Allies basic strategy

[HipHopBernie]

BTW 10 infantry on UK1 in London is impossible…

[BJCard]

@HipHopBernie:

BTW 10 infantry on UK1 in London is impossible…

It is with a bid of 2 IPCs to the UK.  Otherwise, I’d rather 6 Inf, 1 Fighter

[DizzKneeLand33]

@BJCard:

I have played every official A&A game available and I think the last game where I bought a BB was the original Pacific with the US, and I regretted it even then.

Well, I’ll have to disagree with that one.  I have bought plenty of useful BB’s in AA50.  The key is how you use them, the threat of attacking and healing is quite profound, and so forth.

Or, if we go old school, in 3rd edition Britian with 1 BB surviving, sometimes it would be better for UK to buy a 2nd 2 hit battleship than a carrier, and then have 2 bombards the entire rest of the game.  What is not to like about that??

[BJCard]

@DizzKneeLand33:

@BJCard:

I have played every official A&A game available and I think the last game where I bought a BB was the original Pacific with the US, and I regretted it even then.

Well, I’ll have to disagree with that one.  I have bought plenty of useful BB’s in AA50.  The key is how you use them, the threat of attacking and healing is quite profound, and so forth.

Or, if we go old school, in 3rd edition Britian with 1 BB surviving, sometimes it would be better for UK to buy a 2nd 2 hit battleship than a carrier, and then have 2 bombards the entire rest of the game.  What is not to like about that??

Well, sure BBs are an incredibly useful unit, but at what cost?  Just using battlecalc on triplea - 2 BBs (40 IPCs) could not beat 5 DDs (40 IPCs), where 5 DDs would beat 2 BBs with about 1 DD left.  So, as far as naval battles go, having 5 DDs is more useful than 2 BBs.  If you want to bombard, 3 Cruisers (36 IPCs) are better because they are cheaper and give potential for 3 hits (9 offensive pips) vs. potential for 2 hits (8 offensive pips).

Even 6 Subs (36 IPCs) would destroy 2 BBs and 2 BBs would barely beat 6 Subs (50/50).

Actually I don’t remember AA50- they were two hit and automatically healed?  were they 20 IPCs too?  auto heal makes them a bit better, but I’d still rather have a DD or SS swarm.  Not to mention you can use them in multiple SZs.

Again, the only reason to buy BBs in my mind is the intimidation factor.  Every other sea unit trumps it on cost per ‘pip.’

[Cpt. John Miller]

I agree on battle boats in global, with the geographical expansions and the naval base maneuvering, having multiple ships is more important than ever. As the US I rarely buy new BB as the starting one gives you enough support ability with your 3 cruisers(usually bring ATL cruiser to PAC) for amphib activities on islands.  AC are much more important and useful in vast area of pacific and when mixed with multiple DD and SS can strike from far distance with minimal counter options for Japan.

[Kreuzfeld]

for me, I can destill it down to 2 main points.

1- Don’t lose big battles
2- build your armys stayingpower.

1- Don’t lose big battles
Losing battles is how you lose your advantage. If Moscow is doomed to fall, and you will lose 250 IPC in units, while the german will lose 180 IPC in units, then you are better off retreating from moscow, if you stand behind moscow, then you force the german to garison against your army, if the german army wanna move towards the middle east, then forcing him to keep 200 IPC worth of units just to garison moscow is worth it. if he moves to much away, you can come back and retake moscow.

Similarly, you should not move your fleet to a place where it can be attacked and killed, if US lose their entire fleet for 80% of the japanese fleet, then japan has a free reign for a few turns and it could easily lose you the game, similarly around europe.

2- increase your armys staying power. when advancing the question usually isn’t if you can take the terretory you want to attack with your main army, but whether you are able to survive a counterattack. When you are advancing you are advancing away from your reinforcements and towards your opponents reinforcements. Imagine that Army A has 55 units and produces 10 uniter / turn. in round 8. If army A retreats It will have 75 units in round 9, but if it attacks it will have 55 units in round 9, every advance “costs” a turn of reinforcements (if playing with inf/art). So lets say army B wants to force army A to retreat and for that it would need 65 units, then to follow in after it would need 75 units. This is why volume is so vital in AA, and why mech/inf is the two most important unittypes you will ever produce.

other issues;
-Tanks are specialist units against a good player you will very rarely get an advantage from being able to blitz with 10 tanks + 10 mechs, and this advantage would come of the cost of having 20 inf + 10 art, which is good when you need your main stack to advance. I think the only power that could benefit from a tank/mech stack is japan, when they are trying to chase down the siberians, but then such a stack would only force the russians to leave 1 inf behind for each time it moves to counteract that, and you would need do dislocate your airforce to force him to do it, which probably means that it costs more than it is worth. What you need tanks for is to be able to blitz empty terrs. Usually 2-4 tanks would be enough for most powers. if you have canopeners, like US can canopen for UK, or italy for germany, then you only need mechs.

• it is often better to have an army on a fleet than to go ashore. If US have 15 transports with loads standing of gibraltar, then you force the axis to garison with 30+ units in W germany and S italy, and having units for counterattacks in france and N italy. Once you go ashore, he can move some of those units (like his planes) and your threat is gone.

[Spendo02]

@BJCard:

@Spendo02:

Long story short, you have to react as the Allies early.  There is no single blueprint - the closest thing you have is the 6 Inf 1 Ftr on UK1 for London if you scrambled, 10 Inf if you didn’t.  The US fleet build in the Pacific is pretty straightforward on US1:  CV and BB at a minimum.  Everything else, including those purchases are dependent on the Axis moves.

I agree with your entire post except for this.  Perhaps against a newer player in a face to face game the BB has an ‘intimidation’ factor, but 9 times out of 10 I think it is better to buy two DDs for 16 and use the 4 left for something else- or buy a DD and a Cruiser (gives 5 Pips vice 4).  With two ships you have potential for two hits and they can be used for blocking/being in two different SZs if need be.  20 IPCs for a big BB that needs protecting seems like a waste for me.  Yes, they can take damage, but a lot of the time its not sitting at a Naval Base, so you have to either live with the damage or retreat it to a Naval Base.

I have played every official A&A game available and I think the last game where I bought a BB was the original Pacific with the US, and I regretted it even then.

It may be a bit antiquated, but I still believe in matching Japan’s Navy ship for ship if theres no early DOW.  So that CV and BB puts 3 allied BB in the Pacific and 2 CV with enough aircraft with Anzac’s to replace any lost early.

I will give the nod to DD’s (And SS) after the early purchases, but theres definitely some value in having a BB to take hit for you while you’re still outnumbered in naval ships - even if you’re rolling one less die.

[BJCard]

@Spendo02:

@BJCard:

@Spendo02:

Long story short, you have to react as the Allies early.  There is no single blueprint - the closest thing you have is the 6 Inf 1 Ftr on UK1 for London if you scrambled, 10 Inf if you didn’t.  The US fleet build in the Pacific is pretty straightforward on US1:  CV and BB at a minimum.  Everything else, including those purchases are dependent on the Axis moves.

I agree with your entire post except for this.  Perhaps against a newer player in a face to face game the BB has an ‘intimidation’ factor, but 9 times out of 10 I think it is better to buy two DDs for 16 and use the 4 left for something else- or buy a DD and a Cruiser (gives 5 Pips vice 4).  With two ships you have potential for two hits and they can be used for blocking/being in two different SZs if need be.  20 IPCs for a big BB that needs protecting seems like a waste for me.  Yes, they can take damage, but a lot of the time its not sitting at a Naval Base, so you have to either live with the damage or retreat it to a Naval Base.

I have played every official A&A game available and I think the last game where I bought a BB was the original Pacific with the US, and I regretted it even then.

It may be a bit antiquated, but I still believe in matching Japan’s Navy ship for ship if theres no early DOW.  So that CV and BB puts 3 allied BB in the Pacific and 2 CV with enough aircraft with Anzac’s to replace any lost early.

I will give the nod to DD’s (And SS) after the early purchases, but theres definitely some value in having a BB to take hit for you while you’re still outnumbered in naval ships - even if you’re rolling one less die.

I don’t mind the purchase of a BB, and I see some value in it, I just wouldn’t buy more than 1 at most.

I also see the value in trying to match the Japanese fleet, but isn’t it better to either:
1. build up an indestructible defensive fleet (carriers, fighters, and DDs) that Japan cannot defeat with its combined fleet/airforce.
2. build up an attack fleet/force (carriers, fighters, tac bombers, strategic bombers, DDs, Subs) to threaten specific sea zones where if the Japanese moved to they would be decimated.

[HipHopBernie]

With the minors in USA, you can only take out 3 ships in the pacific while not at war. Might as well bring out the big boys (I bought 2 carriers for the PAC).

[BJCard]

@HipHopBernie:

With the minors in USA, you can only take out 3 ships in the pacific while not at war. Might as well bring out the big boys (I bought 2 carriers for the PAC).

Agreed.  Building carriers is optimal in the first round if Japan didn’t do a J1.  You can move ships fairly easily from east coast to west coast though.

Also, the last few games I’ve played I needed a significant american fleet in the atlantic to help the uk and fight italy.  Germany always has several subs and 10+ aircraft in west germ or normandy-  makes it all but impossible for the UK to build up an adequate navy.

[Zhukov44]

@BJCard:

Well, sure BBs are an incredibly useful unit, but at what cost?  Just using battlecalc on triplea - 2 BBs (40 IPCs) could not beat 5 DDs (40 IPCs), where 5 DDs would beat 2 BBs with about 1 DD left.  So, as far as naval battles go, having 5 DDs is more useful than 2 BBs.  If you want to bombard, 3 Cruisers (36 IPCs) are better because they are cheaper and give potential for 3 hits (9 offensive pips) vs. potential for 2 hits (8 offensive pips).

Even 6 Subs (36 IPCs) would destroy 2 BBs and 2 BBs would barely beat 6 Subs (50/50).

Actually I don’t remember AA50- they were two hit and automatically healed?  were they 20 IPCs too?  auto heal makes them a bit better, but I’d still rather have a DD or SS swarm.  Not to mention you can use them in multiple SZs.

Again, the only reason to buy BBs in my mind is the intimidation factor.  Every other sea unit trumps it on cost per ‘pip.’

I also did not buy bbs for revised or aa50 and don’t buy them for global either.  But re. aa50, many of the best players buy them.  The best argument (in aa50) for a bb buy is buying one early on for the UK, since the 1-hit-heal and the bombard are so useful for UK’s objectives.

When analyzing the cost/benefit of bbs, I wouldn’t compare them to cruisers or destroyers.  I’d compare them to acs and fighters.  Now that ACs are 2 hit like BBs in the global rule set, I think that might take away some of the incentive to invest in battleships.  However, naval bases give naval units a new dynamism that they didn’t possess in aa50, so it might be too early to tell really.

[HipHopBernie]

Is it useful to use 2 american fleets in the PAC? Meaning one at Hawai (or up north), and one with Anzac.

[BJCard]

@Zhukov44:

@BJCard:

Well, sure BBs are an incredibly useful unit, but at what cost? �Just using battlecalc on triplea - 2 BBs (40 IPCs) could not beat 5 DDs (40 IPCs), where 5 DDs would beat 2 BBs with about 1 DD left. �So, as far as naval battles go, having 5 DDs is more useful than 2 BBs. �If you want to bombard, 3 Cruisers (36 IPCs) are better because they are cheaper and give potential for 3 hits (9 offensive pips) vs. potential for 2 hits (8 offensive pips). �

Even 6 Subs (36 IPCs) would destroy 2 BBs and 2 BBs would barely beat 6 Subs (50/50).

Actually I don’t remember AA50- they were two hit and automatically healed? �were they 20 IPCs too? �auto heal makes them a bit better, but I’d still rather have a DD or SS swarm. �Not to mention you can use them in multiple SZs.

Again, the only reason to buy BBs in my mind is the intimidation factor. �Every other sea unit trumps it on cost per ‘pip.’ �

I also did not buy bbs for revised or aa50 and don’t buy them for global either. �But re. aa50, many of the best players buy them. �The best argument (in aa50) for a bb buy is buying one early on for the UK, since the 1-hit-heal and the bombard are so useful for UK’s objectives.

When analyzing the cost/benefit of bbs, I wouldn’t compare them to cruisers or destroyers. �I’d compare them to acs and fighters. �Now that ACs are 2 hit like BBs in the global rule set, I think that might take away some of the incentive to invest in battleships. �However, naval bases give naval units a new dynamism that they didn’t possess in aa50, so it might be too early to tell really.

Well, if you want to compare 2 BBs to 1 CV and 2 Fighters (or 1 fighter 1 tactical bomber)- for the record not a great comparison because they have different abilities, especially the range of aircraft- I don’t have triplea here to test it, but 2 BBs cost $40 and have 8 att/def pips whereas: 1 CV, 2 Fighters ($36) have 6 att/10 def pips and 1 CV, 1 Fighter, 1 tac ($37) has 7 att/9 def pips.

The BBs seem to compare favorably with the CV + fighters buy, BUT- the CV + fighters cost less and fighters are more versatile.  If for instance, you own the Pacific as Japan or US those fighters can aid in land battles much easier than those BBs do.  Fighters can attack every round whereas BBs only get one shot on amphibious assaults.

[BJCard]

@HipHopBernie:

Is it useful to use 2 american fleets in the PAC? Meaning one at Hawai (or up north), and one with Anzac.

It can be- sometimes Japan will split its fleet up to compensate.  If Japan doesn’t split it up then they may be able to annihilate your fleets piecemeal.

[tloger]

I usually keep a QRF by western USA depending on what Japan has in SZ 6. Usually consists of a Carrier loaded and an assortment of subs and dd’s. Protection to react to Hawaii or Alaska/Aleautians.

[pmelmike]

In the Pacific, I normally keep a continuous flow of destroyers, subs, and sometimes battleships or loaded carriers from Western US, Hawaii, and Australia.  This keeps Japan and the DEI threatened, protects Hawaii and keeps ANZAC transports covered.  Subs are very usefull here because they force Japan to keep buying destroyers.  The less money Japan can put into to land units and transports the better for the allies.  It’s also usually worth it to suicide your units to kill Japanese capital ships because they generally can’t afford to replace them.  At least not at the rate that the US can.  If you start eliminating carriers and battleships you’ll see Japan retreat from the DEI and India every time.

As far as Europe is concerned, it all depends on how the fight in Africa and Russia is going.  You can land units in Africa straight from the Eastern US in order to poke Italy a little bit.  I personally like to have a nice little “transport bridge” from Eastern US, Gibraltor, and SZ 110.  A loaded carrier, maybe a battleship, and a couple of destroyers combined with the UK fleet should be enough to keep the German fleet at bay.  With this setup you can hit Normandy every turn to harass Germany and help the Soviet Union out.  Or you can go for the Med. and hit Italy pretty hard.  It all depends on which axis power needs the most attention at the time.

[BJCard]

@VZSTAL:

In the Pacific, I normally keep a continuous flow of destroyers, subs, and sometimes battleships or loaded carriers from Western US, Hawaii, and Australia.  This keeps Japan and the DEI threatened, protects Hawaii and keeps ANZAC transports covered.  Subs are very usefull here because they force Japan to keep buying destroyers.  The less money Japan can put into to land units and transports the better for the allies.  It’s also usually worth it to suicide your units to kill Japanese capital ships because they generally can’t afford to replace them.  At least not at the rate that the US can.  If you start eliminating carriers and battleships you’ll see Japan retreat from the DEI and India every time.

As far as Europe is concerned, it all depends on how the fight in Africa and Russia is going.  You can land units in Africa straight from the Eastern US in order to poke Italy a little bit.  I personally like to have a nice little “transport bridge” from Eastern US, Gibraltor, and SZ 110.  A loaded carrier, maybe a battleship, and a couple of destroyers combined with the UK fleet should be enough to keep the German fleet at bay.  With this setup you can hit Normandy every turn to harass Germany and help the Soviet Union out.  Or you can go for the Med. and hit Italy pretty hard.  It all depends on which axis power needs the most attention at the time.

Just be wary of German air attack on the Allied fleets.  I routinely see 10+ German aircraft in West Germany.

[pmelmike]

Just be wary of German air attack on the Allied fleets.  I routinely see 10+ German aircraft in West Germany.

Yes a good German player will always have a navy and air force to content will allied fleets off the coast of France. It takes some cooperation between UK and US to prevent their ships from being sunk. If the UK has three fighters to scramble and several destroyers and the US provides the capital ships, it is very difficult for the German player to prevent them from landing in Europe and to keep buying enough units to defeat the Soviet Union.

[HipHopBernie]

Russia:
Is it better to let the Germans take Ukraine or Novgorod and then to counter attack? This way, your stack of russian infantry don’t get hit by all the german planes.

[variance]

@HipHopBernie:

Russia:
Is it better to let the Germans take Ukraine or Novgorod and then to counter attack? This way, your stack of russian infantry don’t get hit by all the german planes.

Yes, but often best to just strafe them rather than liberate those territories.