We need an allied playbook.

@rommel13579
I also don’t use my mechs to attack.

It was my first game… So I thought i might try…

So Gargantua – what you doing next in our game? Surrendering?? Or going to chew me up like the cookie monster?? LOL

Yeah the history is known, but the highlighting is also new to me. It seems like a good feature.

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.

Any player can concede for any reason; you just have to learn who throws a hissy fit and who doesn’t.  I’ve had an Allied player forfeit on me after UK ROUND ONE.  Yep, a scramble didn’t go his way, and a couple of bad rolls in the Med and claimed there was “no way back”.  Meh, a win’s a win, but I’m still in it for the long haul with expectations of an epic game.

In general, a sucessful Sealion doesn’t an Axis victory make.  I’ve lost as the Axis after a sucessful Sealion; the Russian player knew what to do and put immense pressure on a front stripped-bare for landing units.  If Japan gets some bad luck and isn’t threatening victory, it’s bad.

That said, i’ve won plenty of times after a good Sealion, so it’s not an unheard of response.

@WILD:

Wow this thread was cool to revive. Haven’t heard from many of those guys much as of late, but they have some great insight for the allies.

Garg’s point was for the allies to win, they first must not loose. Keeping in mind that Cow was part of the conversation, and is one of the best Japanese players (that thrives on early Japanese attacks). Garg’s point of stacking Anz early and def Hawaii so the Japanese can’t steal a win on the Pac side is directly linked to very good Japanese play. It is also noted that the Anz needs to build some navy and air to help the US, but their main goal is to not loose Sidney.

There is also some good advice about how to use Egypt to supply air to Moscow to prop it up (building an IC & AB as early as plausible), while also building up Egypt to be a last resort defensive stand if Moscow falls. I also like that Q mentioned evacuating India as an option to turtlng and losing all your units. I have evacuated India in the past and traded it to stall the Japanese (they can’t land air on it, so it could be a good chance to kill Japanese ground units). This is a little painful because of the stupid capture capital/plunder rule that should be a one time only IMO (house rule). Those India units can really help in Egypt or Russia if they are alive, and is doable if the Anz and Hawaii aren’t weak, or are shielded. Plus once the Japanese take India they need to decide if they immediately head to the 6th VC for the win (Sidney or Hawaii), or possibly make a move on the Mid East, Egypt, Africa, or north to Russia (maybe linking up with more Japanese units pounding through China).

I agree with all this, generally speaking. Japan can take any one power at the time. The only way to slow down Japan is for all nations to cause Japan to enter attritive battles. E.g., put Japan in a position where they have juicy targets to hit (with something to compensate you for it, like time, loss of position or gain on another front), but too many of them to address.

Thanks guys.

@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.