We need an allied playbook.

@JDOW also would you mind if I read your input on youtube?

@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%.

Interesting idea, and would make for one hell of a night……but if every power had to take the time to write down every move, it might take a while unless they know short hand LOL. Plus it could even slow things down more in the thinking department because now you have so many more what if’s…  All hands on deck moving units around afterwards could cause a frenzy too (going to need some kind of order).

I know some people do an all axis/all allied turn order, maybe look into that

@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.

When I play Japan I like to play with the long-term in mind.  That is, I don’t really go for early do-or-die strategies like an India crush.  If I’m given the opportunity, I’ll go for it, but normally I’ll just try to improve Japan’s economy and keep it that way.

On the turn I attack, I grab the Phillipines and as many of the DEI as possible.  The rest will be gotten on the next turn.  Hong Kong and Malaya are also high-priority objectives.  Unless something has gone wrong, getting these will make Japan’s income in around the low-mid 60s, which is perfect.

Then I’ll put 1-2 factories in South East Asia, and just trade Burma with India.  With convoying, India can only produce around 1 Infantry a turn, so time is in my favor in that region.  I’ll strat bomb the India IC if I ever get the chance.

What determines my success at this point is how much US invested and is continuing to invest in the Pacific.  If it’s a majority or all of its resources, I know Japan’s not going to win.  I might attack Russia if I see a KJF strat, in order to help Germany win.  My fleet builds will primarily be defensive - carriers and destroyers - in order to make my fleet survive as long as possible against the growing US fleet.

If US is only spending some of its income in the Pacific, I’ll be trying to win in the Pacific if possible.  After I’ve got my income, I’ll try to place the majority of my fleet in the Carolines.  There I can threaten Hawaii and Australia.  With luck I’ll try to convoy Australia.  I’ll have taken 1 of those four Australian NO islands, so hopefully Anzac’s making less than 10 a turn.  With a good Carolines-based threat, Anzac will be building defensively - infantry - for the forseeable future.  Thus the majority of my income can go into my trade war against India and for fleet builds to compete with the US fleet.  Until India falls, I’ll go mostly for targets of opportunity at this point.  Hawaii if possible, but that’s tough.  The Pacific Island NO in A3 is impossible, don’t even bother looking at it.  The 5/7 NO in A2 was a lot better frankly.  :-P

With a long-term strategy like this, Japan’s overall victory threat is maximized.

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.