Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023

Bear in mind, the land units on the transport only act on their Turn.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that for allies there are no half measures…

At least playing against equal or stronger opponents

In any case, Japan must be crushed (above all) as well as Italy.

If you aim for a KGF and let Japan rage in the Pacific there is always the risk that with a coup they will be able to take the 6 VC and the game is over… even if the Allies are close to taking Rome or Berlin

Of course if you only tighten up on the Pacific perhaps also using the Russians (right @MrRoboto? :))… you have to be very organized in Europe to avoid Hitler arriving in Cairo (or London)…

Very expert players are able to do this of course… but in my opinion there is always a percentage of risk that the game predicts (like all clashes on A&A) but which you can try to avoid.

And above all the Allies should fight in a more aggressive way (which I have not yet learned to do) but not recklessly… aggressive in the sense of making the Axis risk more than necessary in certain battles (land and naval) because otherwise the the outcome is almost always for the Central Powers of the board.

@the_jetset:

In fact, it could even be argued that Germany should collect the IPCs for these Vichy French territories after capturing Paris.  … but that might be going a bridge too far.

While I agree with this in spirit, I do think it could be taken too far. You could have people that say it should be this way for all countries: Once the capital is captured, the capturing power now controls all the territories and units of the vanquished nation.
For one thing, this would eliminate any possibility of liberation and I think this game would end up being a sort of Deluxe Risk rather than Axis & Allies.
Imagine this scenario:  Germany goes after Russia and tries punching straight through to Moscow along the north route, thereby NOT taking Ukraine or Stalingrad.  Suppose Japan didn’t attack Russia at all in the far east.  Now suppose Russia was foolish and bought a battleship for the Caspian Sea instead of infantry so they didn’t have a proper defense in Moscow and Germany wins.  Now Germany controls territory all the way to the Pacific and Japan now has a buddy to their north instead of an enemy. Plus, Germany becomes instantly rich, almost doubling their income with all the Russian 2 point territories plus all the troops that were guarding those territories (not to mention Germany’s shiny new battleship in the Caspian Sea.).

I wonder if a crazy rule like this would make games longer or shorter?  Capital defense would probably be even heavier.

@Dafyd:

I think that any question when we are trying to improve our skills is a good question…especially if we are really trying to learn.  The Hessian and ShadowHAwk are right.  The key to the Pacific are the two power fleets of Japan and the U.S.  The U.S. must go after the Japanese fleets.  Carriers loaded with planes are very important as well as the subs and detroyers.  As a side mission and with the permission of your Soviet ally, land troops in Siberia and help take back Soviet territories from the Japanese if they have begun to starve out the Soviet Far East.  It takes resources from the Japanese and can alter the attention of the Japanese player a turn or two if they are interested in defending Korea or pressuring the Soviets.

Good stuff here.  I’m a fan of 3 part attacks on Japanese fleets.  As an example:

Japan leaves a chunk of its fleet in SZ42 (off Java) for whatever reason.  They’re not worried about an attack because America doesn’t have the fleet off of Queensland to come after them.  What I’ve done in those situations is attack with the American ships, then follow up with India planes and Anzac ships/planes to finish them off. You’ll lose your American ships, some India planes and Anzac ships/planes, but if you wipe out half of the Japanese fleet it’s brutal for Japan because, as dominate as they can be, they can’t afford to lose too many major pieces.  America can lose a mini fleet and replace it; Japan cannot afford to be spending multiple turns rebuilding its fleet.

@Gamerman01:

Getting the money when taking a capital is as old as A&A itself, so what, about 35 years?

Never a good reason if it’s the only reason.

@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%.

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.

Yep. Global has issues.

I wish the allies had more NOs and japan too, but it would make things more complicated. Maybe just nix a germany or italy NO.