We need an allied playbook.

United States Playbook
We do not play chess. The sides do not start off equal, and by the end of the first turn and even into the second, the ability of the Axis to destroy units within close proximity is enormous. The Allied situation is dire from the start and gets worse. Most games played online, even with bids, end with Axis victory.
Therefore the principles that guide this Allied US strategy playbook are:

1. to preserve the Allied starting units
2. to give ground where it is hopeless or prudent
3. to determine the place of the battle when possible

The options we have are many and dependent. On the other hand they are not entirely reactionary. The strategic defensive objectives remain the same. We must save London, the Atlantic, Moscow, Egypt, India, and the Pacific. In that order in my view. The strategic offensive objectives are perhaps a little different than the Axis powers. Whereas they are going for either early London, Middle Moscow, middle or late London and an economy that is at parity with the United States at war, the Allies are generally not going to take Berlin or Tokyo or even Rome. Rather the Allies are going for a radical dashing of the economic ambitions of the Axis and a capitulation. Keeping the Germans contained on the Russian front to the gates of Moscow and no further, kicking the Italians out of Africa and keeping them out of the Middle East, containing the Japanese to a fight for China and southeast Asia should give the edge to the Allies.

Accomplishing the suppression of Axis ambitions is achieved in two ways: eliminate units on the board and his ability to make war. The former is obvious, the latter may not be. Destroying an enemy’s ability to make war boils down to economics. Economics in this game is represented on the board by the cash values of the territories and the convoy zones on the map. In order to reduce your opponent’s income, you can do one of three things: take possession of his territory, disrupt his convoys, strategically bomb his factories. Conversely, it means not losing your own territories to the aggressors. These factors determine our strategic offensive objectives.
Destroying an enemy’s ability to make war by disrupting his convoys can be a devastating strategy. In fact in several sea zones on the map, it is catastrophic if done in numbers. Parking your navies in the Sea of Japan and in sea zone 97 to the east of Rome are prime examples of this endgame tactic.

Likewise, two strategic bombers will shut down minor factories and cost the enemy double to restore them to full capacity. Five bombers will almost guarantee shutting down a major factory. Losses will be high and costly to the ally who pursues this course of action but worth it. Be aware that Germany has two major factories so he can ignore the loss of one of them. Also be aware that German itself cannot be reached from London. A point in Scandinavia or Russia must be secured or maintained in order to thoroughly execute this strategy against the Huns.
In the East, you must get very close to the Island of Japan in order to bomb her. Iwo Jima or the Soviet Far East seem the best candidates. Some have even suggested Korea. Allied planes and tactical fighters can reinforcement Korea from Hawaii if the Soviets were to capture it. A strategy that keeps Russian troops on the east coast of Russia must be used in coordination with these plans. Be careful of the kamikazes. You can non-combat move into a K-zone without triggering their wrath. An attack on a navy in Sz 6 with subs and air will not provoke Kamikazes.

Having discussed how to destroy the enemies ability to make war, we move on to how to eliminate the units on the board. How to do this with the resources on the board and the limited time before a catastrophe like the fall of London or Moscow or Bombay occurs is the crux of the game. Historically it was agreed upon by the Allies that stopping Germany took primacy over stopping Japan. Victor Davis Hanson says that for all that kind of talk, a bifurcation developed that the West Coast produce goods for the Pacific war and the East Coast produce goods for the European theater. Unfortunately, for play ability’s sake, the US economy is not correctly represented. When you read VDH, there is a common refrain, “America produced more of … than all of the other combatants combined.” Obviously, this is not our situation.
Therefore kill Japan first strategy or kill Germany first strategies have been developed. I prefer the KGF strategy, and it was the agreed upon Allied strategy historically. The big question is can I pop Germany’s balloon before Japan’s expands beyond control. This question has validity. However, mathematically it is nonsensical. If Japan’s economy grows to 70 or 80, it would still be dwarfed by the combined Allied income that would result from the shriveling of the German Reich.

In light of these encouraging thoughts, let’s look at KJF strategies. I have mentioned bombing Japan from either Iwo Jima or Soviet Far East. This can be done in two ways. Russian troops can move to SFE and be reinforced with American fighters and troops. That could be done very early in the game, even T1, assuming a J1 attack. Alternatively, the Russians could be gathered in Sahka on T1 and a subsequent move to SFE could be arranged by T3 with impressive results.

Alternatively, an Iwo Jima assault would need to be a tour de force. It might take 2 or 3 rounds of navy and air builds before you could attempt it. If one takes the same meat grinder approach as seen on the Eastern front, US waves of ships cannot help but overcome the Japanese. You must be willing to bleed. A substantial number of subs in your fleet can directly impact the enemy’s capital ships. Bombers can be used against the fleet and turn around and impact the struggle for Eurasian.

Another strong option for the American player executing a KJF strategy is to begin a naval arms race with the Japanese. This can have an indirect effect on Eurasia. The fear of losing possession of Sz 6 will motivate the Japanese to keep up. Another option is to make a move on the “money islands”. This can be affected by either securing the Caroline Islands or traveling to Queensland and then springing into action. There is a great deal of fear surrounding this strategy. The loss of a fleet would be understandably discouraging. However, to draw the bulk of the enemy’s fleet so far out of position is itself (two turns from sz6) a feat worth considering, especially if there is a second, albeit smaller fleet threatening the Japanese homeland. You can afford this. He can too, but not without injuring his continental ambitions.

It should also be noted that, should America be left out of the war until turn 4, a great deal of marshaling and posturing can be done far away from the US coast that will influence the enemy’s decision making, drawing his attention away from Bombay.

A floating bridge strategy in the Pacific is difficult for several reasons, but not without merit. Naval superiority is the most obvious challenge. I have mentioned the value of capturing the Caroline Islands. The most tantalizing of options might be a 12 transport shuck between North America and Russia. Four would leave San Fran and go to Soviet Far East, four from Alaska to sz 1, four from sz 1 to San Fran. The drawback is that the land units have so much ground to cover before they effect serious change. It should be noted, however, that this must draw the enemy’s eye north, potentially saving Indian lives. A naval base in Alaska would even threaten the Japanese homeland. An airbase there would make any attempt to destroy the shuck costly, though the SFE transports are vulnerable.

KGF
As to KGF strategies, the saving of the Atlantic takes priority because of the logistical needs of the Allies, particularly the Americans and the British. We must transverse waters. The Russians, Chinese, Italians and Germans don’t. We do. In fact, we can’t win without doing so. Aircraft would not be sufficient. Therefore safe passage must be guaranteed.
London must be saved. It may be lost, but it must be saved. Loss of any capital is a huge problem. The number of spaces on the board between Moscow and Washington is staggering. London is a necessary way station. Of course, without control of London, one ally is out of the game and is no longer producing combatants.

If Moscow falls, Eurasia is in danger of being swallowed up. There is probably nothing between the panzers and the Pacific ocean. The economic situation is very dire. If the Russians were able to retreat some of their units, if there is a strong British presence in the Middle East and North Africa, if the Chinese are still on the board and if the Americans have already put boots on the ground in Eurasia, then there is hope. Better it does not come to this.

However, Napoleon did take Moscow. And then his army starved to death. The German troops that make it that far are probably not coming back any time soon. They are an expeditionary force that will not return to Europe until around turn eight or nine at best. There is opportunity here. He will have to stack soldiers.

working on a play BOOK. KJF is done. Did I miss anything?

I’m trying to be systematic, so I can’t interact with other playbooks until US is done.

Allies Playbook:

Hold out until the USA enters the war. USA build only strategic bombers and roll technology until super bomber. Then destroy everything that matters. Game over.

Pretty simple.

That worked twenty years ago for stalemated games of Classic but in Global, probably not. No matter how much tech you roll, you only get 1, and then only have a 1/6 chance of getting HB, which is much less powerful than the version of heavy bombers in Classic. (its doesnt multiply their power to attack/SBR, it only lets it pick the best of 2 dice).

@taamvan Even without the tech, 20 or 30 bombers flying around…pretty much can put an end to most fleets or ground advances.

Yes, but its an extreme exaggeration as to the number you can deliver to the actual front before the Axis kill you, and you cannot do anything else if you invest 240 IPCs in bombers. 6-10 near the US is a more likely practical number by midgame, in my experience. And while that force is deadly to most fleets, it takes casualties against the TUV trade, cannot defend itself, has to land somewhere (usually somewhere unsafe). A mixed attack force is going to work better (subs early, bombers later).

Its also just as likely that Germany gets 6 or so of these bombers, it has other things it has to accomplish but it can use this strategy against the allies during the early game and express the same threat towards their early game fleets—perhaps with some subs and small planes to act as casualties…

@taamvan I’ve been in quiet a few stalemated games of Classic - Lol that brings back some memories.

@Guam-Solo
that was college

ugly shag carpet that swallowed figures and dice
giant plastic mug that fits exactly 3 busch light drafts @ 36oz
actual game start around 11pm due to extensive pre-discussion and table talk
actual game end around 3am due to players falling asleep on the floor

Its funny too because that game is like a little red wagon if Global is a camaro…and we can complete Global games as grown ups without much ado…

However, Napoleon did take Moscow. And then his army starved to death. The German troops that make it that far are probably not coming back any time soon. They are an expeditionary force that will not return to Europe until around turn eight or nine at best. There is an opportunity here. He will have to stack soldiers for defense. This usually leaves his perimeter exposed. His perimeter includes an often naked Scandinavia and an exposed underbelly. Greece is particularly interesting because it is usually empty of enemies as well.

As before we need to begin with the end. What structure do we want to set up to deal a death blow to Germany? One obvious answer is to overwhelm him by putting more boots on the ground than he can. Therefore we need an efficient transport shuck enabled by naval supremacy. Traditionally this has meant leaving the East Coast and poising in sz91 and then preceding from there to either Scandinavia or S. France or even Italy or Normandy. The other option is to take a longer voyage directly to England. This option is generally safer. The problem with 91 is that it can usually be reached by air units and any residual Atlantic fleet and Axis subs from the Med that can somehow slip through Gibraltar. Italians and Germans can tag team the zone if need be. If you have lost a fleet in 91, say hey below. It happens. Thus you need twice the fleet to protect the shuck. You need a formidable fleet at your destination and one at 91.

Let me say that a fleet that draws the enemy’s air to attack it is self evidently meant to draw units away from Moscow. Sometimes, presenting yourself as a tantalizing target is strategically shrewd. The question that should be asked is, how many of his units might he lose and can he replace them without ruining his ground game.

A shuck alternative that is extremely safe and effective is walking your troops into Canada (sz106) and shucking troops to sz109 and landing them in England. This is a 12 transport shuck, four transversing the Atlantic, four back to Canada and four landing troops wherever. Sz109 can still be hit by bombers but has the protection of scrambling fighters, six if you have them.

@crockett36 Have you seen GHG’s Floating Bridge strategy video? I like his set up for a shuck basing the navy off Gibraltar and using Morocco to unloading units coming from U.S. but also loading from there into transports with the range to shuck troops to multiple Med targets. The Brits drop an airbase on Gibraltar too allowing a scramble to defend the fleet. Do you think your thoughts here align with the floating bridge approach?

@taamvan Sounds like my college had better carpet! But the end result was the same–falling asleep on the floor…to an unfinished game.

@Guam-Solo Absolutely. I appreciated the video. I haven’t tried it myself. Have you? There are disadvantages to this. One of those zones will encounter heavy opposition. That requires massive amounts of navy. Real naval and air supremacy. What do you think? At least two loaded carriers, four destroyers, one battleship or a cruiser in both locations.

The crucial aspect is the wave portion. Not only do the troops need to keep being shucked, but the navy also needs to be constantly added to in case of catastrophe. I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost my shuck fleet on more than one occasion. I had a backup fleet drop in the water that same turn.

@crockett36 No, I haven’t had the opportunity to try it. I don’t get many games in–but I’ll get to play one during Christmas and would like to try the floating bridge combined with the objectives you’ve lined out in this thread.

@Guam-Solo I don’t play nearly as much as I would like. My son who likes Axis and Allies doesn’t like Global 40 so we play around with different versions and house rule stuff. Good times, but not helpful for “cracking the code”–an allied strategy that brings balance to the … force?! Game. Thingy.

@crockett36 Now the most important thing about any shuck or even an assault on a large scale is the wave effect. They can see it coming or not coming. A large assault on Normandy will be handled differently by the enemy if he looks at way stations like sz 91 or Halifax and sees them empty. He can afford to throw everything at the invaders because they have no backup. He will have a breather, time to rebuild.

What will we do with the shucked troops? Normandy is right there for you to land them at your discretion. Normandy is also right there, two spaces away from W Germany. There are two ways to approach this landing. One would be a constant drip of 8 units landing every round. Another would be a significant build up, say double or triple that number. (more transports) Either way, they are threatening and must cause the German and Italian players to marshal soldiers toward the West.

What was true for Normandy is also true for S France, unless you captured Northern Italy previously or capture it simultaneously. General Handgrenade is a proponent of this location because it requires so few transports to maintain the shuck. It will require two large navies to protect two vulnerable sea zones.

Greece is a sixteen transport shuck for the Americans and requires protecting three different sea zones. It is the most obvious blind spot in the Third Reich and could even be a one-off, sending four transports to their doom to accomplish the spectacular feat of placing eight units behind enemy lines. Fun, at least, though probably not sustainable for the Americans.

Scandinavia has many advantages. You can capture it and then build a minor factory. You can bomb Germany and W Germany back into the stone age. It will probably never be contested unless the Axis’ balloon is mammoth or he left a force behind in Karelia. The navies have to move together. New builds for England and our reinforcements might be vulnerable. Keep those planes at the ready for scrambling.

The big question that looms over Scandinavia is is this landing a “rescue of Moscow” or a second front? Aside from a lone tank, sent to liberate territories and aircraft meant to help defend, the answer is a second front. You are right there. Across the water is Berlin. Don’t take your eyes off the prize. And pressure on Berlin will force Germany to abandon its perimeter. You may have successfully peeled the onion one more layer. Normandy might be yours for cheap.

@crockett36 Which is the better sea zone to park the big allied fleet to protect the schucking of soldiers? 110 or 91? GHG’s floating bridge uses 91 which I think has greater flexibility for where to go and really puts pressure on the Axis to defend all it’s European coastal borders. I hate this as a German player–spreading thin to try and have a counterattack available for repulsing an invasion from anywhere. But 110 gives some flexibility (Normandy or Norway for example) but an invasion into the Med becomes obvious as it would take two moves/rounds. Axis could see it coming and set up for it. I like 110 though because it forces Germany to make available aircraft for defense or counter-invasion by keeping the Luftwafe close to the western front and out of the Russia battle.

@crockett36 In this post I liked your emphasis on waging economic war on an opponent. You listed these objectives: Taking possession of territory (cash value of these), SB factories and convoys. I was thinking to add denying the achievement of national objectives to your opponent when possible. New players often miss this.

@Argothair Of the 4 most plausible targets you list, do you think the US can realistically drive for two of them at once? In particular, drive for one objective each on both sides of the map?

@Guam-Solo Good question, Guam Solo. In most games, the USA can push for one objective on each side of the map, but not literally at the same time – the push for one objective should start two or three turns earlier than the push for the second objective. The reasoning here is that during the first stage of your campaign, you will need transports and men and warships and some air support in order to safely occupy a sea zone and then gain control of your targeted land territories. This is very expensive and consumes 85%+ of the US’s resources. At best, your remaining resources can be used to garrison a region that is already Allied-controlled (e.g., stack Honolulu with infantry, or stack Gibraltar with fighters). However, during the second stage of your campaign, when you have already achieved regional naval supremacy, you generally do not need to build new warships, and you may even be able to recycle some of your transports by sending them on a loop back and forth between safe sea zones. You can re-fill four transports much, much more cheaply than you can build four new transports, fill those transports, build an escorting navy, and build an escorting air force – and the resulting savings can be used to open a new offensive campaign.

The exception to this rule is when all of the Axis powers press inward toward Moscow, without paying serious attention to contesting the USA’s attacks. If Germany sends its entire air force east and builds nothing but mechs and tanks while Japan sends its entire air force west while building nothing but minor factories, then you can probably get away with an all-out simultaneous two-front war, because your landing parties just won’t be facing much opposition, so you won’t need to build as many escort ships / planes to support each loaded transport.