We need an allied playbook.

@AndrewAAGamer Yes a counter and no bid btw. It makes Japan have to retake by also losing two guys as well. No 100% but pretty good.

Simon, Marc, Krieghund Thank you for input and clarification. This will avoid any confusion or debate later.
Sean…

@AxisMan:

@Anzac:

You can buy the historical board gaming 1939 global map, from what ive heard/seen its huge!! Its 4 x 8!.

Is it the exact same as the 1940 map?

No, and it’s a more complexed variant.

when UK needs USA to stave off Europe disaster or 2) once China and Aussie and UK-India are able to contain what’s left of Japan

zhukov sums up the KJF strat scenarios.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

@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.

@Tendron:

Hey everyone, we are in a middle of a game and we would like to know if a transport can move through an island (that has an airport for scramble) to drop troops on another territory. Or can the defender use the scramble ability to stop the transports from doing so?

IE : Say german has transports and wants to send them to Moroco. But those transports need to pass by UK that has an airport (with the new Alpha rules, the fighter can come out to fight). However, Germany has not intention of attacking UK, it wants to attack Moroco. But can such a move be done when opponent has an airport that can scramble on your way? Or does scramble can only be used to defend the seazone when attacked?

ty

Scrambling cannot stop combat movement and is only used to defend a seazone from attack (or against amphibious assault, by instigating combat in that seazone).

Keep on Channel Dashin’.

To add…  The airbase in Gibralter (if in Allied hands) can absolutely defend the seazone from an Axis amphib assault on Morocco.

Well you wanted to know how to slow the allies down. Fucking around with the USA would do it.