We need an allied playbook.

@panther I did not know this, thank you

@JDOW also would you mind if I read your input on youtube?

Ok there is some merit to building an AB for Gib UK1, and merging all available ships to sz92. The ability to send the UK Med navy to the Atlantic will most likely table a German Sea Lion buy for G2 w/o dropping a bunch of inf on London. As others pointed out an AB at Gib is also very helpful in staging allied fleet in sz91 as the game goes on. You would defiantly need to take into account what Germany bought G1 though. A loaded carrier, cruiser, damaged BB (that will auto fix on Germany’s turn) and a couple transports sitting in sz112 is a real threat to your new Gib base with only air. In this scenario you should be looking at using the Med transport to bring over an inf and the Malta AAA gun to protect your ftrs, but that weakens Egypt.

Many people are in the camp of forgoing Taranto, to spare the UK Med fleet. Sometimes they pull back into the Red Sea (sz81), or make a stand in sz92 (as AldoRaine posted) and bringing in the India fleet in is also an option. The point is that the Italian navy will eventually come out to play and it is easier to kill it when they don’t have the support of the Rome AB. Plus as others pointed out the Italians might add to their toy boats which means fewer units heading to Russia.

The thing is that if you do merge all available UK ships to sz92, and build an AB for Gib you really don’t want to get double hit by the Italians then the Germans play mop-up w/o taking heavy losses. eames57 took the words right out of my mouth, you have to block out the Italian navy by placing a dd in sz94 (the French in sz93 completes the block).

You still run the risk of getting hit by the Luftwaffe, but that would also cripple the German air force so IMO it would be worth it. It’s better to take out German planes over Italian navy especially early in the game. At some point (maybe later when the US comes over) the Italian navy will be at the bottom of the Med, where the Luftwaffe is essential on all fronts through out the game. So in retrospect it isn’t in Germany’s best long term interest to attack you in sz92, so there is a good chance they won’t.

@teslas:

This is not a houserule board, but I can’t help it.

“Does not help Moscow.”

Yes it god damn does. The first time you SBR Mosocw you’re taking off from Eastern Poland. Maybe the second time, too.

“Does help Calcutta.”

Not really. Bombers are probably coming from a Kwangsi air base after J2. The only time it’d help them is on J2 itself.

Speaking of which, I usually don’t bomb Calcutta. The potential loss of a strat bomber sucks, and they’re not building more than 2-4 units a turn anyway after UK1, so the first six damage doesn’t matter at all. And then just a couple turns later, their income is so low (2-7/turn) that they’re not building anything that matters much anyway. This is only a very minor influence, but it might matter: if you bomb it, you’re bombing what will be your own factory.

To comment on this part that you added to your original post… once captured, the Major IC with max damage will immediately downgrade to a Minor IC with max damage, so if I really want to use it… it will only cost me 6 IPCs.

Good question IKE.
That would be very true to the difficulty of playing allies: Giving up London or Egypt is the dilemma, what will the allies choose… I don’t know what’s best but I think both strategies can work.

Much depends on what happened UK1 and IT1 of course, so lets assume ‘Taranto’ happened (a rather standard move, especially with an allied bid). Without aid of the German luftwaffe (they will be massing against London), Italy cannot safely approach Egypt. Thats 1.

2: After Taranto and Germany pushing through for SL, London is very likely to fall but it is also very likely that it will be a pyrrhic victory for Germany. Russia will be a monster and the USA just needs to destroy the kriegsmarine.

If ‘Taranto’ did not happen UK1 I guess the situation does not change a lot if Uk2 still goes for it and stop Italy in the med… But in this case Uk2 also has the option to superdefend London, indeed possibly giving up Egypt in the long run (but only for a short amount of time if London survives).

I’ll not talk about the the possibility of the USA liberating London, as that also depends on what Japan is doing (and thus, how much investments the USA must make to prevent a pacific sudden death) but the USA should definately have enough ground and naval forces left to prevent Italy from breaking through.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

Well you wanted to know how to slow the allies down. Fucking around with the USA would do it.

@real-life-rorschach
I played about 6 games, 1 Axis win, the others Allied. The main deciding factors were bad G1 dice in all of the games, the Soviets being almost impossible to defeat in time (the one time the Axis won, the U.S. and Britain were about to take Berlin/Warsaw on the next turn), and the Americans sending strategic bombers to Europe and crippling the German factory production while still being able to fight Japan.