An Allied strategy

The interesting point with your strat is purchasing one loaded trannie each turn. I see the point with it, and I have seen that approach with another rival. Not convinced yet, but I agree if Japan falls before Moscow, allies have a chance

Now my question is if you taken into account a german baltic navy. If both UK and Japan are slowed, is a stalemate again and that’s good news for axis due superior economy

But at least is an imaginative approach with US, and I discovered such approachs have advantage in this version

@a44, I think you should try some TripleA live games in the unstable lobby. I have seen games w/o bids, but there are very few no bid games compared to the “agreement” that allies need 6-9 ipc to balance the game.

And for the record, in the TripleA lobby, there are both n00bs and expert players.

@Funcioneta:

The interesting point with your strat is purchasing one loaded trannie each turn. I see the point with it, and I have seen that approach with another rival. Not convinced yet, but I agree if Japan falls before Moscow, allies have a chance

I like the combo of the loaded AC and the loaded tranny.  Seems like the most common mistake in Pacific offensives is not buying sufficient transports and not contesting the national objectives every turn.  If eventually the USA has more loaded ACs and thus more mobile air power at sea, then Japan’s navy is positionally constrained and has to sit in 1 or 2 clusters.

Hi, Subotai, I just joined the daak AA50 tourney (well, as sub, it reached the limit of 32 dudes), and they are bidding for axis, go figure! At least they allow negative bids …

Seems there is not a consensus after one year, I wonder what type of strats are using in daak to think axis need a bid  :? And it’s a tourney with NOs, normal dices and no tech … I’m still amazed, seems they copy-pasted bid system from Revised to Anny

The largest problem I see with your strat idea, is if germany goes for a quick takedown of Russia.  How many turns can Russia survive against 10 tanks a turn coming out of berlin?  And with Italy making 20+ for 2 or 3 turns even there navy can be powerful.

I don’t think pacific is the problem, it is true that if the US goes 100% pacfic, and the UK/Russia send a bit to annoy Japan, Japan can be stalled/slowly torn apart.  The problem is, the UK/Russia cannot handle the G/I monster for very long without the US’s aid.

A simple 9 Inf, 1 Art, followed by 9-10 armor a turn by germany, will result in Russia hiding out in Moscow alone as early as turn 3, and moscow would fall a few turns after.  And with Italy making almost as much as the UK, it just writes itself.

Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

@Vareel:

Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

The core issue here is that neither a pac strat nor a KGF strat is very powerful in a no bid game.

The only powerful allied strat in a no bid game is bad dice for axis :-)

with the USA going 100% pacific (minus the stratbombing and original 2 trannies + destroyer), that means it is up to the UK and Russia to defeat Germany and Italy.
without a bid, UK will lose Egypt either round 1 or 2.  without a bid, Russia will definitely lose karelia round 2.
without USA naval assets, germany can sink the UK navy round 1 (as usual) but ALSO can sink them round 2.  you say you are buying 4 transports?  that will not work, at least not on the first 2 turns, because germany will crush your navy.
if you are buying navy with the UK, you will not be sinking the italian navy any time soon, so italy will be getting her NO’s for a while.

I just do not see russia surviving past turn 5.  And Japan can still get her 3 NO’s and stalemate with USA if needed.  At the very worst, Japan does not get her island NO, then stalemates with USA.

I will give you strategy a try, but i’ve seen pretty much the exact same thing tried a hell of a lot of times and never seen it win or come even close to winning.  Germany and Italy with NOs are just too big for Russia.

(ps to Zhukov4: I updated the China mod, so you have to download it again.  Did you get it working?  I never heard back from you.  Please go download WW2v3 and the china mod again.  version number is 1.2.2 for both.  http://n2.nabble.com/Version-of-WWv3-with-China-going-first-tp4464141p4464141.html )

the latest TripleA unstable has very few bugs, and is very playable, imo.

It is not generally a big problem with some players who play to slow, although it can happen. I once played a game against a player on this forum (one of several players), he had never played a livegame before, so it would be somewhat unfair to blaim “too slow play”, but it can be a concern, yes.
Imo, a  country can take 5 mins, maybe 10 mins, this is variable, but A&A in the TripleA lobby is not regarded as “lightning chess”, but for players who have never played live games I think they must think faster than in PBM/PBF games.

I also suspect that in some games that is not part of a league or is recorded in a series of games, maybe some players will be too cautious with axis b/c it is seen as a single game. The axis must be very aggressive, and this will pay off usually, but in a single game, it can be more tempting to do Egy and/or Kalia G2 instead of G1. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, but compared to Revised, it is easier to win as allies in a no bid (+NO) game in AA50 b/c it is much more likely that battles go wrong for axis during the first rnd. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, imo.

One more thing to add in favor of TripleA is its easy to save maps and resume games in PBEM format or another day in the lobby.  Unlike other live formats, there are no timers and most players have no problem saving games and resuming them another time.  It really is just about everything one could ask for in a war-game software program.  The most significant defect is the poor aesthetics of the WWv2 (revised) map.  But fortunately WWv3 is much prettier.

I have to agree with A44, in my face to face experiance the game is pretty balanced.

Allied planning and co-ordination is critical, because it is reactionary.  A44’s plan is a broad “outline”, because the Allies always start the game reacting to the Axis.  Accepting that Japan needs to be stalled is the foundation of a solid Allied plan, and only America is in position to do that.

Otherwise, my contribution to Allied strat is to focus less on removing Axis $$ and more on maintaining Allied, especially UK, IPCs.

It’s been a while ago I tried to get opponents in the TripleA lobby, as axis in a no bid (+NO) regular dice game. I was laughed at… :-)

So there are two possibilities, either the TripleA players all have bad allied strats, or the PBF players here on this forum all have bad axis strats, and neither can disprove the others, b/c the TripleA players won’t use Abattlemap and you won’t use TripleA. So we’re stuck…  :-)

Well… I don’t play online, though I do play against a wide variety of opponents, and I’ve been playing A&A games since the Nova edition.  I’d have to agree with PG and A44, from my experiences the game is pretty balanced.

i just have to go along, Allies have the upper hand / balanced game. I feel its closer to a bid for the axis then the allies, but at the moment i only play no bid games.

But why do you all feel the need to deploy half complete navy?

It takes at least 2 full round buy to have a decent navy, so just keep the money in your hand and buy the fleet when you are ready…

This is a basic concept you ALL should know.

• It allows to not show your hand to your opponent before it’s time.
• It prevents your opponent from sinking your fleet part by part.
• Both of the above combined means it is also too late for your opponent to react.

Of course, take into acount your production and prepare your land/fighters units in advance if need be but in any cases, a prod of 8 to 10 is normally enough to deploy all your boats in one single turn.

1 carrier, 1 transport and a DD each turn is simply wrong if your intent is to wait until 3 carriers, 3 transports and 3 DD to send them into action. Just wait 3rd, and deploy it all at once.

The same goes with thoses UK half drops I see every games… 8 units… what do you think you can acomplish with that against a decent Germany player who have air power and 10/16 production ? When you drop, you drop… It’s way better to drop 16 units once per 2 round than 8 per rounds that will get invariably whiped clean… And that even if it means a transport over buy.

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

In the real WW2 the pacific had to be fought, but not in revised/AA42/AA50. When the global AA40 comes out, I will try different strats to see what is the most effective one.

It’s good news you at least will give a try  :lol:

There’s alot to like about AA44’s strat.  I think especially against weaker players, the principle of contesting every section of the board is a good one, because you want to take advantage of whatever opportunities arise.

But this sort of strategy (ie USA goes Pac, UK goes to Africa or Europe, Russia plays defense in Europe…) has a glaring weakness, and in my experience it is easy for Axis to exploit.  Consider that with national objectives, Axis will achieve economic parity early in the game.  So both sides are spending roughly the same amount of money from turns 2-6.  Let’s assume Axis goes primarily for Russia, and secondarily in Africa.

With the “global” Allied strategy, the Allies are fighting on 3 main fronts.  Each front is completely separate from the other…they are 3 different vectors, and the Allies are attacking all 3 Axis at once.  However, Axis is pressing with all 3 powers on Russia (Japan can spend 80% of their income on defense and still press to Moscow’s borders).  Worse, Germany/Italy co-ordinate their efforts against both Russia and UK, making it tough for either to make any forward progress.

Practically speaking, even with wild success in the Pacific, it should be Rounds 6-7 before Allies start gaining the economic edge.  By that time, Russia’s situation should be hopeless.  Axis do not need to take chances; they can play conservative.  There’s no need for Germany to tank rush immediately…they can build infantry and planes for a few rounds and then lurch later.  With proper Japan play, there should be no danger of losing Tokyo or China for the first 10 rounds, so Axis have plenty of time to wear out or roll over Russia.

The primary tactical advantage the Allies have is the ability to team-up on Axis with back-to-back attacks.  But if Allies go ‘global’, they forfeit this advantage, and give Axis the opportunity to win w/o major risks.