We need an allied playbook.

I’d agree with everyting said.

I believe that any 2player game should be played with a bid or a handicap based on skill (in a broad sense of the word). We have had players here who believe the axis can’t win, and need a bid of 20. That is probably correct for the way they play the game. That being said, it is an interesting exercise to figure out what the bid would be on an expert level.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the game LL or not?
a LL game has to have a higher bid than a luck game. LL attacks can be optimized a lot better, an a smaller force in needed to ensure a win. Just try to calculate how much you need to be 99 % certain of paris falling in a LL game vs a regular game

@Caesar-Seriona said in Multiple pro allied neutrals:

To simplify the rule for any new players that read this; you cannot blitz through a friendly neutral I.E. they stop once they enter.

Just to avoid confusion:

We are not talking about “blitzing” here, as “blitzing” is a combat move, involving hostile territories.

Moving into a friendly neutral territory takes place during Noncombat Move Phase. This is a noncombat move that is further restricted by the above quoted rule.

I’d only just discovered these rules like a day before this thread popped up.  My buddy and I started a game on AAA a while ago to prep for our FtF this weekend:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41587.0

This would seem to be a counterpoint to the UK/ANZAC 2 DoW.  I was doing some goofy stuff in Europe but basically a G4 Sealion is coming.  I’ve got a US Atlantic Navy ready for London Calling which would have moved to sz102 but now there’s an interesting conundrum.

If my buddy does a J3 DoW that lets my US forces retake Gibraltar and to stage my UK fighters and STB there.  If he doesn’t J3 that’s another whole turn where he isn’t taking Money Islands or India (he’s been content to take SFE and China but I suspect an ANZAC crush coming on – he likes to do them).

So not doing the DoW I think I’m in a slightly better position (although still horrible position overall).

Ok…. So another question. What would you consider the best naval defense against 1-3 German subs and 2-4 planes?

I superior force.  Use the battle calculator to tell you if they’d win or not, and if they would…don’t move in yet.  It’s up to you to place your units in harm’s way.  The US has the luxury of waiting until they want to or need to move in without fear of someone attacking their capital.

The “best” naval defense depends on what your strategy is.  I find carriers essential in the Pacific, and often judge if I have the upper hand by a carrier count of the Allies vs. Japan.  If Japan has 6 loaded carriers to your 2, Japan is probably winning at the moment.  In Europe, I tend to go with more offshore rolls if I’m feeling offensive, or just stick with destroyers and strat bombers that can land in Gibraltar and England and hit just about anywhere.

Back to your example.  I assume the subs are by Western Germany and the planes are in Normandy or carrier based.  I’d ask…why do you NEED to move in to Gibraltar this turn to put your fleet at risk?  Wait another round and add 4 more destroyers, another carrier and planes, or other round of purchases to your fleet.  Germany usually doesn’t have the same capacity to match your purchases if they want to make progress vs. Russia at all.  Take your time and build up, then move in.

One easy rule is to add up hits and attack power.  If they have 3 subs and 2 ftr 2 tac, that’s 20 atk and 7 hits.  make sure you have 1.5 times the number of hits and you’re probably good.  Go in with 12 destroyers.  or 2 loaded carriers and 4 dds.  Carriers are great because they bring extra 4’s into the fight, and if you’re hard up for money, the UK or France can land their planes on your carrier if you’re thinking pure defense.

Rules are rules anyway, if you want leniancy, you have to ask for it.  This would not be a case where I would be inclined to grant it, mind you.  If you moved everything from Hawaii to Carlines but forgot to move a fighter there leaving it prone to attack, then I could see a case of “yea, okay, so you intended to move it but it got lost in the shuffle” fine, generally I’d allow that change (for non-league, non-tournament games, of course.)

cant wait for G40 on stable version :-D

/holding breath

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.