Instead of escort @1 and interceptors @2 is now in BM escorts @2 and interceptors @2 ?
Then I agree with that. Promotes more bombing
We need an allied playbook.
-
My point being that axis victory is easier to achieve in the European theatre, at least in my experience. It’s easier for the Allies to stagnate Japan once America is involved.
-
We should play. Thanks for offering. I’m slow. I’m going to regret this because your a top tier player, but can we war college the game?
-
@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:
We should play. Thanks for offering. I’m slow. I’m going to regret this because your a top tier player, but can we war college the game?
War college?
What is that? -
@crockett36 A little late in my reply here to Crockett’s question about cities of most importance, but I believe Larry Harris said that Egypt was the key for Allies. Didn’t he say this to you @crockett36 when you met him at YG’s tournament?
-
@Guam-Solo I try to refer to LH in oblique terms like creator, oh wise one, maker, I have it on good authority, etc. you are not inaccurate, though the location was not Canada.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas to war college a game would be to lay out our plans ahead of time, in secret. play the game, posting it here.
We would then let the community examine how the plans were executed and where the principles that guided our strategies were either misapplied or misguided. On the other hand, it would be an opportunity for an affirmation of guile, tactical and strategic success, along with a recognition of the roll of luck in determining outcomes.
Hopefully this would help train players for the times when they are drawing cards and pull out USA. No pressure. I know it’s asking a lot. That’s why I’m playing against myself and posting my allied playbook.
-
Allied playbook, America t1allied playbook turn 1a.tsvg
-
@crockett36 Interesting Pearl Harbor attack! I don’t think I’ve seen that exact opening before. By parking the Japanese carriers outside an American-controlled Wake Island, you leave that carrier group vulnerable to an combined US-ANZAC attack.
US can hit with 3 ftr, 1 tac, 1 bmr against Japan’s 1 DD, 2 CV, 2 ftr, 2 tac – most common result is 3 hits for America, so Japan loses the DD and the 2 tacs (if the Japanese carriers get hit the planes cannot land). You can probably score one more hit if you stick around, so that’s a 3rd Japanese plane down, leaving only 2 CV, 1 ftr.
Then ANZAC can hit with 1 CA and 3 ftr – 2 more expected hits in the first round of combat means that either you tip both carriers and the fighter sinks (in which case ANZAC can retreat), or you lose the fighter and tip a carrier (in which case ANZAC should win the battle).
Meanwhile, the US fleet at San Diego comes out to Hawaii to kill the lone Japanese DD there and to threaten Tokyo. You can rebuild your lost aircraft on US1 and have them ready to strike the sea zones outside Iwo Jima or the Carolines on US 2. The Japanese fleet in the Philippines is out of position to counter; they either have to sail right back to Tokyo, or Japan has to build carriers on J2 and send the air force back from China to land on them.
It’s not a foolproof counter, but if you’re willing to come out swinging as the Allies then this could lead to a rapid win for America on the Pacific front. I’d probably prefer that to running back to Mexico with my tail between my legs.
Your Russian setup is interesting – I like the aggressive stack in Karelia, but I think you concede a little too much in eastern Europe. With no blockers in the Baltics or East Poland and no artillery in Novgorod, I think the Germans can blitz one tank into Belarus and then stack the Baltic States on G2, forcing you to recall your troops from Karelia to guard Novgorod. Of course, that would require that on G1 Germany put more troops into Poland instead of into Slovakia – but if you’re not building transports or destroyers for Sea Lion anyway, then why put all those German troops into Slovakia in the first place?
Anyway, thanks for the illustration. It’s thought-provoking. :-)
-
@crockett36 we can do something like that.
I recommend a non league no LL, no Tech reg. dice and vanilla 2nd ed. G40 game for the purpose to get 1st Hand Infos and Help for new and advances Players.
I will start with a Standard opening and we will go from there.
The terms are good for you?
Maybe this should help us all to get a solid Allied playbook to cover most of our all concerns.Screenshots after each allied turn should give us visual outlines of each round.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas I would prefer to do tech for historical reasons, but I rarely buy them. Rarely being never, but no promises. it is, in my opinion, the greatest fault of the g40. But I play the game that is, not the game I want. To all other terms I heartily concur! Thank you. For the common good!
-
@Argothair I will take the Pearl out.
-
@Argothair can you give me a tuv on those attacks? with another dd and a cruiser in there that might be a good rope a dope move. assets loss vs gains, I’m judging the Japanese as the winners.
-
@crockett36 it’s a feel good move, but what are your strat/economic objectives?
-
I take issue with U.S. not scrambling at Hawaii. Its a losing defense, but killing the destroyer and maybe extra plane is the priority. This is because the U.S. fleet at San Diego can reach and assuming Japan keeps 2 fighters to land on the carriers, you can take out much or 100% of Japan’s fleet at Wake and Japan losing carriers and planes is a big win.
The issue for Japan becomes that you can take 3 hits (destroyer and 1 carrier) before you have to choose between wounding a carrier (and automatically losing 2 planes) or losing planes and risking the battle.
You can use a transport to take Wake on J1, but now we’re talking about missed opportunities down the road… that transport usually brings troops south and will be out of use for 3 turns (J1-J3) if it survives at all. But that would allow your fighters to survive.
So… is that worth it for the U.S.? Maybe. Japan loses 2 carriers, 4 planes, 2 destroyers, and a sub. (88ipcs, depending on if you take Wake Island with a transport) vs U.S. (78 ipcs after losing 54 ipcs from Japan’s attack). That may sound unbalanced but the U.S. makes 30+ ipcs more than Japan for 3+ rounds this way. Focusing your attack south closing that gap noticeably quicker and you can still keep the U.S. back from interfering for a while.
Japan will also lose a transport at Borneo to the UKPac. Now Japan can’t take the Money Islands on J2. You let China keep Yunnan, so they’re buying artillery.
So slowing down the U.S. cost Japan 1-2 ipcs on J1, 10ipcs on J2, 5+ipcs on J3 and UKPac gets +8 or more ipcs… its hard to know what happens after that but China and UKPac can be relatively aggressive with no real threat of Calcutta falling to transports. ANZAC’s fleet becomes a threat quickly since Japan only has 1 carrier to help defend its fleet.
-
You don’t have to take the Pearl out, @crockett36 – I’m not saying your Axis opening is bad; I’m just saying it’s different from what I’m used to. As you suspect, the TUV for the Allies on the pair of attacks is negative, even including the DD in Hawaii that you can kill for free, but it’s not badly negative, and for some of the reasons @weddingsinger points out, I think losing all that material so early in the game tends to weaken Japan’s momentum enough that it’s worthwhile for the Allies to take the economic loss of 20 IPCs or so in TUV.
If you send the transport to take Wake, then I would not make the attacks – but that means you’re either sending only 1 transport to the Philippines (you could get diced and lose that battle) or you’re skipping the attack on Borneo (India gets rich), and either way, you don’t have a third transport in Indonesia to finish hoovering up the money islands, so that puts you down 9 IPCs on J2 and possibly also on J3.
Anyway, I think your overall plan of attack for the Axis is just fine. I wasn’t trying to criticize your decision, just pointing out what I saw as the pros and cons of a strategy that was different than what I’m used to. :)
-
I should mention, since I realize its not clear… when I lay out my issues with a strategy like @crockett36 's, I don’t mean I won’t consider it. I am merely offering my issues and allow for follow up. I already decided I’m not anti-Crockett’s UK navy stack while skipping the Taranto raid. Rather, early play testing suggests it is a very interesting and useful strategy.
Arguing for me isn’t about ‘winning’ an argument, but merely discussing every angle to make a strategy as efficient as possible.
-
well said weddingsinger. the market place of ideas is the besting shopping mall of all. someone somewhere said “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” if you examine the priority of my us playbook, you will see that I prioritize the Atlantic. My concern in the Pacific is singular: the defense of Honolulu. So those planes are super precious to me. I did what I did this turn to garrison the island. I will resupply with a plane per turn until satisfied it is impregnable.
-
@Argothair yeah, I don’t like weakening the Phil invasion or putting off the money islands. Pearl’s not worth that. But I could add a bb the zone and that would be that.
-
Can you guys post screen shots here in the thread? I’ve never been able to get Triple A to work on my computer so I’m enjoying reading the interactions about your game but guessing somewhat at the larger “look of things” on the map. If not - no worries.
-
@Guam-Solo Here is the Pacific theater after US1 from Crockett’s save game file
If you’re curious about anything else specific, let me know
Suggested Topics
