UK D-day

@the-spaceman Seems like a good start. A few thoughts to throw into the mix:

I would say UK’s naval priorities should be first the Baltic fleet, then any stray transports, then any stray subs. The subs don’t do any convoy damage or anything like that, so they’re really just targets of opportunity; it’s not like you can safely leave British transports unattended anyway because of the German bomber, so the subs aren’t doing that much more harm. The Baltic fleet is top priority because it allows Germans to cheaply conquer Norway/Finland/Karelia, and because it’s too expensive for Germany to sanely replace.

The Australian transport can flee across Argentina to the Atlantic, but I would leave the destroyer behind to block a J2 attack on Australia – I think it does more good slowing down Japan and keeping some of the UK income than it does to get a destroyer added to your Atlantic fleet, like, 3 turns later. For similar reasons, I usually won’t move the starting US Pacific fleet to the Atlantic. If the Allies took unusually heavy naval losses, then maybe it’s worthwhile, but the Pacific fleet is earning you nothing the whole time it’s in transit through the Panama Canal. Having a few starting boats in the Pacific – even just CV, ftr, DD, tran – means that if you ever do need to upgrade the Pacific fleet into a formidable force because Japan is grabbing Alaska and Hawaii or whatever, then you can do so with one turn of purchases. If you can’t quickly reinforce the US Pacific fleet to the point where it can drive away the Japanese navy, then you might be forced to buy 10 infantry for the Western US instead or something similarly expensive and wasteful.

It doesn’t always make sense to build a huge Atlantic fleet at all as the Allies – sometimes you can sink the Italian fleet using primarily air power and subs, and/or build a pair of factories in Egypt, South Africa, India, or Australia. Some games you won’t have enough good safe factory sites, and some games you’ll need a big fleet because, e.g., Germany is heavy on air power (so you need protection for your transports) but short on infantry (so invading France is really attractive). On the other hand, if Germany trades its entire air force to wipe out your boats on G1, builds a factory in France on G1, and then drops 6 infantry there on G2, maybe just let the Atlantic navy go for several turns and rely on factories instead, or have the British build factories and let the Americans reinforce with a fleet into Morocco after they build up.

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

Thinking about this comment, imagining how this would go:

“I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 12.”
“No way, I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 14.”
“Chump change, I’ll play Axis against an Allied bid of 15.”
“All right, I’ll take the Allies with a 15 bid.”

-Midnight_Reaper

@Zhukov44:

I’m not convinced the factories would necessarily help Allies.  If Allies can’t afford to protect them, they become liabilities.

A huge difference in AA50 versus previous editions is how seperated/well-defined the two theatres of war are for USA.  Once in one of the theatres, it is very hard if almost impossible to move into the other theatre while still being useful.  An example of what I mean may help.  If USA can establish a presence in the south pacific, either via a navy (hard to do early) or via Australia, she can land fighters into India for support.  Put an IC in Australia to cover these fighters, providing defense on their way to India, where they would again provide defense to yet another IC, and then onto their way to even threaten the middle east with units that have began to filter in from combined UK/US Algeria landings

@Zhukov44:

If UK is pumping ipcs into South Asia it may provide Germany/Italy opportunities in Africa and Europe.

Yes, it would be somewhat of a fine Allied balance, but the US can help Africa landings easier than building a naval force strong enough the threaten the IJN.  Supporting Australia/India with fighters (see above), keeps $5 more in UK coffers (Australia/India) and the third NO out of japans hands.  That’s a $15 IPC swing that more than makes up for less pressence in Africa/Europe.

I accept your Challenge!

Go here

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5125.0 go down to where you see A-Battlemap

Download this program.

Once you have it downloaded send me a Private Message, and I will teach you how to play on the forums ;)  Good Luck Challenger.

@wodan46:

The central concept is that Britain loads units onto American transports one turn, then the following turn lands troops using both the American and British transports, then on the same turn land the American troops brought over by the transports in the first place.  This allows a huge One-Two punch against Western Europe.

This is works mainly if Axis doesn’t sink the UK Battleship/Transport and West US Destroyer/Transport, if they do, a different plan may be advisable.

Before Turn X: Britain focuses on getting an intact fleet with maybe 3 transports.  America builds 3 transports, and pulls its Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic.
Turn X: American Transports reach Britain and land a bunch of American troops there.  Britain builds a bunch of Ground Units.  America builds Bombers
Turn X+1: British Ground Units board American transports.  Britain builds Ground Units.  America builds Bombers.
Turn X+2: Britain invades Western Europe using both American and British Transports.  America then drops all their Infantry and Bombers into Western Europe.  Britain builds ground units.
Turn X+3: Take Germany, by first suiciding the British forces, then hitting it with the American forces.

X is ideally turn 2.  If you wait till Turn 3, you get the Pacific fleet as well.  Doing so lets you use 5 American Transports and 3 British Transports, meaning that you land 16 troops, then 10 troops, with air support.  For naval defense, you have something like 3 Carrier groups, 3 Destroyers, and a Battleship.  US goes to SZ18(Brazil), then SZ7(English Channel).

I think this is pretty interesting… it does put tremendous amounts of pressure on Germany very quickly.  The only thing I don’t like is that Italy will be able to dump max units per round into France at around the time that this is going to be ready to go, so I’m not totally sure that France will actually be able to be taken if Germany and Italy are doing their jobs with throwing units into the defense.  But anyway, the ship convoy can be redirected to other purposes if D-Day seems impractical (Algeria, Poland, or Scandinavia).  I’m going to try it the next time I play as the Allies and see how it goes, thanks for the idea. =)

The only time I build an IC with the UK in India is in the '42 setup with huge Pacific support by the USA (as I always do). In '41 I am strongly against the India IC (as I’ve mentioned before in this forum). The difference is obvious: 1941 Japan has 5 transports and can easily take India J2, even with the US going all out in the Pacific, there’s just not enough starting power for the allies. 1942 however, it is much more difficult for Japan to get to India with enough to take and hold it. The US Pacific fleet in 42 is strong and when made stronger turn 1 can cause the Japanese to stay at home for a few turns; thus allowing the UK to protect the IC in India.

Nah, axis-roll’s idea of 3 trans, 1 AC, 1 inf, 1 arm is better and what i’m  using now.

So far, I still can’t quite pull the trigger on taking Australia T3 or T4 with Japan (even with 6 fighters and really threatining and holding back the US/UK Navy).  That being said in the 3 games I played, I have been able to really try Japan up in spectacular fashion, but it becomes irrelevant as it still swells up into the great Satan somewhere between turn 6-9.  All the while the allies look like they do good on Germany, but not quite good enough to kill it by the time Japan turns into the unstopable juggernaut.  It is starting to look like the Allies can not afford to give Japan this much attention, though I am still curious about this IC and more importantly the moves done w/o the IC to tie up Japan.  Also I am starting to wonder, why not just use America and have Australia as “home base” for them, the Brits could build an IC late in the game if the opportunity presents itself.  This is only 3 games though.  It is almost as if the axis recoverd 3 times from the brink of disaster and still win.