@taamvan said in State of the Onion G40 2019:
I think we are still trading around some great ideas. To throw in my two cents
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. Same Hawaii–guys dumped here early count for alot and can be supplemented by fighters even if you never buy fleet over there
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 and yunnan 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
thanks for sharing your thoughts. While KJF or KGF are somehow viable options, I disagree on a bunch of your statements.
“Going all Atlantic or all pacific isn’t historical, but its much more effective than splitting”
I do not agree on this. The magic in good play with the Allies is to achieve much with little. I believe splitting is essential because I believe that one power will eventually win in case a KxF is played relentlessly. Also, given the defender’s edge in A&A, Allies can actually achieve a lot by splitting in case they manage to exploit the defender’s edge in both theatres optimally.
“Taranto must be done”
Disagree. I believe that Taranto is a viable option but moving the fleet to 92 UK1 is certainly a viable option, too which I meanwhile prefer in most cases. Taranto is keeping Italy down but trading UK fleet and planes mostly against Italy at an even rate. (considering the counter potential Italy and Germany have against taranto). There are better ways to crush the Italian fleet at a way better TUV-exchange rate than in Taranto. Also, as you mentioned, the lack of UK planes makes it harder to secure US beachheads in either Normandy or Norway.
“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”
Well, even in league games, the Allies have a decent win rate even at lower bids, but the better the competition, the higher the Axis win rate.
On the highest level, in Vanilla games, any bid below 35 gives a clear edge for the Axis, I believe the equilibrium lies in the 40-45 range for Vanilla.
And even in BM, people slowly but steadily realize that after enjoying the thrill of playing the Allies with all those new NOs, that Allies need a 10-15 bid to have equal chances to win against Axis.
Again, this is based on Axis played on a high level.