We need an allied playbook.

@Mursilis

If I’m the German player and see UK spend much anywhere that isnt London on UK1, like a Cairo factory, I’m taking London G3

@weddingsinger
It really depends on what Japan does. If they bring the US into the war you can build a factory. You might wait till turn two. I usually do a factory and then stack infantry and fighters in england. It really depends on how many ships I have left after Germany’s opening.

Well naturally almost every allied plan is an “if, then” plan. The openers I propose are ones that typically work regardless of what the Axis are doing.

Against my better judgment, here are some thoughts on the “meta” or “structure” of an Allied playbook.

With respect to Germany and Japan, the Allies are like the black pieces in chess – they’re responding to Axis initiative, so a good Allied player needs a battle plan for each of the most popular German and Japanese openings.

With respect to Italy, the Allies are like the white pieces in chess – the Allies set the initiative, and Italy has to respond. Depending on what the Allies do, Italy could start the game with one transport or three transports, with a big force in East Africa or no units in East Africa with a big stack in Tobruk or no forces in Tobruk, with Vichy control guaranteed, or with Vichy nearly impossible and an Allied landing force in Greece. So a good Allied player doesn’t need different plans to use against Italy; they just need one good anti-Italian attack. (A master-class player will need different plans so they can perfectly adapt their play to the situation on the board and keep their opponent off-balance, but that’s beyond the scope of a “playbook.”)

As I see it, the most popular German openings are:

• Sea Lion (build transports and some surface ships, focus on taking London on G3),
• Barbarossa (build mechs and tanks, focus on taking Moscow G5 - G7 with enough tanks/planes left over to threaten Egypt),
• Dark Skies (build mechs and bombers, focus on holding all Allies at bay with bombers while Germany accumulates income advantages from Norway, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and maybe Egypt and/or Iraq).

The most popular Japanese openings, as far as I can tell, are:

• a J1 attack on the Philippines and Borneo with the idea of taking all of the money islands by J2-J3 and taking India J3-J6 or at least knocking the UK Pacific’s income down to near-zero very quickly
• a J1 attack on Pearl Harbor, with or without an invasion of Hawaii, with the idea of tying down US assets to help Germany win in Europe
• a conservative J2 or J3 attack that focuses on knocking out China early and making high-value trades to keep Japan’s options wide open so they can threaten Russia, India, or Australia later in the game
• a suicidal attack on Russia, often through China, with planes being sacrificed to airblitz open a path and/or strategically bomb Moscow to weaken Russia for a German win.

So a good Allied playbook needs ways to address all 7 of these Axis openings, as well as one good anti-Italian attack. Personally, I prefer scrambling no planes against the German naval attacks and then launching the Taranto raid every game, combined with moving the Pacific transport to Persia and the Mediterranean transport to either Southern France (if needed to prevent Vichy) or Greece (if Vichy will not be triggered). On turn 1, always, I like to buy a factory in Egypt and 2 inf, 1 ftr in London. I like to follow that up with a factory in Persia, build mostly land units until Italy is cleared out of Africa, Iraq, and/or Syria, and then build mostly subs to shut Italy down in Sea Zone 97. It’s not a foolproof plan and there are times when something else might be slightly better, but this plan will always work well enough, no matter what your Axis opponents are doing. The Allies have enough to think about in the opening without trying to memorize five different anti-Italian openings.

@Argothair Good thoughts. I think that is a good approach.

@Mursilis said in We need an allied playbook.:

@weddingsinger
It really depends on what Japan does. If they bring the US into the war you can build a factory. You might wait till turn two. I usually do a factory and then stack infantry and fighters in england. It really depends on how many ships I have left after Germany’s opening.

Maybe, but that still requires the U.S. to buy 100% for the Atlantic side. Most effectively is the London Calling defense where you more or less allow for Germany to take London and then the U.S. sinks the transports on US3… but it takes specific steps. UK takes Ireland for a landing spot for U.S. bombers. US1 buy carriers, US2 buy bombers, move carriers to sz102.

@weddingsinger
I really don’t see how Germany can take london g3 if I put 12 dollars on egypt and the rest on london. UK1 5 in. UK2 1F 6 in. So 5 Fighters, 5 AA’s, 17 Infantry and the one infantry and tank from canada when you hit g3 with 9 tanks, 1 art and 10 infantry plus lets say 2 bombers 3 fighters and 3 tacs. Probably g4 if you stack scotland and then hit with a second force. It will still be very very costly if germany pulls it off to the point that I don’t see how they can survive russia who is stacking tanks and mechs. Should just blitz right in. Of course I could be completely wrong.

@Mursilis

If you have 5 fighters it means you didn’t scramble and didn’t do Taranto, in which case, yeah, no Sea Lion but that seems counter to your take of UK going strong against Italy. If Germany is going Sea Lion though London is getting bombed G2 with 3 or 4 bombers.

All it takes is a 4th bomber hitting G2 and London only having 4 fighters and the odds swing to Germany and they get it with 1 land unit and 4 or 5 fighters/tacticals and their 3 or 4 bombers.

As for Russia, most players don’t buy mechs/tanks and I’m not certain how that would affect things. If Germany stacks Romania G3 and let’s Russia attack Finland and Poland, then G5 they can use their transports to take back everything on the Baltic and some Russian territory.

We could argue all week about what the exactly right balance is, but I imagine most of us agree in principle that you need to slightly adjust your British opening based off of the G1 attack and purchase. Like, if Germany buys 2 bombers and sinks both British home fleets and the Canadian transport without losing any planes, well, yeah, buy 8 or 9 inf for London and leave the Egypt factory for UK2; it can wait. Conversely, if Germany declares war on Russia G1 or loses half its air force, well, maybe you don’t even need the 2 inf, 1 ftr for London on UK1 and you can buy the Egypt factory plus a destroyer or whatever else you want for the Atlantic, instead. In the vast majority of games, though, you wind up with an average result that justifies an average buy to defend London: 3 inf if you’re feeling aggressive, or 2 inf, 1 ftr for a moderate position, or 6 inf if you’re feeling conservative.

Class, class! Attention please. Put these five cities in order of strategic importance to an Allied victory: Cairo, Calcutta, Moscow, London and Honolulu. Let it be Chronological and magnitude of importance.

1-5) Moscow. That is all

You answer wisely, yet an examination of most of our strategies reveals that most practically place Calcutta and Egypt and even Honolulu above Moscow.

Now class, can any one explain what an argumentum ad absurdum, also known as reductio ad absurdum?

@crockett36

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for “argument to absurdity”), apagogical arguments or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.

Satis est!

Let’s be absurd!

Suspending disbelief for a moment, say we all agreed with Taamvan, what would your strategy be? We might call this imaginary game save Moscow! or the Great patriotic war. That is your sole responsibility for 5 turns. Would Germany be able to take Moscow by turn 5 or 6?

@crockett36 I would argue the complete opposite. Attack where the enemy is not is what the art of war recommends no? If you’re playing for victory cities then ignore fortress Moscow.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

Let’s be absurd!

Suspending disbelief for a moment, say we all agreed with Taamvan, what would your strategy be? We might call this imaginary game save Moscow! or the Great patriotic war. That is your sole responsibility for 5 turns. Would Germany be able to take Moscow by turn 5 or 6?

Not a chance. If the allies put everything into Moscow, the Axis can’t take it that soon by any stretch.

@simon33 I was gonna say… all the opening Allied Air Force can reach, so 5+ UK fighters, 1 French, 3-5 U.S., and some tacticals, plus some more built after that would put quite a hurt on Germany’s Moscow dreams.

The question gets a little weird because if you send the entire starting Allied air force directly to Moscow, then you could wind up losing some of London, Gibraltar, Cairo, etc. in ways that make it harder to build more fighters or get them to Moscow before G5 / G6.

You can also lose the game on victory cities with Germany controlling London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Warsaw, Cairo, Leningrad, and Stalingrad – no Moscow conquest required.

I still think it’s an interesting question, but the answer isn’t as simple as just saying “fly every fighter on the map to Moscow and then Moscow won’t fall and then the Allies win.”

@Argothair Precisely my point earlier. If UK commits every plane to Moscow immediately then the Germans have a leg up taking London and the Italians can take Cairo.