If you read the designer notes you find that one of the purposes was to make Sealion a possibility. That’s why you can’t get to London from DC in one move. The political rules contribute as well. So yeah, it’s the Axis game to lose.
Guess who just got a laptop after 4 months. Prepare for an avalanche of ideas
@crockett36 spill 'em out!😀
@DizzKneeLand33 said in We need an allied playbook.:
@taamvan well of course it can be deeper than that. The first round of carriers is to support ANZAC. What the bombers do in addition to full board support is to keep Japan’s navy pretty much grouped together. Every game is different, but the key is this: keeping Japan from winning. If you can do that, and then shift to Europe/Egypt, the Allies have good chances even when Moscow falls.
In the end, Moscow will fall against a good German player. That’s really when the game begins, not ends. Keeping the Axis out of Egypt is the key. And, if the US can send planes to make the taking of Moscow more painful to Germany (and not the UK) and to clear the Med and so forth, then the UK can focus fully on Egypt. This is the key to Allied victory imho.
A bomber only costs 12 ipc’s. If you can hit a land stack in one go (say with 25 bombers) then indirectly those bombers control land. And, if you consider the costs of transporting US troops to the mideast, bombers are actually cheaper than infantry when you do the math (and more effective).
Everything counts in large amounts… :)
EDIT: Consider how far ANZAC planes can go on US carriers. US moves then ANZAC before Japan. Even more dead zones are created in the Pacific this way.
A half year passed and i had serveral chances to test the US bmbr strategy.
The fact is: it works!
But: it is working when all Allied nation are working together and the Player who is using the US Strat
Bmbr Strategy is very familiar with the game mechanics.
Recommendable for a Tier 2 and higher Player.
I recommend this strategy to learn and to atleast Test play it.
It should be welcomed by all Starters and Advanced Players.
@aequitas-et-veritas buying bombers is a strong strategy in 42.2 and AAZ as well, because they are the only units that can reach moscow before it falls. They can clear blockers (or in BM, japanese garrision) units and also stratbomb the captured russian factories.
In most versions of the game its hard to go wrong with 1 bomber per turn per US/UK simply because they will be the only units that can affect the moscow battle and all the other stuff you’re building is taking 1-2 value territories and takes way too long to threaten germany
Keep in mind buying bombers forces the axis player to keep valuable fighters on the defensive rather than Moscow for fear of getting bombed to death.
I’ve got 15 min before I need to get ready for church. The strategy that I’m going to put forward has and can give you unrestricted access to Normandy, SFrance, Holland, Denmark, WGermany and Norway every turn after it arrives. Think of them as irresistible raiding parties. This is satisfying and makes the game fun. In the second stage of development, the Allies can see France back in the game as a playable power. In this stage you could also pop a factory in Norway and (believe it or not) Holland. After they are in place, I think, gears can perhaps must be shifted.
One of the key factors in the late game is the map. Obviously Denmark is a huge issue. Grabbing that is essential to threatening Germany and that must be threatened almost every round so that he garrisons it against a double assault. Just as significant is WGer/NItaly. Consider this a line that must be cut. Assuming transports in 91, Italy has to garrison the south. The north will be weak and can be blitzed by a large number of planes. WGer can be shelled and invaded and then invaded again by the Brits. Cut this cord every turn and let the French grow strong enough to flex her muscle and now you have a three wave attack that must make the Huns rethink their career choices.
Meanwhile, What do you do with the elaborate navy and shuck that you’ve been building?
More thoughts to come later.
This is an exciting array of options. T
@crockett36 Whatever fleet you have has to survive the full German air force. That’s often 14-18 attackers. Once the fleet has to break into two pieces (to sit in 91, 112 and 110, or any other choice territories) it is much easier to pick off and the US and UK have to operate in lockstep to avoid losing half the fleet. Germany can usually hail mary that battle because if they kill the transport stack, thats game.
Liberating Paris under OOB rules is a disaster because it collects full income, throws off friendly allied control, and then the Axis take it back.
Yeah, haven’t seen 14 to 18 attackers. . My navies keep floating.
But as far as theoretical strategy goes, you can see that a clever allied strategist can keep the air force in the West at the very time it is needed in the East. Certainly you can agree that you can place a fleet in the channel with scramble and be untouchable. And you need waves. The allies have to assume casualties. My builds have been almost four planes per turn because I assume I’m going to lose four guys and four planes a turn.
And if you take over the coasts, many times that steals valid landing areas for the tacs and fighters. And you want them to attack you. Luftwaffe eat fleets AND fleets eat luftwaffe. Wars are not won without bleeding.
How does Dave do it? Didn’t you say he likes to build a factory in Norway? He must pass the gauntlet.
You should have seen me at Grasshoppers place playing Deluxe. I counted and recounted every air that could hit my fleet. It was huge. More money is infused into the game. I think I was getting around a 100 per turn as America. And Ger never took the shot because he knew he would have been toast. And he did have 18ish air that could hit me. Fun game the second and third day. The first day was so discouraging–it felt like June 1940. Great game.
The shuck infrastructure.
@crockett36
Hi there!
Only one question: how much seazones you will (or you think you’ll be able to) cover with those 4 carriers?
Cheers
That’s for the English Channel. Depending on what can hit me and what can hit 91. I try to make the 91 attack a 30 percent chance of victory for them because I want to kill those bombers if they take the shot. Assuming bombers are coming from the capitals, if you conquer Africa to Tun, have Normandy and Holland every turn, bombers have no safe landing zones except S France which they must garrison. If they garrison it, it can be invaded by the boats in 91 in conjunction with the fighters in the English Channel and bombers from Eng. Check out the thread “allied playbook game”.
In case you weren’t aware, I have been involved in a game through triplea under the heading the allied playbook game. I wanted to begin to analyze the game and make adjustments accordingly.
In looking at my strategic objectives, one might see that the order of their importance has dictated my implementation. I did save the Atlantic, London, Moscow, Egypt in that order. Moscow is in danger, but it has not fallen despite it being turn 8. It also must be noted that I was the one to bring up the term argumentum ad absurdum. I discussed abandoning one, Bombay, in order to strengthen the others. It was absurd and I implemented that as well. Another absurd thing I did was to stack Hawaii with a boat load of planes–get it! So I did not abandon the Pacific as much as I chose to make Hawaii and Sidney fortresses. It has been effective thus far. Neither has fallen permanently yet. Eventually Sidney will fall irretrievably and I will lose. My opponent thinks a bid would help. A more elegant solution would be to ignore the victory city win or offer one for the Allies… Grasshopper has reduced the six vc win to a victory point. Now, don’t think I’ve given up on OOB. More to come
I don’t like “abandon” Bombay but if one can use UKPac/China to cost Japan a lot of planes, I’m for it!
Its my favorite Yunnan stack move, if you can lure Japan into winning a big battle, but it costs them 6+ planes, that’s a victory, even if you end up losing India.
My only remaining concern is if Japan gets India, the threat it has on the Middle East. I don’t have a good handle on that yet.
In my Mechanized Russia thread, I mention my current strategy which appears to be similar to yours. I’m spending 100% U.S. on the Atlantic for the first few turns and simply trying to stall or annoy Japan, cost them valuable planes or transports when possible.
Everything else is designed to 1) slap Italy back away from Africa/ME; 2) get Norway; 3) get Normandy; 4) fill Iraq/Iran with UK infantry stacks
So, more or less I’m hoping to stall Germany long enough on Moscow for the U.S. to take Norway/Finland and cause other threats so that there are no more Germany reinforcements to Russia, and the UK blocks Germany from the ME and then picks a spot (Greece, Normandy) to chip in on Europe.
@crockett36 Thanks - fun to hear how all the discussions in this thread are playing out. Did you open with Taranto, or stack in sz 92?
@crockett36 We add Johannesburg as the extra VC.
Your game sounds fun; you’re implying a KGF with a turtled sydney and hono. Ive found that when Japan runs wild, you have to turtle both all game in order to avoid a 1 board VC loss.
You should really look at Mark Movel’s VC Card. He has a full set of house rules, but his VC card stands on its own. Its a list of “Do 10 of the following X things by turn 10 and you win, otherwise, you lose”
If you PM your email I can send you the card. Its even better than YG rules in order to create 1) rational VC for allies 2) remove irrational and too easy VC for axis 3) make cadgy and fun new targets for aggression that are more or less meaningless in the base game like Cyprus/Crete. Its simpler than BM and its a set-length game.
Sounds interesting. I especially like the idea that the axis has/have? to prove they are winning as the aggressors. You mentioned the base game. I have been thinking a lot about this game as an onion. I had a discussion with black elk about it. So Larry would strip away all of the complicated rules of global (national objectives, national advantages, sub warfare, scrambling, air bases, naval ports, victory cities) and give us a base game. Then he would release the additional elements as mods. Even release maps that are unique to the mod releases. I for one do not like the spending so much money garrisoning hono or sidney. It’s gamey. It’s meant to shorten the game, but it distorts it. If it was a mod, you could drop it in or take it out.
I know this fractures the community even further. I don’t like that. It would make it easier to teach since the base game would be …basic.
@weddingsinger I will look at that thread. Trulpen held the US out of the game to the max. This made for a DDay invasion of Spain. I classically blundered in adding two different experiments into one game: Spanish beachhead/neutral crush and 3 Brit factories in the Middle East. So if I fail, it is hard to tell which one had more of an effect. Fun game. He is pressuring Moscow, Bombay and Hono at the same time in the 9th round.
My point in mentioning the game is that he has quite a robust defense of Norway despite being crushed in every other coastal territory. And right now I need to break through to help in Moscow instead of meat grind on the Western front.
https://youtu.be/BvEXvTYk0Zc This video explains my AnA life right now as I tinker my way toward an allied path to victory.
