Allied Playbook Draft v1.0

There is an A&A game with similar rules. Axis & Allies Europe (the original one, not the Europe 1940 games) gave Germany 12 IPCs at the very beginning of the game, to spend as Germany saw fit. Then the Allied powers were given 12 IPCs to spend as the Allies saw fit. Then the rest of the game commenced.

So, I would guess you are suggested something like that for G40, with an Allied bid to go on top of the extra Allied money. If I were to do something like that, I would have the Allies go first, then the Axis, then the Allied bid. It would make for a wild setup, that’s for sure.

-Midnight_Reaper

I think you should re read the rules. They’re clear.

Im glad we agree on some problems, I just want to find a way to take out Japan without either completly abandon Europe or commit to Europe.

A 60 - 40 economy split should work for the US at the bare minimum

70 - 30 might be better depending on the threat level

UK middle east factory is always a great idea for support
A Norway factory is good for the Allied Power who controls it(Unless it is Russia, because Leningrad Factory)

For the Spanish Beach head what if the UK hit Sweden and/or Norway to contain it , just like we do with Turkey

Ok there is some merit to building an AB for Gib UK1, and merging all available ships to sz92. The ability to send the UK Med navy to the Atlantic will most likely table a German Sea Lion buy for G2 w/o dropping a bunch of inf on London. As others pointed out an AB at Gib is also very helpful in staging allied fleet in sz91 as the game goes on. You would defiantly need to take into account what Germany bought G1 though. A loaded carrier, cruiser, damaged BB (that will auto fix on Germany’s turn) and a couple transports sitting in sz112 is a real threat to your new Gib base with only air. In this scenario you should be looking at using the Med transport to bring over an inf and the Malta AAA gun to protect your ftrs, but that weakens Egypt.

Many people are in the camp of forgoing Taranto, to spare the UK Med fleet. Sometimes they pull back into the Red Sea (sz81), or make a stand in sz92 (as AldoRaine posted) and bringing in the India fleet in is also an option. The point is that the Italian navy will eventually come out to play and it is easier to kill it when they don’t have the support of the Rome AB. Plus as others pointed out the Italians might add to their toy boats which means fewer units heading to Russia.

The thing is that if you do merge all available UK ships to sz92, and build an AB for Gib you really don’t want to get double hit by the Italians then the Germans play mop-up w/o taking heavy losses. eames57 took the words right out of my mouth, you have to block out the Italian navy by placing a dd in sz94 (the French in sz93 completes the block).

You still run the risk of getting hit by the Luftwaffe, but that would also cripple the German air force so IMO it would be worth it. It’s better to take out German planes over Italian navy especially early in the game. At some point (maybe later when the US comes over) the Italian navy will be at the bottom of the Med, where the Luftwaffe is essential on all fronts through out the game. So in retrospect it isn’t in Germany’s best long term interest to attack you in sz92, so there is a good chance they won’t.

@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.

However, my biggest problem is USA being forced to split it’s IPCs between Europe and the Pacific theaters.  What?  Since when did the United States do an even split?  You’re disabling the American ability to flexibly respond to crises as they arise?  I.e., “looks like UK is going down due to Sea Lion and Russia is in deep doo doo.  Too bad we can’t spend more in the European theater, even though the Japanese fleet is destroyed…  Got to build more Carriers in San Francisco”  That’s crazy.

I agree here, I’ve since changed my mind about this.

In the games a played it seemed that Japan could help the European Axis more by getting in positon to have enough victory cities on their side of the map than really pushing towards Russia.  If Japan pushes to Russia then USA is free to keep spending in Europe.  Maybe I will give this a try though with the newer edition of rules.

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like the rule either, I think that so long as you have a factory you can earn and spend ipcs.  After you lose your last factory then you hold onto your unspent ipcs until you or an ally liberates one of your factories.  This seems more realistic to me, but I think the current rule is there more to prove that once your capital is captured you might as well surrender.

That’s an interesting idea.  So all nations would be treated like China and keep their unspent IPCs with hopes of one of their factories getting liberated, even if it’s not necessarily their capital.

Actually, there is a kind of historical precedent for having to capture the Axis capitals.  In the “Why We Fight” series, at the end of each film it shows a quote from the Secretary of War Henry Wallace that said “Victory can only be acheived by the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.”  So, as far as the game goes, if you have Japan surrounded but your Japan player doesn’t want to surrender, then you just have to keep pounding him with SBRs until you build up a big enough invasion force and take him out.