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

TripleaA lobby is seeing a lot of bids between 16-24 on average? In LL I agree with what’s been said, I really am starting to come to the conclusion that even mid-20s makes it a very tough match for Allies. I am not surprised the league is going higher than that. But I really do think you need to guage the skill level of your opponent. If you get a newbie in your triplea lobby, maybe cut them a break. It’s the somewhat experienced guys that always throw me, strong for about 3-5 rounds but then don’t really have any mid-game strategy experieince. It’s hard to know how much to bid in those cases too.

But anyway, back to what units are getting bought: Subs/DDs around the Med for UK. Sometimes fighters for UK (Scotland, Malta). Other threads have answered this question as well, from recent memory: Inf in Yunnan for example, and ground units in africa.

Less often variations: Russia bomber, UK transport in South Africa. UK sub in Malaya. I’ve also seen Subs in the north atlantic.

Some people dump a bunch of ground units in Russia. Whether or not that actually does anything I doubt.

I am also going to take this opportunity to plug this thread about Bids and bid rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35874/allied-bids-what-are-the-common-rules-on-placement … I do so to personally recommend not allowing facilities for bids.

@seancb said in [House Rules] Should allies receive a bid?:

one more thing, I’ll take a 16 bid

We actually have 1 game completed (if you concede it). Looking forward to another…waiting in the lobby right now.

I would not be G40 boxed set for a new rulebook or even for new French unit sculpts. However, I would buy a G40 boxed set for some combination of two or more of these changes:

1. Long standing balance issues were resolved officially instead of with the house rule hodgepodge we use now.
2. Historical inaccurances (Scapa Flow, Iceland, Sierra Leone, etc) were corrected on the map/setup (for instance, Iceland was occupied by the US on July 7th 1941, but the map shows it as a UK territory from the start).
3. There were cool new sculpts for multiple powers, and cleaned up sculpts for units that look too similar (ANZAC cruiser vs destroyer for instance, or corrected the 9 ft tall ANZAC infantry unit).
4. New map! For instance, eastern Russia is vast and would have been a Japanese sinkhole that brought no benefit, but in the G40 map those territories all actually produce income. The Global War map is a much better representation – combined German/Japan strategies that work on the current map would not work on Global War map.
5. Map supports faster setup – MICs and setup bases pre-printed, for instance.
6. Rule changes that allow the US to build bases on other Allies territories.
7. Rule changes to fix unit issues (cruisers!)
8. Separate control markers for UK Pacific vs UK Atlantic

Basically, a couple of big changes or a bunch of small changes make the investment worthwhile IMO.

Fixing NOs could be part of #1 – giving the UK an additional NO of no German navy in the Atlantic other than sea zone 112 would probably help the balance issue. Also, giving Japan an NO that costs it money if it DOESN’T control those islands once at war with the US might help the balance issue.

Marsh

With a J1DOW and Japan taking Calcutta meaning to swing back and take Hawaii as well ~J8, the allies can follow 1 of 2 basic strategies in Europe:

USA invests heavily in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard. This forces the UK to go heavy into the ME with 2 ICs in Egypt/Iraq/Persia (3 ICs is perhaps no unnecessary luxury in this scenario). This is because Calcutta needs to be taken back once Japan grabs Hawaii. A little bit from what comes out of those ICs can maybe get into Moscow as well to aid Russia in keeping it. The UK will have only minor bits of IPCs left to assist the USA in Western Europe (~10/turn, TRS as best buy).

USA invests only mildly in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard with massive UK aid (not such heavy UK presence in the ME as above). Typically USA serves only as a can-opening threat for UK-follow up. Example: USA takes Norway + Denmark, UK takes Berlin (If Germany ignores the allies and keeps throwing everything at Russia).

Whatever strategy is followed, the Wallies must somehow make sure their threat is in place G5, so that Germany will loose either WG, Rome or Berlin if it builds all aircraft for a G6 assault on Moscow (depending how many investments the USA made and thus, how many the UK was able to assist).

Typical forces USA can expect in Europe with heavy investments: 2DD, 2CV, 5FTR, 1TAC, ~4STR and 2TRS per turn (fully loaded). Early TRS can ofc be filled with Brazilians and other starting units. Once Normany and SF are taken (and/or WG), USA also produces from those factories. US6 should see 27US and 8UK land units and 9 USAF in or approaching Western Europe. A bit too much for Germany/Italy if they focused everything on Russia all the way into G5 and only start building troops against the wallies G6 (10 in Berling and WG each can be overrun -one of them if not both), so if this doesn’t arrest German flow of reinforcements into Russia I don’t know what does…

Investing ‘mildly’ still sees the USA with 2DD, 2CV, 3FTR, 1TAC, 3STR, 6TRS fully loaded.
Because the USA should be able to keep Japan out of Hawaii/Sydney with the extra IPCs put into the Pacific, the UK can put more effort in Western Europe at the cost of the ME, starting a war of attrition with Germany. The few troops the USA has should not be ‘kamikazed’ but used as a can-opening threat (Berlin, see above) and to capture areas Germany cannot recapture (Norway, for example).

On a sidenote: a couple of RAF-FTR really enhances Russian defenses in Moscow. The more ships/early bombers Germany builds, the less RAF the UK needs to send. With Max German land production (i.e. no ships/early bombers at all), Moscow may need 10-12 Spitfires/Mosquito’s to withstand the assault.

These are only the basics of what I know the allies can do. They must be adjusted whenever the Axis adjust… If, for example, the USA invests heavily into Europe and Japan does not look likely to swing back at Sydney/Hawaii but rather continues to invest heavily in Mainland Asia/Russia, the UK may ease their spending in the ME a bit and assist the USA a while in spending much more for western Europe for a couple of turns…

@valtteri771:

why would japan have to attack russia I have won many times as germany without sealion and japanese help in barbarossa.

Oh ,  and if you check out the early GNazi buys,  my Axis opponent  even admits he didn’t buy enough tanks since he used his airforce to destroy the British Navy in turn 2 and the Mediterranean Navy in turn 3  early in the game.  so the extra 9 IPCs from the far east could have been elminated earlier.  He didn’t hit it till Japan Turn 8  which meant the Soviets colleted 72 IPCs for the game from the far east.  cutting it down by turn 5 or 6 well after Germany was pressuring the Soviets and with Japan stomping to to india could have swung the war against the Allies!  I had also moved 15 far east troops all the way back to moscow and they were big help in retaking Stalingrad.

@jim010:

For defensive power for my money, and allows for fht swapping at sea.

That’s a pretty big deal right there.

@Pelanderfunk:

I like the early attacks against the US, but it looks like Russia was becoming a problem.

The attacks against America were half baked - I was still at the drawing board but jumped in anyway.

A bigger problem than Russia is UK in Africa, the Mediterranean, and South East Europe.  If Italy were an asset to Europe and not a liability, I think I could deal with the Russians.  In fact, if I could lock UK out of the Med (without extra effort from Japan or Germany) I would combine the Japanese North American campaign with Sea Lion and be sitting pretty.

What to do about that pesky Med…