Alternative allied strategy



  • Okay I haven’t really had time to testplay this, but what do you think of a strategy where both UK and USA offloads in algeira every turn. Then march the troops through africa and middle east, then can choose to attack either Germany or Japan. The strategy has been seen with the USA only, with great effect, so I wondered if it worked even better if Uk joined, or is the progress to slow?



  • It is called North Africa Dominance, and the first time I faced it it tore me up as the Axis.

    Since then, I have figured out how to counter it…


  • 2007 AAR League

    how do you counter it?



  • by killing russia?



  • There was a game I played once where japan had a massive pacific navy, so rather than contest it I slid US troops thorugh africa then up to india every turn.  I didnt know it was an existing strategy, because it doesnt seem like a very good one.



  • @mateooo:

    how do you counter it?

    The only way I have found is:

    • Evac Africa after getting paid for Egypt and closign the Suez on G1
    • INF builds, with some ARM mixed in (1-3 ARM per round)
    • Focus on preserving “core” teritories as Germany (Western, Germany, Southern, Eastern), trading Karelia, Belo, Ukraine as long as possible
    • Save your AF for teritory trades with Russia, and for being “anchors” for German INF stacks.  NEVER risk your AF on a risky battle.
    • Keep the med fleet out of range of the Allies as long as possible to use to support Ukriane trading until the fleet is killed.
    • When Japan is 2 turns from their first potential massed assault on Russia and/or Caucuses, it is time to do the “lurch” move to join in the fray… one territory load of INF and ARM (backed up by FIGs) to blast through to Russia/Caucuses to support the Japan strikes)

    And the main component:

    • Japan builds an IC a turn until they have 3, plus 3-5 TRN off Japan.
    • INF/ART builds that just push toward Russia in a solid wall, with 6 INF divisions per turn stacked in Persia, backed up by INF, with 1-2 TRN and a BB in SZ34 to trade with the US/UK over Egypt as long as possible, then falling back to trading T-J at all costs (never let the UK/US forces reach Persia or it is over for the Axis in a NAD strat, unless Moscow falls in force the same turn).


  • @mateooo:

    how do you counter it?

    @cystic:

    by killing russia?

    niiicce….



  • @ncscswitch:

    It is called North Africa Dominance, and the first time I faced it it tore me up as the Axis.

    Since then, I have figured out how to counter it…

    OOO OOO!

    (flocks of children gather around ncsswitch staring at him with expectant eyes)



  • @ncscswitch:

    @mateooo:

    how do you counter it?

    The only way I have found is:

    • Evac Africa after getting paid for Egypt and closign the Suez on G1
    • INF builds, with some ARM mixed in (1-3 ARM per round)
    • Focus on preserving “core” teritories as Germany (Western, Germany, Southern, Eastern), trading Karelia, Belo, Ukraine as long as possible
    • Save your AF for teritory trades with Russia, and for being “anchors” for German INF stacks.  NEVER risk your AF on a risky battle.
    • Keep the med fleet out of range of the Allies as long as possible to use to support Ukriane trading until the fleet is killed.
    • When Japan is 2 turns from their first potential massed assault on Russia and/or Caucuses, it is time to do the “lurch” move to join in the fray… one territory load of INF and ARM (backed up by FIGs) to blast through to Russia/Caucuses to support the Japan strikes)

    And the main component:

    • Japan builds an IC a turn until they have 3, plus 3-5 TRN off Japan.
    • INF/ART builds that just push toward Russia in a solid wall, with 6 INF divisions per turn stacked in Persia, backed up by INF, with 1-2 TRN and a BB in SZ34 to trade with the US/UK over Egypt as long as possible, then falling back to trading T-J at all costs (never let the UK/US forces reach Persia or it is over for the Axis in a NAD strat, unless Moscow falls in force the same turn).

    Didn’t you find that after you abandoned Africa for the most part that the Allies moved their fleet from the Mediterranean to Norway, then to Karelia/Archangel, possibly keeping some units at one of Algeria, Libya, and/or Anglo-Egypt?

    Because that’s what I usually do.

    Big March Through Africa works if Germany is pumping heavy resources towards Africa.  It doesn’t work if Germany abandons Africa, in which case the Allies should redirect.  Of course, that does mean that Germany and/or Japan can go towards Africa, but any such Axis advance stalls the Axis advance on Moscow during the midgame.



  • @newpaintbrush:

    Big March Through Africa works if Germany is pumping heavy resources towards Africa.  It doesn’t work if Germany abandons Africa, in which case the Allies should redirect.  Of course, that does mean that Germany and/or Japan can go towards Africa, but any such Axis advance stalls the Axis advance on Moscow during the midgame.

    It does take a bit more fleet, but the allies can set up a Med fleet (once Germany leaves Africa and their med fleet is sunk)

    Allies can move units from libya quickly to caucasus or ukraine, balkans, not to mention SEU.  I think this added pressure if VERY tough on Germany unless she’s really inf strong.  We’re talking mid game tactics here (R6-14)



  • Yeah, the Allies can set up a Med fleet, but IMHO that is not good until the German airforce is mostly wrecked.  It’s a target of opportunity.

    If the Germans retain any sort of real airforce, they can attack the Allied fleet, decimate the Allied transports, and thereby leave a lot of Allied ground units stranded in Algeria, while the Germans also mount a ground offensive against the Allied ground units stranded in Europe.  It takes a long time for the Allies to really get their transport chain going again.

    If the Allies have a fleet, it is usually a lot safer to try for Norway/Karelia/E. Europe/Archangel, for a lot of reasons.  First, the UK can offload units produced at London every turn, instead of every other turn (as would be the case for a Med fleet, unless the UK doubled up on expensive transports).  Second, the UK can quickly reinforce its navy by pulling the fleet to the sea zone that is adjacent to Norway and London, and building a carrier.  Thirdly, while the Allied navy is in that seazone, the Allied navy can still offload to Norway.  Fourthly, dumping masses into Archangel usually secures Moscow, while dumping units into the Caucasus means that units are potentially vulnerable to a Japanese attack through Persia or Kazakh.  Fifthly, the Allied Med fleet is vulnerable to German and Japanese air, but the waters northwest of Archangel are difficult for German fighters to reach (because the German fighters also have to land).



  • @newpaintbrush:

    Yeah, the Allies can set up a Med fleet, but IMHO that is not good until the German airforce is mostly wrecked.  It’s a target of opportunity.

    If the Germans retain any sort of real airforce, they can attack the Allied fleet, decimate the Allied transports, and thereby leave a lot of Allied ground units stranded in Algeria, while the Germans also mount a ground offensive against the Allied ground units stranded in Europe.  It takes a long time for the Allies to really get their transport chain going again.

    If the Allies have a fleet, it is usually a lot safer to try for Norway/Karelia/E. Europe/Archangel, for a lot of reasons.  First, the UK can offload units produced at London every turn, instead of every other turn (as would be the case for a Med fleet, unless the UK doubled up on expensive transports).  Second, the UK can quickly reinforce its navy by pulling the fleet to the sea zone that is adjacent to Norway and London, and building a carrier.  Thirdly, while the Allied navy is in that seazone, the Allied navy can still offload to Norway.  Fourthly, dumping masses into Archangel usually secures Moscow, while dumping units into the Caucasus means that units are potentially vulnerable to a Japanese attack through Persia or Kazakh.  Fifthly, the Allied Med fleet is vulnerable to German and Japanese air, but the waters northwest of Archangel are difficult for German fighters to reach (because the German fighters also have to land).

    you’re never wrong, are you?



  • This thread was about Alternative Allied strategies.

    I think IF I had enough navy (which I said in my post) that two allied fleets are possible.

    With enough dorky transport fodder in the Med, I would LOVE to trade these $8 ships for the German airforce.

    Based on this line of thinking, I do not necessarily think the northerly route is better.

    Couldn’t it bet BETTER to be able to put US units right into the Japanese fray in caucasus?  In this case,    the southerly route is FASTER than the northernly route.  I also believe it’s important to continuously threaten Southern europe to tie up German units in sub-optimal buy placements.

    Remember, we are talking about alternative Allied strategies, and my point was mid game situations where the allies could certainly have a fleets of BB, a/c, dd(s) and tpts north AND south.

    I’ve seen this used against me, effectively, BTW.



  • @axis_roll:

    you’re never wrong, are you?

    I was wrong, quite recently.  JamesG corrected me when I wrote that Japan can choose where to trigger the Russian infantry placed for the National Advantage Nonaggression Treaty if Japan attacks multiple red territories.  (Really, the Russian player can decide, as JamesG pointed out).

    As far as my habit of hashing and rehashing and refrying/rehashing and mulligan stewing a point - well, I try not to be wrong in the first place, and I usually think things through a bit, so when someone posts a rejoinder, that rejoinder is often something that I’ve considered but ended up not going with.  Therefore, when someone posts an opinion that is in any way contrary to my current belief, I will often (although sometimes I am lazy and don’t) post why I disagree.

    Often, even someone with a valid point will choose not to take the time to respond, so I am left in possession of the field.  And of course, sometimes my viewpoint prevails because - well - I will say, because it seems logically that my position is the correct one.

    Short version:  I can be wrong.  However, I must be convinced that I am wrong before I will say I am wrong.  Since I usually consider my opinions some before opening my beak, it usually takes a bit of convincing to overcome my earlier considering.

    On another topic (or maybe the same one, really), do you think the Allies should usually set up a long-term Med fleet?

    Do ya do ya do ya?

    On another note - the fact that I am (the) resident skeptic / crack pipe smoking owl on this forum necessitates a certain degree of skepticism, if you will. Â



  • @axis_roll:

    This thread was about Alternative Allied strategies.

    Woops, threadjacking.

    I think IF I had enough navy (which I said in my post) that two allied fleets are possible.

    I must have overlooked that.  Of course, if you have LOTS of transports, two Allied fleets are possible.

    With enough dorky transport fodder in the Med, I would LOVE to trade these $8 ships for the German airforce.

    Well, yes, if you have ENOUGH transports.  But you did say you would have lots.  And really, I agree that the Allies really would probably have a whole load of transports.  That’s what the Allies do.

    Based on this line of thinking, I do not necessarily think the northerly route is better.

    I will attempt to convince you otherwise.  Soon.

    Couldn’t it bet BETTER to be able to put US units right into the Japanese fray in caucasus?  In this case,     the southerly route is FASTER than the northernly route.  I also believe it’s important to continuously threaten Southern europe to tie up German units in sub-optimal buy placements.

    YODA: Run! Yes. A Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger…fear…aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice. . . . Yes, quick is the southern route.  But consume you it will.

    Remember, we are talking about alternative Allied strategies, and my point was mid game situations where the allies could certainly have a fleets of BB, a/c, dd(s) and tpts north AND south.

    I’ve seen this used against me, effectively, BTW.

    I myself have used two Allied Atlantic fleets; even when I start from a dominant position in the North Atlantic, I often try to hit the Mediterranean to threaten Southern Europe as well.  Your points are quite valid.  But I think that if the game is close, it is far more logical to combine the Allies at Archangel.Â

    1.  From Archangel, the Allies can retreat/advance to a strongpoint at Karelia, Norway, or even go as far as Northern Europe.  Also, the Allied fleet off London can dump units at Karelia INSTEAD of Archangel, or Norway even.  In contrast, from the Mediterranean, there is no easy way to link up forces.  If your transports at Archangel are blown, they can swiftly be replaced with transports from London.  If the transports at the Mediterranean are blown, the closest transports are the transports at Algeria, which will need TWO turns to reach the Caucasus and Ukraine.

    2.  To run transports from London to Archangel/Karelia only requires ONE transport per transport load.  Each transport load from London to Caucasus, though, requires TWO transports.

    3.  If the Japs and the Germans threaten Caucasus, it is extremely difficult for the Allies to bulk up there.  In contrast, usually Japan cannot threaten Archangel - just Moscow itself  If Germany attacks the Archangel stack, it weakens Germany’s attack on Moscow, so Russia can face off against the Japanese.  In contrast, bulking at Caucasus allows the Axis to CHOOSE which power attacks Caucasus - if any.  If the Allies are bulked at Caucasus, Germany can simply bulk up at Archangel and/or West Russia, while Japan goes for Novosibirsk, forcing the Allies to retreat from Caucasus anyways - and if the Allies are forced to retreat from Caucasus to Moscow, that hinders the Allied offensive.  On the other hand, the Allies have considerably better movement choices in the north, as the Allies can reinforce their attack while consolidating their forces.

    Absolute Allied control of the Mediterranean is a great idea when Germany is already effectively contained and the real threat to Moscow ended.  From there, the Allies can control Africa, take control of the Suez, start moving that big navy towards India (where the Allies can build an industrial complex), while the US builds a Pacific fleet to unite with the Atlantic fleet to smash the Japanese juggernaut.

    I do not see that allowing the Germans to blow up most of the Allied transports midgame will necessarily help the Allied cause.  What I see as a consequence is stranded UK and US units in Africa, while Germany and Japan gain the time needed to press on Moscow.  I don’t see that holding the Caucasus with UK and US and USSR forces will necessarily improve Moscow’s situation, if Moscow has Germany and Japan pressing in at West Russia and Novosibirsk, and Germany can cut off the UK and US ground reinforcements for two turns.  I do think that using Archangel as an offloading point offers the UK and US the chance to contain German aggression and at the very least reinforce Moscow, regardless of the number of Axis units in the Caucasus.



  • I see those Med transports as a convenience that also threatens Germanys soft underbelly.

    Again, think many US transports in mid game.  Too costly for Germany to throw away 6 ftrs sinking 4 transports and a dd… maybe a capital ship too… but at what cost?

    I thought I was just reading someone (perhaps even you) saying NEVER to risk the german airforce in a KGF unless you trade it for valuable transports.  MEd fleet are not valuable, in fact, they are disposable for USA in Mid game.  It doesn’t take too long for the US to get up to 8 transports (4 off algeria, 4 in the med).

    A lot of this Med fleet depends on other factors (we’re predicting mid game opccurances here!).  I’m just saying that you can NOT just dismiss this as a bad idea.  When Germany has bailed from africa  and US has excess tpt capacity, this can be a good plan.



  • @axis_roll:

    I see those Med transports as a convenience that also threatens Germanys soft underbelly.

    Again, think many US transports in mid game.  Too costly for Germany to throw away 6 ftrs sinking 4 transports and a dd… maybe a capital ship too… but at what cost?

    I thought I was just reading someone (perhaps even you) saying NEVER to risk the german airforce in a KGF unless you trade it for valuable transports.  MEd fleet are not valuable, in fact, they are disposable for USA in Mid game.  It doesn’t take too long for the US to get up to 8 transports (4 off algeria, 4 in the med).

    That fighter thing sure sounds like me.  Suspiciously like me, in fact.

    A lot of this Med fleet depends on other factors (we’re predicting mid game opccurances here!).  I’m just saying that you can NOT just dismiss this as a bad idea.  When Germany has bailed from africa  and US has excess tpt capacity, this can be a good plan.

    Mmph.  I think we’re describing different board positions.  I think the Allies should EVENTUALLY go for the Med, but I don’t see that as practicable for quite some time.  Eventual, yes, because you cannot threaten Southern Europe from Eastern Europe, so the Allies pretty much have to go for the eventual buildup at Balkans to threaten Germany and Southern Europe, forcing Germany to withdraw to Germany, allowing the Allies to take control of Southern Europe, then with transported units plus six units a turn, drive into W. Europe and/or Germany.  The Med fleet bolsters the Allied move by allowing the Allies to continually supply Caucasus, Ukraine, Balkans, then Southern Europe, whereas if the Allied fleet was in the North Atlantic, that chain of territories could not be threatened.

    HOWEVER, I think that establishing that chain of transports is costly, both because of the possible German Luftwaffe attack, and because of the necessity of building 2 UK transports for each load.

    That’s my bit.

    Now to wait for the eventual posters to respond and post what they think about our respective explanations and ideas.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I like the axis_roll explanation quite a lot.  I don’t know if he is suggeting UK transports in the MED.  I think he may be suggesting keeping the UK transports in the baltic or north of karelia, and the MED fleet would then be just US.

    When you think about it, The US probably gets to the action faster this way, than if they did the normal ECA -> UK then UK -> NOR, then walk to the action.  In this MED scenario, US does ECA -> ALG then walk ALG -> LIB, then trn LIB -> SEU/CAU/BAL/EGY/PER/WEU wherever the action is.  Probably CAU/PER though to help against Japan and keep them out of Africa.



  • @rjclayton:

    I like the axis_roll explanation quite a lot.  I don’t know if he is suggeting UK transports in the MED.  I think he may be suggesting keeping the UK transports in the baltic or north of karelia, and the MED fleet would then be just US.

    When you think about it, The US probably gets to the action faster this way, than if they did the normal ECA -> UK then UK -> NOR, then walk to the action.  In this MED scenario, US does ECA -> ALG then walk ALG -> LIB, then trn LIB -> SEU/CAU/BAL/EGY/PER/WEU wherever the action is.  Probably CAU/PER though to help against Japan and keep them out of Africa.

    If the UK and US forces are split, that allows Germany greater flexibility in attacking.  UK can only get to Norway/Karelia/Archangel/Eastern Europe, while the US can only get to S. Europe/Balkans/Ukraine.


  • 2007 AAR League

    True, but if Japan can be kept out of Africa and pushed back all the way to India/Persia by the US/Russia combo, isn’t this potentially a better tradeoff for the allies?  Remember, we are talking about alternative strategies that have potential.  I think this one has potential.



  • @rjclayton:

    True, but if Japan can be kept out of Africa and pushed back all the way to India/Persia by the US/Russia combo, isn’t this potentially a better tradeoff for the allies? Remember, we are talking about alternative strategies that have potential. I think this one has potential.

    Well yeah, if Japan goes for Africa (really more of a “when” than an “if”), the Allies should move reinforcements to Africa.  That is to say, if Japan is moving towards Africa in significant force (often signified more by a transport than an India IC), then the Allies should have some units there.  If Japan sends in enough forces to overwhelm the Allied forces, the Allies can send in more, and meanwhile Japan is not attacking Russia.  In that case - yes, two fleets.

    But although it’s a workable strategy, even a good strategy - and remember, I did mention that I have used two fleets in games - I think that two fleets in the Atlantic is really something that depends on the board situation.

    Come to think of it, though, ONE fleet in the Atlantic is also something that depends on the board situation.  I haven’t said that in so many words yet, this thread.

    So I suppose - and I think axis_roll would agree - that sometimes you want one Atlantic fleet, and sometimes you want two Atlantic fleets.

    But I think that calling for a US/Russia combo is not correct to attack Japan.

    Even with Germany contained, Germany’s standing army is often quite powerful, and able to inflict heavy casualties on any Allied forces pressing in on Germany.  With the UK and US together, Germany will be forced to take considerable casualties in return for any strafe or attack.  With the UK alone, though, Germany can press BACK on the Allies.

    Japan has enormous flexibility with 5+ transports, so any Allied force along the coast has to be truly gigantic, as Japan can use the forces from an adjacent territory plus air plus battleship support shots and transported units, plus any tanks that are two territories away, for a very possible attack force of 12 infantry 5 tanks 5 fighters 1 bomber 2 battleship support shots, against any Allied coastal territory attack.  If you are transporting units from Eastern US to Caucasus, and Germany has a fighter threat from Germany and/or Southern Europe, and the Allied fleet is split, progress in Asia can be a bit uncertain (and will probably stall once the Allies pass India anyways).

    This is why I prefer to use UK and US to finish or contain Germany, while Russia presses back against Japan alone.  Russia doesn’t push as far as Soviet Far East/Burytia, or maybe even as far as China, but Russia does contain Japanese aggression.  With Moscow secure and Berlin contained and soon to fall, the Allies will eventually win.



  • @newpaintbrush:

    But I think that calling for a US/Russia combo is not correct to attack Japan.

    Even with Germany contained, Germany’s standing army is often quite powerful, and able to inflict heavy casualties on any Allied forces pressing in on Germany.  With the UK and US together, Germany will be forced to take considerable casualties in return for any strafe or attack.  With the UK alone, though, Germany can press BACK on the Allies.

    Japan has enormous flexibility with 5+ transports, so any Allied force along the coast has to be truly gigantic, as Japan can use the forces from an adjacent territory plus air plus battleship support shots and transported units, plus any tanks that are two territories away, for a very possible attack force of 12 infantry 5 tanks 5 fighters 1 bomber 2 battleship support shots, against any Allied coastal territory attack.  If you are transporting units from Eastern US to Caucasus, and Germany has a fighter threat from Germany and/or Southern Europe, and the Allied fleet is split, progress in Asia can be a bit uncertain (and will probably stall once the Allies pass India anyways).

    This is why I prefer to use UK and US to finish or contain Germany, while Russia presses back against Japan alone.  Russia doesn’t push as far as Soviet Far East/Burytia, or maybe even as far as China, but Russia does contain Japanese aggression.  With Moscow secure and Berlin contained and soon to fall, the Allies will eventually win.

    Actually, I like using the US to clear a hole in the Japanese forces (if possible) to open up a tank rush with either Russia or UK.  If that doesn’t work, with US grabbing a japanese controlled territory (e.g. novo), Russia/UK can move in with other units/air power to cover protect those us forces to fight against Japan again.  usually the US has the strongest air force, and it would be a shame to not be able to use that only on Germany.  Problem with this strat is that it’s not easy to get many US units into moscow (unless they come through Caucasus or Persia).

    We are discussing personal player preferences, in mid game, when it’s very hard to discuss unit counts (not sure where you pulled your 12 inf, 5 tanks…. Jap unit number from)

    There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).



  • @Dr.:

    Okay I haven’t really had time to testplay this, but what do you think of a strategy where both UK and USA offloads in algeira every turn. Then march the troops through africa and middle east, then can choose to attack either Germany or Japan. The strategy has been seen with the USA only, with great effect, so I wondered if it worked even better if Uk joined, or is the progress to slow?

    I have tried this in both classic and revised. I find that America can usually handle the task alone fine. The Brits ground troops are most likely better used assisting Russia up North.  I have used an early landing, but once you secure Africa, America can pump enough in to keep it.



  • @axis_roll:

    There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).

    I must be really screwed up then…

    I win 4 games out of 5 as the Axis, but only 2 out of 3 as the Allies…



  • @ncscswitch:

    @axis_roll:

    There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).

    I must be really screwed up then…

    I win 4 games out of 5 as the Axis, but only 2 out of 3 as the Allies…

    Could be your playing style

    Are you agressive attacking type?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 28
  • 5
  • 55
  • 4
  • 7
  • 19
  • 10
  • 28
I Will Never Grow Up Games

40
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts