We need an allied playbook.

@YUMYAM

By the way how did the US bonuses go? Did you get the correct amount? Or did the US 20 IPCs per theater?

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

A lot of times what usually breaks the Allies is how poor US reacts to what side of the world to fight on.

Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

With a J1DOW and Japan taking Calcutta meaning to swing back and take Hawaii as well ~J8, the allies can follow 1 of 2 basic strategies in Europe:

USA invests heavily in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard. This forces the UK to go heavy into the ME with 2 ICs in Egypt/Iraq/Persia (3 ICs is perhaps no unnecessary luxury in this scenario). This is because Calcutta needs to be taken back once Japan grabs Hawaii. A little bit from what comes out of those ICs can maybe get into Moscow as well to aid Russia in keeping it. The UK will have only minor bits of IPCs left to assist the USA in Western Europe (~10/turn, TRS as best buy).

USA invests only mildly in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard with massive UK aid (not such heavy UK presence in the ME as above). Typically USA serves only as a can-opening threat for UK-follow up. Example: USA takes Norway + Denmark, UK takes Berlin (If Germany ignores the allies and keeps throwing everything at Russia).

Whatever strategy is followed, the Wallies must somehow make sure their threat is in place G5, so that Germany will loose either WG, Rome or Berlin if it builds all aircraft for a G6 assault on Moscow (depending how many investments the USA made and thus, how many the UK was able to assist).

Typical forces USA can expect in Europe with heavy investments: 2DD, 2CV, 5FTR, 1TAC, ~4STR and 2TRS per turn (fully loaded). Early TRS can ofc be filled with Brazilians and other starting units. Once Normany and SF are taken (and/or WG), USA also produces from those factories. US6 should see 27US and 8UK land units and 9 USAF in or approaching Western Europe. A bit too much for Germany/Italy if they focused everything on Russia all the way into G5 and only start building troops against the wallies G6 (10 in Berling and WG each can be overrun -one of them if not both), so if this doesn’t arrest German flow of reinforcements into Russia I don’t know what does…

Investing ‘mildly’ still sees the USA with 2DD, 2CV, 3FTR, 1TAC, 3STR, 6TRS fully loaded.
Because the USA should be able to keep Japan out of Hawaii/Sydney with the extra IPCs put into the Pacific, the UK can put more effort in Western Europe at the cost of the ME, starting a war of attrition with Germany. The few troops the USA has should not be ‘kamikazed’ but used as a can-opening threat (Berlin, see above) and to capture areas Germany cannot recapture (Norway, for example).

On a sidenote: a couple of RAF-FTR really enhances Russian defenses in Moscow. The more ships/early bombers Germany builds, the less RAF the UK needs to send. With Max German land production (i.e. no ships/early bombers at all), Moscow may need 10-12 Spitfires/Mosquito’s to withstand the assault.

These are only the basics of what I know the allies can do. They must be adjusted whenever the Axis adjust… If, for example, the USA invests heavily into Europe and Japan does not look likely to swing back at Sydney/Hawaii but rather continues to invest heavily in Mainland Asia/Russia, the UK may ease their spending in the ME a bit and assist the USA a while in spending much more for western Europe for a couple of turns…

didn’t have time to read all of it, but one thing that has probably not been mentioned;

when germany is capable of taking moscow, then, it is time to retreat, if you alow his stack to kill you in moscow, and then turn south, it is hard to defend cairo, if you retreat from moscow, and force him to keep his stack there, then that stack will not turn south. at this point you will prolly only collect like 8 ipc anyways, while your army should be worth at least 250 IPC, prolly like 300, do not let him kill it for half the number of IPC, then it is far better to let him get moscow, and keep retreating, forcing him to either build a completly new army to attack cairo over land, or to alow you back into moscow at some point.

@JimmyHat:

I think you can attack unescorted transports, because they would not have any larger combat ships to hide behind.  This would be the only occurrence though because the kamikaze pilots are trained to go for the big combat vessels and not the weak, cheap transport vessels.

No, you can’t.  The errata has not overridden the pac40 rulebook, and the errata applies to Alpha 2.  Alpha 2 only changed the triggers to kamis but it didn’t change how they work.
Kamis can only target surface warships, and it’s not an attack (so deceptive to call it that).  it’s ONLY a defensive action declared at the end of a combat move (not during a combat move) in exactly the same way scrambling is declared.

This also has never changed, it’s ALWAYS been if combat move ENDS in a kami symbol SZ, which ALWAYS means either combat in the seazone or an amphibious assault.  You can’t combat move if you aren’t going to conduct combat.