@simon33 It’s going to be a near thing. The Americans will be landing in North Africa A3 or A4. I know from my experience that Britain can virtually obliterate the Italians capabilities to resist them.
Best posts made by M36
-
RE: Germany playbook: overall strategy guide
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Guam-Solo I shall write one up in my notes and post it as soon as it’s complete.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Guam-Solo No offense to Crocket but after watching that video I’m not a fan at all of that strategy. So much effort put into destroying four troops and taking 1 IPC in East Africa which is virtually irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. I’ll sacrifice my fleet any day to remove the Italians, and if they scramble and lose planes the French fleet has a good chance of surviving anyway. The only strong Italian force in Africa is in Tobruk, crush it on turn 1 or it will get stronger. The other forces are split and can be destroyed when it’s more convenient.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Guam-Solo Agreed. Maybe forcing the Italians into an attack works in some games, I’m just a big advocate of the best defense being a strong offense. The reasoning for destroying the Italian fleet right out the gate is the same reasoning for destroying the UK fleet G1. Even if it’s costly it takes your opponents options and initiative away, which is very difficult to recover from.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Absoloutely. Discussion is the whole point of these forums after all.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Guam-Solo I’ve tried the Anzac Middle East complex, but I’ve always found they just don’t make enough money to provide effective forces, especially if they have to worry about a Japanese threat.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@AldoRaine I see your point but if Italy breaks Egypt on turn 2 then it can gain both a national objective and 4 or 5 IPCs in Africa without too much difficulty. A 20 IPC Italy is quite strong, especially with an intact navy.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Thanks for the input, I was confused on what the overall strategy was behind your moves. The Greece idea is intriguing. I’ve always thought of Greece as a trap, since following the historical moves of the Allied and Axis powers tends to lead to a historical result, and the British efforts in Greece were mauled.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 As I mentioned I have found history to be the best playbook. The Allies practiced “Germany First” and it certainly worked. Japan is easier to isolate being an island nation, so focus on the biggest dog in the fight, Germany.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 I guess ultimately the Allies will need several “playbooks” as their strategy is not only influenced by what moves the Axis make but by which Axis power they want to tackle first.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Details? What is it specifically you want to know?
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Well it’s all about understanding the history my friend. The 2nd world war was won by the allies on December 7th 1941. The United States is the allied hammer that must crush both Germany and Japan, but it’s important to prioritize on the more dangerous monster; Germany.
Why is Germany more dangerous than Japan? Well primarily because of geography. They eliminate one allied power round one, are within striking distance of another on round two, and can march across the steppes to eliminate a third rather rapidly. Japan cannot eliminate any major powers. The US is essentially unconquerable, Australia is not a major power, and UK Pacific is only half of a power.
Secondly it’s because of their military composition. Germany has a large Air Force for punching, and tremendous ground forces that are relatively easy to replace. Japan has few ground forces, a massive Air Force, and large navy which is extremely costly to replace. There is no “cannon fodder” naval unit. The cheapest one is 6 IPCs.
For this reason I make sure that my first couple of purchases as the US enable me to take immediate offensive action once at war. Force the Axis to engage the US as soon as possible because US units are easily replaced, while Axis units are not.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Now that’s a plan I can get behind. Germany must either suffer the bombardment, or counter attack because that complex will be their downfall if it stays in allied hands.
Of course they could theoretically sink the fleet with the Luftwaffe but hey, any forces fighting in France are NOT fighting in Russia. Win win for the allies.
-
RE: Quick question regarding Air and Naval combat in G40.
@chernobylime Aircraft are subject to defensive fire Just like ground units, so in your scenario the attacking aircraft fires, and then the defending infantry fire, regardless of there being any AAA present. The only unit that cannot fire back at aircraft is the submarine. As for Anti Aircraft Artillery, they only fire once before the conventional combat begins. AAA may fire one shot per attacking aircraft, up to a maximum of three shots.
So in the scenario you provide if the Germans attack the Russian territory with say 3 Planes and the Soviets have 3 Infanty and 1 AAA then the AAA will fire its three shots, the attacker removes any planes that are hit, and then the battle begins. AAA may be taken as casualties but do not fire again.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@weddingsinger Okay, so In practice you can do something useful with your aircraft before parking them in Moscow.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
Japan needs what, six victory cities? Even if they get Calcutta they still need Sydney or Honolulu. With enough focus poured into taking Calcutta the Aussies probably have Sydney well defended, and Honolulu gets harder and harder to take if you don’t strike it early.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
My point being that axis victory is easier to achieve in the European theatre, at least in my experience. It’s easier for the Allies to stagnate Japan once America is involved.
-
RE: Victory Conditions
@DessertFox599 Now are you speaking theoretically or from personal experience? I have NEVER won as the allies when the USA dumps everything into one theatre. I’m not saying split 50/50 because he who attacks everything attacks nothing, I’m saying do a 60/40 or 70/30 split. You must crate a credible threat in one theatre while mounting a serious offensive in the other. USA has the income to achieve this with prudent purchasing. If you divert German attention for one round away from Russia that can be a deciding factor.
-
RE: Victory Conditions
@DessertFox599 bit of a defeatist perspective I think. Your saying that the US landing 10 units on Gibraltar or in North Africa turn 3 isn’t going to do squat? What about when they invade Normandy and the Brit’s reinforce it? Now Paris will fall and you lose a victory city just before nabbing Russia. Catastrophic in my experience.
And how exactly are the allies on the verge of defeat when the wars just started? There is more hope than you realize my friend. They may be unprepared but with far larger economies they can rapidly close the gap. The Axis rely on speed and greater starting forces to achieve victory, so the faster the Allies can start attacking even if only in limited strikes the better.
-
RE: Victory Conditions
@DessertFox599 Yes that’s certainly effective. I personally like to take and hold a territory if possible though, because it gives that added level of threat to Germany and especially Italy.