We need an allied playbook.

Ok…. So another question. What would you consider the best naval defense against 1-3 German subs and 2-4 planes?

I superior force.  Use the battle calculator to tell you if they’d win or not, and if they would…don’t move in yet.  It’s up to you to place your units in harm’s way.  The US has the luxury of waiting until they want to or need to move in without fear of someone attacking their capital.

The “best” naval defense depends on what your strategy is.  I find carriers essential in the Pacific, and often judge if I have the upper hand by a carrier count of the Allies vs. Japan.  If Japan has 6 loaded carriers to your 2, Japan is probably winning at the moment.  In Europe, I tend to go with more offshore rolls if I’m feeling offensive, or just stick with destroyers and strat bombers that can land in Gibraltar and England and hit just about anywhere.

Back to your example.  I assume the subs are by Western Germany and the planes are in Normandy or carrier based.  I’d ask…why do you NEED to move in to Gibraltar this turn to put your fleet at risk?  Wait another round and add 4 more destroyers, another carrier and planes, or other round of purchases to your fleet.  Germany usually doesn’t have the same capacity to match your purchases if they want to make progress vs. Russia at all.  Take your time and build up, then move in.

One easy rule is to add up hits and attack power.  If they have 3 subs and 2 ftr 2 tac, that’s 20 atk and 7 hits.  make sure you have 1.5 times the number of hits and you’re probably good.  Go in with 12 destroyers.  or 2 loaded carriers and 4 dds.  Carriers are great because they bring extra 4’s into the fight, and if you’re hard up for money, the UK or France can land their planes on your carrier if you’re thinking pure defense.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

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.

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

I’m with ghr.  The strength of Russian infantry is in their mass, not left to die in a 33% that they take out an Axis Infantry with them.

@manincellv:

What is the current rule on this?

If damaged lets say to 3 markers and I repair 1 marker, can it still function?  Or does all the damage need to be repaired to get the AB/NB back to functioning?

Thanks.

Bases may only be damaged for a maximum of 6 points.

Bases are……

Operational with 2 or less points of damage

Inoperative with 3 or more points of damage

So no, you don’t need to fully repair bases in order to use them.

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.”

allies have a greater income, but axis have an advantage of proximity and not having to rely on transports (except for Japan).

Victory conditions don’t matter as players always agree to what they want.  I actually like the current setup, I feel germany could use one or two more guys for round 1 to smooth things out… usa should likewise get a few more guys to take South America sooner.

Germany can bust a nut real fast taking london, moscow is a little trickier since tanks are 6. slug or blitz.

probably going to have to make up some rules for the next game, not going to wait 6 months for the next version.

Glad I could be of service Bishop =)

@Col.:

I’m looking to do the same thing as Bishop. I already got the boards, boxes, bases, etc, now I’m just looking to fill out the pieces. I have two sets of Spring 42 pieces and a set of Italian pieces, and an old set to use for China, so I need french and anzac pieces, and tac. bombers and mech. inf.

Nobody really answered the part in Bishop’s question about how many mech. inf. and tac. bombers each country needs. I was sort of wondering the same thing. Does the US and UK need 12 of each? Could they get by with using like 9 each, maybe even less? I’m not opposed to using chips so that’s not an issue.

Maybe the better question is are they really needed? I can see where mechs would help getting to the front line quicker with the added territories, but am I killing the game by not having tacs?

You need tacs for each country, and in my opinion more units is better than not enough. I’m not at home so I can’t count the pieces but I believe from counting before that there’s between 6-10 each of mech and tacs. It really sucks running out so buy on the higher side to be safe.