Stories of winning as the Allies with no bid at this game

@PainState:

@StuckTojo:

@Gargantua:

I have seen some guys doing all sub bids. If you can get the bid to 30 -� � 5 subs with all major fleets can do alot of damage, and can really assist UK / hamper axis early; And make G1 painful to plan.

1 off canada,
2 off UK with fleets,
1 off gibraltar,
1 with med fleet

Sounds like a sub-standard strategy to me….� � :-P

I’ll be here all week, folks.

LOL

You are very witty good sir.

:-D

PS: is there a cover charge at your next gig?

Nope.  Just keep feeding me whisky.  :-D

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

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

Good question IKE.
That would be very true to the difficulty of playing allies: Giving up London or Egypt is the dilemma, what will the allies choose… I don’t know what’s best but I think both strategies can work.

Much depends on what happened UK1 and IT1 of course, so lets assume ‘Taranto’ happened (a rather standard move, especially with an allied bid). Without aid of the German luftwaffe (they will be massing against London), Italy cannot safely approach Egypt. Thats 1.

2: After Taranto and Germany pushing through for SL, London is very likely to fall but it is also very likely that it will be a pyrrhic victory for Germany. Russia will be a monster and the USA just needs to destroy the kriegsmarine.

If ‘Taranto’ did not happen UK1 I guess the situation does not change a lot if Uk2 still goes for it and stop Italy in the med… But in this case Uk2 also has the option to superdefend London, indeed possibly giving up Egypt in the long run (but only for a short amount of time if London survives).

I’ll not talk about the the possibility of the USA liberating London, as that also depends on what Japan is doing (and thus, how much investments the USA must make to prevent a pacific sudden death) but the USA should definately have enough ground and naval forces left to prevent Italy from breaking through.

When we play A&A G40 at my bunker it’s always with 6 players, and we play a fast game due to our unique turn system that has worked quite well for us.

Here’s how it works…

In a 6 player game…

1. Simultaneously the German player begins their purchase new units phase, the Russian player moves their eastern forces (18 infantry and 2 AA guns), and the Japanese player begins their purchase new units phase.

2. Simultaneously the German player ends their collect income phase, the Russian player begins their purchase new units phase, and the Japanese player begins their resolve combat phase and/or non combat movement phase.

3. Simultaneously the Russian player ends their collect income phase, the Japanese player ends their collect income phase, and the American player begins their purchase new units phase.

4. Simultaneously the American player ends their collect income phase, the Chinese player begins their purchase new units phase, and the British player (Europe) begins their purchase new units phase.

5. Simultaneously the Chinese player ends their collect income phase, the British player (Pacific) begins their purchase new units phase, and the ANZAC player moves their forces in Africa (2 infantry).

6. Simultaneously the British player (Europe & Pacific) end their collect income phase, the Italian player begins their purchase new units phase, and the ANZAC player begins their purchase new units phase.

7. Simultaneously the Italian player ends their collect income phase, the ANZAC player ends their collect income phase, and the French player conducts their entire turn.

8. Repeat…

PS: We have found that Japan is the real clock pig of all the nations. The player playing Japan should always be starting their purchase new units phase when Germany does, and they should always be ending their collect income phase when Russia does (or shortly after). This one little trick will save you at least 3 hours every game.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

@knp7765:

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Allied victories usually take much longer than Axis victories? Most of our Allied victories are roughly 13-15 rounds while Axis victories tend to be around 7-8 rounds.

I’ve had numerous Allied victories after 3-4 rounds (when they realize that USA and USSR entering the war is going to be too much to handle), and you can have them in the first round especially if an attack on 95 or 97 goes almost perfectly.
Again, since the Allies win if the Axis can’t, whenever it becomes apparent that the Axis can’t, it’s over.  So Allied wins happen at all different stages of the game.  Have you ever had Germany fail to take Paris in the first round?  Or have their sea battles G1 go badly?  There are many ways for the Axis to lose, and lose early  :-)

You made very good insights and overall summaries of common situations in the game, by the way.  Haven’t heard much from you for awhile, unfortunately!

@zanetheinsane:

@knp7765:

Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.

That’s why I always land in Gibraltar. It’s rare that something horrible happens, but when it does… Spain is always an option. Get with the UK player who can hopefully take on Turkey. Not the prettiest course of action, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and getting an Allied foothold in Spain isn’t the worst you can do.

Hmmm…interesting choice. Early on in playing Global, we had 3 different games where the Axis attacked strict neutrals. In fact, we even adopted a house rule using Neutral Blocks so only certain strict neutrals would be affected – Europe, S America, Africa, Middle-East, Mongolia. So if say Sweeden was taken by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal would go Pro-Allied but Argentina would still be strict neutral. I know some people put Turkey in the Europe block, but we decided to put it in the Middle East block.
We have NEVER had the Allies attack a strict neutral. For one thing, they are usually too busy fighting the Axis to expend resources fighting a neutral. Plus they don’t want to give the Axis any free infantry and territories by turning the other stricts into Pro-Axis, even if it’s just in that block. Also, I guess we just kind of have the mindset that the Allies are the good guys and having them violate a country’s neutrality just doesn’t feel right.
In most of our games, we have played with the strict neutrals basically off limits, both by the Axis and the Allies. Perhaps we should re-think our strategies and start involving the neutrals more in our games.