Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
We need an allied playbook.
-
@crockett36 correct analysis.
-
Id probably skip on Iraq and go for Ethiopia. Its too dicey
-
@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?
-
-
@simon33 the advantage in this game is with the attacker. I’m trying to make even my defenses into attacks with methods like fade and strike, air used in ground support, staying close to the coast. I want my planes to kill every turn, not sit in a huddle.
-
I might consider scrambling against that but probably wouldn’t. The math shows up as each fighter scrambling gives you good odds to take out a UK fighter, but only 1. (there should also be a German fighter there to make it an even 3).
Also, your G1 makes it so UK can take W. Germany on their turn. Busting that into a mIC would be a nice win for the Allies.
London with zero fighters and a German navy afloat is worrying - even with the U.S. going hard to the Atlantic, I might consider Sea Lion, but mostly it means Japan will go hog wild in the Pacific.[link text]
Your Japan opener is a bit off. Japan needs to hit Yunnan J1 no matter what. I’ve attached a version where I also did the slightly riskier attack including Hunan, but the safer choice is to send that inf and planes to Kwangtung.
triplea_33316_jap1 (1).tsvg -
I don’t get the Yunnan thing. As China and/or the English I’m going to whack that every time and succeed. Is it bloodletting?
-
@crockett36 It blocks China from buying artillery. Very useful down the road to limit their counter attacks.
Its also the largest group of Chinese troops you can hit and you can do it without any real risk of losing.
Suggested Topics
