Allied Global Strategy.

@surfer

Thanks for the advice! Yeah, I really messed up on those British and French bids.

Thanks for the advice regarding the other bid purchases.

@squirecam said in Italy and Anzac Strategies?:

@barnee said in Italy and Anzac Strategies?:

@anzacguy said in Italy and Anzac Strategies?:

@surfer I have never heard of the Gibraltar Defense(I am a new player). Could you explain the strategy behind it?

it’s discussed here https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33835/why-is-taranto-raid-so-popular/30?page=2

some top players talk about it

And it doesn’t work. Because Germany should always take Southern France and Italy should either attack with a German follow up or take Algeria and let the Germans attack first.

heh heh was just pointing out where it was discussed since he hadn’t heard of it. JDOW was League Champion or at least in the Finals. Oystello and Simon both Top Players. Sure I missed a few, but wouldn’t dismiss their opinions as unviable :)

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

No discussion for a while now…

Any new conclusions about this strategy?

What’s about an airbase at Gibraltar and moving Egypt fleet west? Yet, I guess there was this topic deep down at forum’s splanchnic times ago but couldn’t find it…

@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.

@Gargantua:

I can’t read that.

You should have gone to specsavers

Thou shall not have thy brother on the opposite team lest we start arguing and end up throwing haymakers instead of dice!

@real-life-rorschach
I played about 6 games, 1 Axis win, the others Allied. The main deciding factors were bad G1 dice in all of the games, the Soviets being almost impossible to defeat in time (the one time the Axis won, the U.S. and Britain were about to take Berlin/Warsaw on the next turn), and the Americans sending strategic bombers to Europe and crippling the German factory production while still being able to fight Japan.