Alternative allied strategy

@Dr.:

Okay I haven’t really had time to testplay this, but what do you think of a strategy where both UK and USA offloads in algeira every turn. Then march the troops through africa and middle east, then can choose to attack either Germany or Japan. The strategy has been seen with the USA only, with great effect, so I wondered if it worked even better if Uk joined, or is the progress to slow?

I have tried this in both classic and revised. I find that America can usually handle the task alone fine. The Brits ground troops are most likely better used assisting Russia up North.  I have used an early landing, but once you secure Africa, America can pump enough in to keep it.

@axis_roll:

There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).

I must be really screwed up then…

I win 4 games out of 5 as the Axis, but only 2 out of 3 as the Allies…

@ncscswitch:

@axis_roll:

There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).

I must be really screwed up then…

I win 4 games out of 5 as the Axis, but only 2 out of 3 as the Allies…

Could be your playing style

Are you agressive attacking type?

@axis_roll:

We are discussing personal player preferences, in mid game, when it’s very hard to discuss unit counts (not sure where you pulled your 12 inf, 5 tanks…. Jap unit number from)

That assumes a game in which the Allies attacked Germany first and haven’t destroyed it, while Japan controlled much of Asia and Pacific islands, thereby having considerable income, which it pushes into tanks - plus five transport (minimum), as four are used to ferry units from Japan, and one used to ferry infantry from the Pacific islands.

It is presumed that the Japanese player was not a total buffoon, so kept most of his/her air.  Also that the Japanese player is not retarded, so can see the Allies coming, so builds up, moves, and deploys appropriately.

Therefore, if you attack, say, French Indochina, say there are just two tanks at Ssinkiang, two infantry and one tank in China, two infantry in Kwangtung, Japan can transport 2 additional tanks and 8 infantry from Japan and the surrounding islands for 5 tanks 12 infantry 5 fighter 1 bomber.

Frankly, if that is ALL Japan had available, I would think that Japan was doing an amazing job of sucking.  Japan should really have quite a hell of a lot more than that.

@axis_roll:

Actually, I like using the US to clear a hole in the Japanese forces (if possible) to open up a tank rush with either Russia or UK.

This shows how much a difference there is between Axis Roll’s picture of the board and mine.  In my picture, US can clear a path for UK or Russia, but if Russia or UK DO run through with tanks, Japan just kills all the Russian or UK tanks, or at least kills most of them and withdraws, then moves reinforcements up.  In Axis Roll’s picture, I think Japan is mostly already dead.

@axis_roll:

@ncscswitch:

@axis_roll:

There are allot of ways to play the allies, and many are effective (which is why they win more often).

I must be really screwed up then…

I win 4 games out of 5 as the Axis, but only 2 out of 3 as the Allies…

Could be your playing style

Are you agressive attacking type?

Switch isn’t screwed up. The Allies require careful coordination to be effective. Even a minor mistake tends to snowball. Despite needing to micromanage Japan to be productive, Germany and Japan stand alone for much of the game. The axis needs micromanagement, but the Allies need micromanagement AND coordination. For these reasons, everyone is naturally better at playing the Axis.

As for the Allied strategy, I myself prefer the UK to move solely to Europe while the US builds 10 ground units/turn and does a 2-2-3(2 TP to UK, 2 TP to Europe, 3 TP to Algeria) or 3-3-2 move. It still threatens Western, Southern, and Germany and provides enough firepower for Russia to turn exclusively to face Japan. In the later rounds the US does most of the trading with Germany to bleed German units and allow the UK to match Germany unit for unit until it forces a withdrawal from Southern or Western. Then the territory trading goes even further into the Allies favor and all the while there are units moving though Africa to provide a buffer against Japan as well as to protect African IPC’s.

Going into the Med is extremely expensive and the US could have far more ground units on the board if they don’t move past sz12 until the late game. The only reason I can see to move into the Med with the US is to invade Southern or if the Novo-Kaz-Cauc line is about to crack.

That being said, going into the Med has it’s occasions as the right move. I just don’t think it should be planned for. It should evolve into the right play when the time is right and not as a strategy from the beginning.

@U-505:

Switch isn’t screwed up. The Allies require careful coordination to be effective. Even a minor mistake tends to snowball.

Hmm.

1).  I never said or implied Switch was screwed up.  I asked about his style, which may affect his game outcome.  Allies should play more conservative (to their defensive strength).  Also, certain personalities play one side better than the other.  There certainly are Allied Players as well as Axis players.

2).  It’s way easier to defend in this game than attack.

3).  In LHTR Revised, IMHOallies should win 60% of the time.  Key here is the Allies can overcome poor round 1 (&2) dice, whereas the axis have a MUCH more difficult time doing this.

I would agree.

In my new game, just finished G1, I am on the edge of conceeding the game. 
R1’s 2 attacks:  1 went about as expected, the other went totally Russiam (wR w/ loss of 1 INF)
Germany got CREAMED in Egypt (lost 3 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM, retreated 1 BOM; UK LOST 1 INF!) and my Ukraine Counter against 2 ARM cost me 4 INF.

The Axis has to be the offensive group since they start behind in economy.  But one or two early sets of bad dice (3 in my current game) and you are pretty much TOAST.

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

Actually, I like using the US to clear a hole in the Japanese forces (if possible) to open up a tank rush with either Russia or UK.

This shows how much a difference there is between Axis Roll’s picture of the board and mine.  In my picture, US can clear a path for UK or Russia, but if Russia or UK DO run through with tanks, Japan just kills all the Russian or UK tanks, or at least kills most of them and withdraws, then moves reinforcements up.  In Axis Roll’s picture, I think Japan is mostly already dead.

I never said I would blindly march stacks of russia/uk tanks through US punched holes to be easily killed by the japanese.  These would be optimal targets of opportunity behind the Japanese front lines, if any existed.

@axis_roll:

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

Actually, I like using the US to clear a hole in the Japanese forces (if possible) to open up a tank rush with either Russia or UK.

This shows how much a difference there is between Axis Roll’s picture of the board and mine.  In my picture, US can clear a path for UK or Russia, but if Russia or UK DO run through with tanks, Japan just kills all the Russian or UK tanks, or at least kills most of them and withdraws, then moves reinforcements up.  In Axis Roll’s picture, I think Japan is mostly already dead.

I never said I would blindly march stacks of russia/uk tanks through US punched holes to be easily killed by the japanese.  These would be optimal targets of opportunity behind the Japanese front lines, if any existed.

The light shining off that belt in your avvie got in my eyes.

BTW, I win with Allies a heck of a lot more than I do with Axis.  I ought to play ncsswitch when I get internet at my new place (won’t happen until I can get a couple days off work).

@axis_roll:

@U-505:

Switch isn’t screwed up. The Allies require careful coordination to be effective. Even a minor mistake tends to snowball.

Hmm.

1).  I never said or implied Switch was screwed up.  I asked about his style, which may affect his game outcome.  Allies should play more conservative (to their defensive strength).  Also, certain personalities play one side better than the other.  There certainly are Allied Players as well as Axis players.

2).  It’s way easier to defend in this game than attack.

3).  In LHTR Revised, IMHOallies should win 60% of the time.  Key here is the Allies can overcome poor round 1 (&2) dice, whereas the axis have a MUCH more difficult time doing this.

I never said or implied that you said or implied that Switch was screwed up. Switch did. I just meant that I agreed with Switch that the Axis win more often. It’s that way around here. Or for me at least.

@ncscswitch:

I would agree.

In my new game, just finished G1, I am on the edge of conceeding the game.
R1’s 2 attacks: 1 went about as expected, the other went totally Russiam (wR w/ loss of 1 INF)
Germany got CREAMED in Egypt (lost 3 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM, retreated 1 BOM; UK LOST 1 INF!) and my Ukraine Counter against 2 ARM cost me 4 INF.

The Axis has to be the offensive group since they start behind in economy. But one or two early sets of bad dice (3 in my current game) and you are pretty much TOAST.

Don’t waffle now Switch. I remember a game I played where my opponent killed 4 Japanese TP’s on US1 and I still squeaked out a win. The Axis carried jsp and I to the finals in the doubles tourney and so far they’ve carried me 2 out of 3 games in this singles tourney.Â

And only Japan has to be offensive. Germany, for the most part, needs only to try to defend it’s original territories(except Africa, which usually goes as fast as it comes. It’s more of a raid, really). The Axis starts in a much stronger position which offsets the economy difference.

Normally I would agree…

But on UK1 I also obtained a UK Fleet in the Med of 1 AC, 1 DST, 2 FIGs (I managed to kill the TRN believe it or not).
Add in a BOM in T-J, and the fact that he still has an ARM in the Middle East, and I think you might begin to see what I am talking about.

Germany is surrounded, Africa is lost, the Allies control the Med already, and Germany does not have enough forces to even THINK of securing their core territory, let alone challenge Russia, and I won’t have much of an income for much longer…

Unlike losing 4 TRNs as Japan on US1… the assault on Germany does NOT let up after a 1 turn whooping, it just keeps getting worse…

Yeah, but you are basing your decision solely on a game that had a STRING of bad dice. Anomaly. If the Allies had been the victim of those dice you would be clearly ahead. Bad early dice usually sinks everybody not just the Axis.

But that same string would not be as automatically fatal to the Allies as it is to the Axis.

Given time, the Allies gain ground due to their pre-existing economic lead.

Switch, send 2 figs to Egypt as well, and this will happen less frequent (belive me, i have been there lots of times before…)

I would have, but I lsot 1 in Ukraine, and I have lost the TRN in SZ5 before, so I did not want to pull the FIG off that attack, and you need 4 to insure the BB in SZ13 w/o losing a FIG.

Im feeling a game…

@ezto:

Im feeling a game…

Is that what the kids are calling pocket pool these days  :lol:

O_o

I wanna play, but i tend to quit when the dice are being gay. Thats why I play low luck.