My Allied strategy

@shadowhawk I never though about that , that is really smart. I will make sure to do that.

@Requester45:

I’m assuming that nobody has payed any attention to anything I’ve outlined in this strategy. I don’t know how much more I can say on the strategy. I might make another shorter video showing a push through the North. If someone could describe their German strategy going through the North I’ll gladly post a video on it.

The northern route better permits the German forces to stack all together on G4 at Belarus or Russia loses tons of Blockers which in turn causes other issues. Not to mention a forward base to produce units from. Whereas the southern route, you might not get to produce German units in Ukraine on G4 because there would have been a huge Russian stack in Bryansk ready to counter the small battles that occur for key objectives. In a PBEM game, my opponent stopped my northern route (yes it can be done). However, he did it at the expense of losing Moscow. Unfortunately for me, my Japan game is sucking and I’ll probably end up losing in the long run.

The money in the south are places like Rostov / Caucaus / Stalingrad…ect. Your chances of getting to those places faster is better through the northern route against experienced allied players. The southern is a choke point at w. Ukraine. The northern route offers Belarus and Smolensk as places for an Italian can opener to let the German stack and planes land. If your playing experiences is limited to face-to-face games than you’ve only played with a smaller finite amount of players.

If you’re whole “Red Tide” is based upon a Sea Lion game, well, that’s a scenario that rarely occurs. Russia can easily gobble up lots of NOs for a while until Germany stabilizes the front.

@teslas:

edit-
Brazil seems inferior to Central US/SE.Mexico? Both are 4 away from SZ 92. Both are 6 away from London.

The Central US territories additionally also allow it to get back to Hawaii. Brazil does not. Any reason why you prefer Brazil?

You’re probably right.  Two things for you to consider, though.

One is, maybe USA is not at war yet so you can’t land on Central USA.  Maybe ANZ or UK has taken Brazil.

Second is, you do have more options to get deeper into Africa.  But you’re probably right - Central America would be better in many cases.

I’ve tried this cheesy move two or three times, and barring the best possible situation (Japan has 4 unloaded transports you can deny them, and they DOW next round anyway to get the Philippines), it’s more a hindrance than a help to the Allies.  I don’t think I’ll be using it in the future.

So my latest strategy with the Allies was highly experimental but successful. First off, let me say that many house rules were used. We’ve never used house rules before, so we just recently began the journey of spicing up the game. The most notable house rules we used in this game were the Neutral Block rule, transport trucks, transport planes, and a Generals rule (Japan, Germany, U.S. , Russia, and U.K. each get randomly selected commanders with different perks) Now, onto the strategy that I call “Operation Roaring Bear”: At the beginning of the game, I sent 2 Russian infantry south. Britain bombed out Iraq, so Russia marched one man into Persia and Iraq at the same time. In Africa, the U.K. used aircraft to destroy the Italians without taking their territory. Russia was able to take all those normally useless Italian territories and turn them into sweet sweet 3ipc bonuses a piece. At the same time, 1 Russian infantry boarded a British transport and sailed to Brazil. The Americans used a handful of heavy bombers to destroy all the South American armies, and the Russians collected a nice chunk of change. It was pretty hilarious to have Moscow entirely surrounded and still collect enough money for 10-12 infantry per turn. Then after the Germans failed to take the city, the Russians steamrolled across Europe.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

We started at 3:00 PM and finished at 2:30 PM the next day with a one-hour catnap.  We were able to complete 2 games of 1940 & one game of 1942.  I one 2 out of three games. (one1940 and one 1942)

The problem is that, in most of my games, a sealion has occured, which means the US has to spend mostly in the Atlantic to liberate the UK.