We need an allied playbook.

@the_jetset:

In fact, it could even be argued that Germany should collect the IPCs for these Vichy French territories after capturing Paris.  … but that might be going a bridge too far.

While I agree with this in spirit, I do think it could be taken too far. You could have people that say it should be this way for all countries: Once the capital is captured, the capturing power now controls all the territories and units of the vanquished nation.
For one thing, this would eliminate any possibility of liberation and I think this game would end up being a sort of Deluxe Risk rather than Axis & Allies.
Imagine this scenario:  Germany goes after Russia and tries punching straight through to Moscow along the north route, thereby NOT taking Ukraine or Stalingrad.  Suppose Japan didn’t attack Russia at all in the far east.  Now suppose Russia was foolish and bought a battleship for the Caspian Sea instead of infantry so they didn’t have a proper defense in Moscow and Germany wins.  Now Germany controls territory all the way to the Pacific and Japan now has a buddy to their north instead of an enemy. Plus, Germany becomes instantly rich, almost doubling their income with all the Russian 2 point territories plus all the troops that were guarding those territories (not to mention Germany’s shiny new battleship in the Caspian Sea.).

I wonder if a crazy rule like this would make games longer or shorter?  Capital defense would probably be even heavier.

Thanks, ColonelCarter!

Those comments make a lot of sense to me.

I can’t remember exactly why I didn’t attack that German fleet that was left without aircover, but I do remember I looked at the possibility. Probably was scared about the axis combination: IT3 take Egypt->GE4 has a NB and can reach Gibraltar from there. Any FTR that attacked that little fleet would be unable to defend Gibraltar. I must admit though, loosing Gibraltar to GE4 would have been perfectly acceptable in this situation (I could have left it completely empty). My bad ;-). Glad I can comfort myself this was not a very crucial mistake of some sorts :-D. Same for the Rhodesian INF.

I guess it all boils down to: put more pressure onto the Japanese First (a lot of people give this advice). And by the way I LOVE your tips about how to do so in the Pac. That will alter the way the Japanese can execute their plans. It’s so easy to forget USN is not ‘glued to their coast’ and Queensland is a valid staging point even when not at war.

The only thing I don’t like is that this will (again!) force the allies into a Pacific Focus. I suspect this must be some ‘revenge’ of the developers for all those years (in the 1st edition) the allies were able to execute their historic plans of ‘Europe First’  :|.

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.

@Cow:

Get the African NOs for Russia as well. African NOs are very important for Russia.

Agreed wholeheartedly!
I must admit though, I’m still a little in doubt about when to take them and when not to.

For example, if Germany is doing SeaLion it seems better not to (correct me if I’m wrong)? If Russia goes there (early) in this situation, it has just too few units to start contesting Eastern Europe and/or Scandinavia RU3 (assuming GE did sortie into London). Contesting those area’s with Germany seems better than getting into Africa, since the Russian profit is the same or even higher but it also denies Germany valuable IPCs. Maybe in this case get the African NO’s at a later point?

In all the other situations I’d go for African NO’s (except perhaps a G1 DOW?).

This game is about economics. You need easy and cheap victories, while giving none yourself. Don’t buy transports if your dad will sink them easily, you would be better holding one turn for a following turn larger purchase or buying aircraft. For Germany, hit where you have the best chance to win and take the most cash. Use the NO’s to guide your grand strategy. But other posts above are correct, there is a tipping point where all you can do is slow down the inevitable Allied win. There are some good posts here that can guide your next game.

@Gargantua:

SO what if I start in a zone, that someone just built a ship in?  My transport Cannot load?

That’s correct, unless you declare war on that power in the same turn.

@Gargantua:

Also, can transports leave a zone where they started with a hostile ship, and then come back with loaded units from another zone? That would seem legal to me.

Yes.

Good idea, Allweneed.  And good point.  So far, zero people have answered the poll question saying they would play as a beancounter.