We need an allied playbook.

i edited in a ger plane in Rome.

@DessertFox599 said in We need an allied playbook.:

The reason to do Toronto Crockett is to get rid of the extra transport. Nobody really cares about the battleship and crusier. Its that second transport Italy has to reinforce Alexandria, take and keep Gibraltar, evacuate Africa if needed, etc.

I think it’s both. With the 4 surface ships Italy starts with, Italy can defend it’s transports against some attacks. Depends what the allies put in range of course. Without the fleet, any attack after getting Greece means suiciding transports.

That 92 stack ends up being both a great way to save ships as well as a counter to sea lion.

@crockett36 correct analysis.

@DessertFox599 I agree about Iraq and against a German player who goes hard at Moscow, Persia is the safer choice. UK can (hopefully) put a complex there and start sending stuff north immediately. Your 2 transports can shuck to Cairo easy enough instead of needed a factory in Iraq or Cairo.

Persia is the most useful but also the most exposed location. Troops from Egypt/South Africa take an extra turn to reach it overland. I don’t know how much of an issue that is but it’s enough for me to prefer the Persia factory.

Not sure what you mean about it being safer though. Troops retreating from Calcutta get there one turn earlier?

@simon33 Safer to take UK1… since no chance you’ll get diced.

@DessertFox599 using bombardment and air power almost guarantees the slaughter of the ground troops, even if you lose your own.

I’ve never understood why anyone would be even slightly interested in taking Iraq on turn 1 – it’s literally impossible for the Axis to activate it before UK2, you can take Persia from the same sea zone, Persia is worth the same amount to your economy, and Persia comes with 2 free troops instead of opposing you with 3 enemy troops.

Even if you have nothing better to do with your bombards and air power on UK1 (which is almost never the case), you should still prefer Persia to Iraq because Persia strengthens your forces and Iraq weakens your forces.

I’ve always found it restricting for air units traversing back and forth between India and Egypt. It’s also 2 more bucks in the British pockets per turn.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

I’ve always found it restricting for air units traversing back and forth between India and Egypt. It’s also 2 more bucks in the British pockets per turn.

It’s only 2 more bucks if you also activate Persia. Are you sending both the SZ98 & SZ39 TTs to SZ80? And air from India - that has to land in Trans-Jordan. I think there are better things to do with India’s planes, and I’m nearly certain there are better things to do with the SZ98 Cruiser.

It’s also not much of a restriction for air. Air can attack UK2 with ground troops and then there’s no more restriction.

I really don’t know what better things i would be doing with the cruiser or the air. the air could help garrison Yunnan? the cruiser is currently steaming toward the Med to reinforce Naval superiority. that’s why it didn’t take a potshot into Iraq?

I see most players stacking Egypt or Yunnan. My troops will be there when the time comes. Though as discussed before, I will not value other cities over the needs of Moscow, in her hour of need. And I surmise that I cannot keep all five of the previously mentioned cities if the enemy is determined to take any but Moscow.

Yes I sent both transports to 80.

The air is probably better used in stacking Burma if there’s been a J1 DOW. Although some may say that the J3 Calcutta crush is a waste of time and the allies should just allow it. I’m not convinced of that one.

The SZ98 cruiser normally either does Taranto or participates in a SZ92 stack. The SZ39 one has more latitude.


dessertfox asked me for a taranto version of my opener. this was a no scramble? would you have scrambled?

allied playbook turn 1engl-taranto.tsvg