We need an allied playbook.

Thanks so much for the input everyone.

You can take an egg carton for a dozen eggs, cut off the top, place it inside one of the plastic boxes the pieces come in (it fits perfectly) and you have a cheap and quick way to comparmentalize your pieces.  It took a few months to get all the ones we needed based on our egg eating rate. :)

We use two for the U.S. (including the Chinese pieces) and two for England.  We use two more to hold the roundels, industrial complexes, ports, airbases, ect.

@rscerie Only way to convince me is to play against me as the Allies over the YouTube, Yes I have thrown down the Gauntlet!!!

@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.

@Guru03:

My brother always beats me in the 1st round in A&A and i dread playing because of that. Can you give me some good allies and some good axis strategies to help me win?

One thing you might have failed to realise is that the Allies are supposed to suffer heavy casualties in the early war, and then progress into winning in the long run.

Think of the axies as the school bully who pushes the young allies around. Then in the long run the Allies go to college and become CEO of Goldman Sachs and proceed to dick on the over-cocky axies. If the Allies give up in the early stages, well they will never win, whilst if they stick to their guns and make the good investments and minimize their loss, they win in the long run.

so it cant move through an unoccupied enemy territory. perfect. that’s just like i thought it should have been. and now i know the purpose of blitzing.

thank you sir.

Mark: We will be starting the game around 9 or so this morning, so I will let you know how it goes. I usually spend some time going through various scenarios in my head and speculating as to which side should have the greater advantage when doing changes like this. Without really looking at the board, I am thinking it will be the Allies, because for one their are many more of them so they stand to gain more by teaming up/attacking the Axis at the same time. Furthermore, one of the 3 Axis players (Japan) can’t really use this advantage, b/c they are pretty much isolated.

With that in mind, I am considering weakening the Allies a bit and see how it pans out. One idea I have is reducing the major IC in India to a minor, and adding another minor IC in West India as well. I will probably also add a couple extra infantry in India to start out with too. This will allow India to serve as a legitimate garrison for the UK, with allowing them to dominate…at least thats the plan.

I am considering this approach b/c I believe the Allies will dominate the Atlantic, and Germany will be hard pressed against a combined US/UK invasion plus Russia breathing down their necks, so my thinking is that by weakening India’s offensive capabilities a bit, Japan will be able to pressure Russia more from the east, thus making up for the imbalance in the west.

Like I said, this will take some time to get down, but I think the two-turn system will be worth it in the end. I really wish A&A would move to this system in the first place, as I know many that use it, or would like to use it.

Let me know your thoughts!..

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP