We need an allied playbook.

@AndrewAAGamer said in Allies IC Question:

So first off, let me say, that unless France went poorly, and I lost too many units, I always take Normandy on G2. So, this is kind of a new line of thought for me.

It should not be new to you. I’ve been preaching it at IP games and here on the forums since 2016. Here’s an article where I specifically mention not taking Normandy:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/994002

No one listens…

Marsh

@groskopf said in Losing as the Allies every time!:

@AndrewAAGamer , No bid.

Well that is a major issue right there. It is generally accepted the Axis have a major advantage in Global 1940 OOB. Bids of 30-50 are typical and I have seen them and played them higher than that.

Check out our Tutor Game below where there is a discussion of where the bid should go and why.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35254/tutor-game-andrewaagamer-x-vs-trulpen-and-everyone-else-a-50-oob/367?page=15

Also depends on IF:
UK brings in the extra Ftr and a Bmbr.

But as SH allready explained:
What is your goal with Italy. Stall as long as possible UK in the Med.?
Getting aggressiv?
Looking for NO’ s?
Or soften UK RN for the German Luftwaffe?

If you scramble with Italy or not reveals also your future Plans in the Med. :wink:

No. If Germany already owns Scotland and you offload units there, that would be done during non-combat. Whether it’s an amphib assault or non-combat, once you offload units, they can’t move until the following turn.

Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines.

This should read “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

Is there a Pacific map like this?

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

@Pelanderfunk:

I like the early attacks against the US, but it looks like Russia was becoming a problem.

The attacks against America were half baked - I was still at the drawing board but jumped in anyway.

A bigger problem than Russia is UK in Africa, the Mediterranean, and South East Europe.  If Italy were an asset to Europe and not a liability, I think I could deal with the Russians.  In fact, if I could lock UK out of the Med (without extra effort from Japan or Germany) I would combine the Japanese North American campaign with Sea Lion and be sitting pretty.

What to do about that pesky Med…