We need an allied playbook.

[sjelso]

@taamvan Even without the tech, 20 or 30 bombers flying around…pretty much can put an end to most fleets or ground advances.

[taamvan]

Yes, but its an extreme exaggeration as to the number you can deliver to the actual front before the Axis kill you, and you cannot do anything else if you invest 240 IPCs in bombers. 6-10 near the US is a more likely practical number by midgame, in my experience. And while that force is deadly to most fleets, it takes casualties against the TUV trade, cannot defend itself, has to land somewhere (usually somewhere unsafe). A mixed attack force is going to work better (subs early, bombers later).

Its also just as likely that Germany gets 6 or so of these bombers, it has other things it has to accomplish but it can use this strategy against the allies during the early game and express the same threat towards their early game fleets—perhaps with some subs and small planes to act as casualties…

[GuamSolo]

@taamvan I’ve been in quiet a few stalemated games of Classic - Lol that brings back some memories.

[taamvan]

@Guam-Solo
that was college

ugly shag carpet that swallowed figures and dice
giant plastic mug that fits exactly 3 busch light drafts @ 36oz
actual game start around 11pm due to extensive pre-discussion and table talk
actual game end around 3am due to players falling asleep on the floor

Its funny too because that game is like a little red wagon if Global is a camaro…and we can complete Global games as grown ups without much ado…

[crockett36]

However, Napoleon did take Moscow. And then his army starved to death. The German troops that make it that far are probably not coming back any time soon. They are an expeditionary force that will not return to Europe until around turn eight or nine at best. There is an opportunity here. He will have to stack soldiers for defense. This usually leaves his perimeter exposed. His perimeter includes an often naked Scandinavia and an exposed underbelly. Greece is particularly interesting because it is usually empty of enemies as well.

As before we need to begin with the end. What structure do we want to set up to deal a death blow to Germany? One obvious answer is to overwhelm him by putting more boots on the ground than he can. Therefore we need an efficient transport shuck enabled by naval supremacy. Traditionally this has meant leaving the East Coast and poising in sz91 and then preceding from there to either Scandinavia or S. France or even Italy or Normandy. The other option is to take a longer voyage directly to England. This option is generally safer. The problem with 91 is that it can usually be reached by air units and any residual Atlantic fleet and Axis subs from the Med that can somehow slip through Gibraltar. Italians and Germans can tag team the zone if need be. If you have lost a fleet in 91, say hey below. It happens. Thus you need twice the fleet to protect the shuck. You need a formidable fleet at your destination and one at 91.

Let me say that a fleet that draws the enemy’s air to attack it is self evidently meant to draw units away from Moscow. Sometimes, presenting yourself as a tantalizing target is strategically shrewd. The question that should be asked is, how many of his units might he lose and can he replace them without ruining his ground game.

A shuck alternative that is extremely safe and effective is walking your troops into Canada (sz106) and shucking troops to sz109 and landing them in England. This is a 12 transport shuck, four transversing the Atlantic, four back to Canada and four landing troops wherever. Sz109 can still be hit by bombers but has the protection of scrambling fighters, six if you have them.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 Have you seen GHG’s Floating Bridge strategy video? I like his set up for a shuck basing the navy off Gibraltar and using Morocco to unloading units coming from U.S. but also loading from there into transports with the range to shuck troops to multiple Med targets. The Brits drop an airbase on Gibraltar too allowing a scramble to defend the fleet. Do you think your thoughts here align with the floating bridge approach?

[GuamSolo]

@taamvan Sounds like my college had better carpet! But the end result was the same–falling asleep on the floor…to an unfinished game.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo Absolutely. I appreciated the video. I haven’t tried it myself. Have you? There are disadvantages to this. One of those zones will encounter heavy opposition. That requires massive amounts of navy. Real naval and air supremacy. What do you think? At least two loaded carriers, four destroyers, one battleship or a cruiser in both locations.

The crucial aspect is the wave portion. Not only do the troops need to keep being shucked, but the navy also needs to be constantly added to in case of catastrophe. I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost my shuck fleet on more than one occasion. I had a backup fleet drop in the water that same turn.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 No, I haven’t had the opportunity to try it. I don’t get many games in–but I’ll get to play one during Christmas and would like to try the floating bridge combined with the objectives you’ve lined out in this thread.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo I don’t play nearly as much as I would like. My son who likes Axis and Allies doesn’t like Global 40 so we play around with different versions and house rule stuff. Good times, but not helpful for “cracking the code”–an allied strategy that brings balance to the … force?! Game. Thingy.

[crockett36]

@crockett36 Now the most important thing about any shuck or even an assault on a large scale is the wave effect. They can see it coming or not coming. A large assault on Normandy will be handled differently by the enemy if he looks at way stations like sz 91 or Halifax and sees them empty. He can afford to throw everything at the invaders because they have no backup. He will have a breather, time to rebuild.

What will we do with the shucked troops? Normandy is right there for you to land them at your discretion. Normandy is also right there, two spaces away from W Germany. There are two ways to approach this landing. One would be a constant drip of 8 units landing every round. Another would be a significant build up, say double or triple that number. (more transports) Either way, they are threatening and must cause the German and Italian players to marshal soldiers toward the West.

What was true for Normandy is also true for S France, unless you captured Northern Italy previously or capture it simultaneously. General Handgrenade is a proponent of this location because it requires so few transports to maintain the shuck. It will require two large navies to protect two vulnerable sea zones.

Greece is a sixteen transport shuck for the Americans and requires protecting three different sea zones. It is the most obvious blind spot in the Third Reich and could even be a one-off, sending four transports to their doom to accomplish the spectacular feat of placing eight units behind enemy lines. Fun, at least, though probably not sustainable for the Americans.

Scandinavia has many advantages. You can capture it and then build a minor factory. You can bomb Germany and W Germany back into the stone age. It will probably never be contested unless the Axis’ balloon is mammoth or he left a force behind in Karelia. The navies have to move together. New builds for England and our reinforcements might be vulnerable. Keep those planes at the ready for scrambling.

The big question that looms over Scandinavia is is this landing a “rescue of Moscow” or a second front? Aside from a lone tank, sent to liberate territories and aircraft meant to help defend, the answer is a second front. You are right there. Across the water is Berlin. Don’t take your eyes off the prize. And pressure on Berlin will force Germany to abandon its perimeter. You may have successfully peeled the onion one more layer. Normandy might be yours for cheap.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 Which is the better sea zone to park the big allied fleet to protect the schucking of soldiers? 110 or 91? GHG’s floating bridge uses 91 which I think has greater flexibility for where to go and really puts pressure on the Axis to defend all it’s European coastal borders. I hate this as a German player–spreading thin to try and have a counterattack available for repulsing an invasion from anywhere. But 110 gives some flexibility (Normandy or Norway for example) but an invasion into the Med becomes obvious as it would take two moves/rounds. Axis could see it coming and set up for it. I like 110 though because it forces Germany to make available aircraft for defense or counter-invasion by keeping the Luftwafe close to the western front and out of the Russia battle.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 In this post I liked your emphasis on waging economic war on an opponent. You listed these objectives: Taking possession of territory (cash value of these), SB factories and convoys. I was thinking to add denying the achievement of national objectives to your opponent when possible. New players often miss this.

[GuamSolo]

@Argothair Of the 4 most plausible targets you list, do you think the US can realistically drive for two of them at once? In particular, drive for one objective each on both sides of the map?

[Argothair]

@Guam-Solo Good question, Guam Solo. In most games, the USA can push for one objective on each side of the map, but not literally at the same time – the push for one objective should start two or three turns earlier than the push for the second objective. The reasoning here is that during the first stage of your campaign, you will need transports and men and warships and some air support in order to safely occupy a sea zone and then gain control of your targeted land territories. This is very expensive and consumes 85%+ of the US’s resources. At best, your remaining resources can be used to garrison a region that is already Allied-controlled (e.g., stack Honolulu with infantry, or stack Gibraltar with fighters). However, during the second stage of your campaign, when you have already achieved regional naval supremacy, you generally do not need to build new warships, and you may even be able to recycle some of your transports by sending them on a loop back and forth between safe sea zones. You can re-fill four transports much, much more cheaply than you can build four new transports, fill those transports, build an escorting navy, and build an escorting air force – and the resulting savings can be used to open a new offensive campaign.

The exception to this rule is when all of the Axis powers press inward toward Moscow, without paying serious attention to contesting the USA’s attacks. If Germany sends its entire air force east and builds nothing but mechs and tanks while Japan sends its entire air force west while building nothing but minor factories, then you can probably get away with an all-out simultaneous two-front war, because your landing parties just won’t be facing much opposition, so you won’t need to build as many escort ships / planes to support each loaded transport.

[crockett36]

@Guam-Solo My preference is 110 because, in coordination with the British, you could land in Germany. I’m in a house rule game with Dessertfox. I had to abandon Paris and W.Germany because of his large transport navies and air forces. 110 makes it an existential war, knife to the throat. Do or die.

My purpose, though, is to be general enough to layout different plans of attack. Also, I will rarely ever do anything the same way twice. In addition, I will almost always have an experiment going on. Right now I’m playing Germany with only the original tanks. The extra money is going into an ever larger air corps. I’m also buying soldiers as Japan instead of tanks or mechs, the extra money going toward air and fleet maintenance. Just playing around.

[GuamSolo]

@crockett36 You made a video about UK turn 1 moves where you preserve units by consolidating the UK Med fleet with French ships and again consolidating off eastern Africa. The purchase for UK is 3 destroyers, but you never place them on the board. How would you allocate them between South Africa and London? And - Doesn’t this purchase go against conventional thinking for defending against sea lion (where UK1 purchases mostly infantry and a fighter)? Sorry for asking so many questions BTW.

[GuamSolo]

The video I’m referencing is on Youtube - English British Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtziXSzJR6o

[crockett36]

love the questions. I would place them off London. 109 specifically. I haven’t gotten to it yet, but I like to swing the American navy around to the Atlantic. That conveys a message, KGF, that should deter the Germans. The destroyers are pesky. Will the Luftwaffe attack such a fleet with fighters that might scramble? Either way is good for me. If they don’t, I’ll build more next turn and a factory in Persia. more to come.

[crockett36]

This post is deleted!