We need an allied playbook.

@thedesertfox

Yeah, I’ve read that and I believe it. I think until 1943 or 1944 the Americans had more ground units in the Pacific?

Yeah, the US built a ton of ships. For some reason the US never gets to seemingly similar numbers in the game.

@waxenhen4 said in Allies getting destroyed every game?:

@Contango thanks for the pictures

So is the most optimal counter for an all in Russia attack really abandoning EVERY thing except Moscow? I suppose this would deny the VC but give Germany almost all of Russia’s ipc value for free.

the UK advice seems pretty strong but what do you think makes a better permanent main landing for the allies: Normandy, north/south Italy, or south France? (assume your not playing a mod that appears to have made southern France neutral)

For Russia it might be a bit strong to say to abandon absolutely everything. I think you can justify deviating from a full on retreat under certain circumstances:

You can make a case that your deviation stands a good chance of actually helping your Moscow odds.

Examples:

Trading units to re-take Novgorod, Ukraine and Volgograd -> not only kills German units but also denies factory usage Sending some mechanized units to kill small groups of German tanks/mechs trying to do a Northern run-by to gobble up income If Germany moves ahead too quickly, or splits up and leaves you an opportunity to strafe his army and still be safe afterwards, (a strafe is where you make an attack with intentions of retreating on purpose) or otherwise leaves you a lucrative unit trade Germany has allocated resources away from Russia, so Russia can now flip to offense.

Examples:

German production switches heavily to the Atlantic Germany decides to do a mid-game Sea Lion Germany goes hard with mechanized units into the middle east leaving you outnumbering his slower army

As for my thoughts on an Allied permanent landing:

Normandy is probably the best:

Free factory Opportunity for UK ground troops to use US transports easily UK Air cover (watch the Italians taking out your airbase before Germany’s turn) UK production of extra naval units if things get lively and it’s necessary Furthest from Moscow, meaning German planes have to pick one or the other German infantry/artillery have to move off of defending West Germany to get there Can quickly switch to the Med if you see opportunity Threat of sniping Berlin (US takes Denmark, UK follows up with transports to Berlin)

I find Norway is good, but kind of situational. You can sometimes really annoy Germany with a small investment of suicided transports and not taking your entire fleet out of position and away from air cover.

@Karl7:

@Talleyrand19:

Been following this thread as best as possible so sorry if this was already mentioned and I missed it…

But what happens if Allies spend most of their money on the Atlantic with only a few capital ships in the Pacific to join up with Anzac. The Atlantic money goes to transports and capital ships and then tanks and infantry. With England’s help, you hit Spain and Gibraltar  (for the naval base). Then every single turn the US can land more stuff and set up a nonstop funnel. If Russia does its job then axis should not be able to keep up on both fronts. If Germany sent its Dark Skies bombers to try to stop the funnel, then fine you can wipe each other out and still land more US troops the next turn.

My friends and I have done this to each other and the Spain landing always overwhelms the Axis eventually. …

What have you all experienced when trying this?

Yes, this is a good strategy.  The weak point is then the Germans blitz into the middle east, ignoring Moscow.  They can get an economic advantage and then just sit back and outbuild the allies.

Perhaps have Iraq and the Persian territories be treated as True Neutral, just give the UK and USSR extra units to make up the potential difference.

I like the idea of 1 or 2 French infantry in FIC. I know historically there wasn’t a huge French presence there, I just always thought that territory shouldn’t be totally empty.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

Mission 1:  Sink Jap Fleet
Mission 2: SBR and Convoy them to the stone age
Mission 3: Hope you get enough into Europe to change the Axis fortune there.

i would also rather fight on his turf where i get income generating for as long as possible. once you have to back down that’s when you are basically saying, “I lose moscow sooner or later.”

@MarkVIIIMarc:

If you have the AA guns around do you have the white complexes from one of the old games?

I use the complexes & AA Guns from old games. I much prefer that over the silly little squares that are so hard to pick up.