK, more fighters is better than more men and ships because you go after the US and can support a US landing
    realistically, USA only gets 1 wave of ground troops before the russia game is decided–do not waste 1 man

    Finally, USSR is too weak and Germany too rich–your patch/set bid should address this, not alter the overall game dynamics vis UK/USA v Axis (insert pitch for Taamvan Mod v3.0 here)*

    I emphatically agree that large bids are not needed for anything short of league/master’s play–12-20 is plenty and the allies consistently win games of mixed skill

    good luck have fun boys

  • '19 '17 '16

    @taamvan said in Another attempt at an Allied playbook.:

    Finally, USSR is too weak and Germany too rich–your patch/set bid should address this, not alter the overall game dynamics vis UK/USA v Axis (insert pitch for Taamvan Mod v3.0 here)*

    Taamvan mode is all well and good but for experienced players it lacks the strategic depth of Balanced Mod.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    @simon33 I could not agree more. Balanced Mod is the way to go. That pesky China rule… The only quibble with BM is that it would feel unfamiliar the first few times to those used to playing 2nd ed. Otherwise its well vetted and themey.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '19 '18

    Disagree. A voice crying out in the wilderness says check out the allied playbook game.

    Also I’m questioning the construction of an industrial complex in Norway. An efficient shuck, naval and air supremacy will make it wasteful. 3 US CVs, 1 Brit CV plus PAC fleet.
    to the Atlantic. Make Germany cry.


  • @crockett36

    A transport round trip is, at best, 4 rounds to get 2 units. So 14 pics on 2 transports gets you 1 new unit a turn

    Or

    A 12ipcs minor complex is 3 of any unit a turn every turn, which would require 7 transports to accomplish the same.

    The cost to benefit isnt even close.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @crockett36 said in Another attempt at an Allied playbook.:

    Disagree. A voice crying out in the wilderness says check out the allied playbook game.

    Also I’m questioning the construction of an industrial complex in Norway. An efficient shuck, naval and air supremacy will make it wasteful. 3 US CVs, 1 Brit CV plus PAC fleet.
    to the Atlantic. Make Germany cry.

    Who’s building the IC in Norway? I wouldn’t really question that if USA can hold it, even for a few turns, they should be building an IC there. They can always retake it if it’s lost.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '19 '18

    US would build the IC. I just know my system works around extreme mobility. And after turn five a lot of planes have to go to garrison Hawaii. That and the cost of transports, men and replacement planes for the Atlantic make your margins thin.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 34
  • 31
  • 31
  • 8
  • 5
  • 3
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts