We need an allied playbook.

@DessertFox599 using bombardment and air power almost guarantees the slaughter of the ground troops, even if you lose your own.

I’ve never understood why anyone would be even slightly interested in taking Iraq on turn 1 – it’s literally impossible for the Axis to activate it before UK2, you can take Persia from the same sea zone, Persia is worth the same amount to your economy, and Persia comes with 2 free troops instead of opposing you with 3 enemy troops.

Even if you have nothing better to do with your bombards and air power on UK1 (which is almost never the case), you should still prefer Persia to Iraq because Persia strengthens your forces and Iraq weakens your forces.

I’ve always found it restricting for air units traversing back and forth between India and Egypt. It’s also 2 more bucks in the British pockets per turn.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

I’ve always found it restricting for air units traversing back and forth between India and Egypt. It’s also 2 more bucks in the British pockets per turn.

It’s only 2 more bucks if you also activate Persia. Are you sending both the SZ98 & SZ39 TTs to SZ80? And air from India - that has to land in Trans-Jordan. I think there are better things to do with India’s planes, and I’m nearly certain there are better things to do with the SZ98 Cruiser.

It’s also not much of a restriction for air. Air can attack UK2 with ground troops and then there’s no more restriction.

I really don’t know what better things i would be doing with the cruiser or the air. the air could help garrison Yunnan? the cruiser is currently steaming toward the Med to reinforce Naval superiority. that’s why it didn’t take a potshot into Iraq?

I see most players stacking Egypt or Yunnan. My troops will be there when the time comes. Though as discussed before, I will not value other cities over the needs of Moscow, in her hour of need. And I surmise that I cannot keep all five of the previously mentioned cities if the enemy is determined to take any but Moscow.

Yes I sent both transports to 80.

The air is probably better used in stacking Burma if there’s been a J1 DOW. Although some may say that the J3 Calcutta crush is a waste of time and the allies should just allow it. I’m not convinced of that one.

The SZ98 cruiser normally either does Taranto or participates in a SZ92 stack. The SZ39 one has more latitude.


dessertfox asked me for a taranto version of my opener. this was a no scramble? would you have scrambled?

allied playbook turn 1engl-taranto.tsvg

@simon33 the advantage in this game is with the attacker. I’m trying to make even my defenses into attacks with methods like fade and strike, air used in ground support, staying close to the coast. I want my planes to kill every turn, not sit in a huddle.

@crockett36

I might consider scrambling against that but probably wouldn’t. The math shows up as each fighter scrambling gives you good odds to take out a UK fighter, but only 1. (there should also be a German fighter there to make it an even 3).

Also, your G1 makes it so UK can take W. Germany on their turn. Busting that into a mIC would be a nice win for the Allies.

London with zero fighters and a German navy afloat is worrying - even with the U.S. going hard to the Atlantic, I might consider Sea Lion, but mostly it means Japan will go hog wild in the Pacific.[link text]

Your Japan opener is a bit off. Japan needs to hit Yunnan J1 no matter what. I’ve attached a version where I also did the slightly riskier attack including Hunan, but the safer choice is to send that inf and planes to Kwangtung.
triplea_33316_jap1 (1).tsvg

I don’t get the Yunnan thing. As China and/or the English I’m going to whack that every time and succeed. Is it bloodletting?

@crockett36 It blocks China from buying artillery. Very useful down the road to limit their counter attacks.

Its also the largest group of Chinese troops you can hit and you can do it without any real risk of losing.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

I don’t get the Yunnan thing. As China and/or the English I’m going to whack that every time and succeed. Is it bloodletting?

Without significant bid units, it’s absolutely worth hitting. You could strip an inf (in a J1 scenario) or the artillery (J2+ scenario) if you’re concerned about losing too many ground units. Most players wouldn’t though because the desire to take the territory is so high. Once you take the territory, China needs to move units in to retake it, normally at least 2. You can then hit these units J2 in most games. If you don’t take the territory, China can evacuate and also buy artillery, which will totally be able to hit anything moving in J2. And collect the NO.

I don’t get why would even think about not attacking Yunnan without a significant stack there?

I go back and forth on the Yunnan question. For all the reasons you point out, @simon33, I like to hit Yunnan J1 when I can…but I also consider it crucial to clear Yunnan on J2, and I find that if I’m declaring war on J1, I often burn through all of my land units and wind up with nothing to hit Yunnan with on J2 except for the 2 infantry that start in Siam. The Kwangsi infantry go fight and die in Yunnan or Hunan, the Kiangsi infantry are stuck in Hong Kong even if they survive, and my 3 transports are busy with Borneo (1x) and Philippines (2x).

So if China stacks Yunnan with, e.g., 8 infantry and a fighter on China 1, plus 5-6 units from the UK, then even with no bid, I don’t necessarily feel comfortable attacking that stack with only 2 infantry and air power. Sometimes I will, if the J1 attacks went well and the USA seems busy, but if I lost a plane killing the UK BB and the USA is going KJF, I don’t necessarily have 3-4 planes to spare to kill Yunnan on J2.

It isn’t always possible to retake it J2.

Consider the following scenario: J1 DOW, successful Yunnan attack. Yunnan retaken C1 with no defensive hits. 2inf from Siam now in FIC but hit with the 3 UK planes. 2 planes lost but both troops gone. 10 Chinese inf can be placed on Yunnan. Stalingrad mech/inf can reach Yunnan with 3 starting USSR planes. Remaining UK plane can also sit there, plus 2UK inf from Burma.

No ground troops are in range but perhaps all the starting air force.

While such an air strafe is 99%, we are assuming every Japanese plane survived and is also in range. It’s also still a negative TUV expected value. Losing all those planes would not be worth it for Japan IMO. USA would smack them around so easily after that massive hit to their forces.

@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:

I go back and forth on the Yunnan question

Not following. It’s one of the least close calls in the game.

@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:

I often burn through all of my land units and wind up with nothing to hit Yunnan with on J2 except for the 2 infantry that start in Siam

Which are vulnerable to being taken out by UK air. That’s the main merit in keeping an inf back from Yunnan J1. You’re pretty sure to have a land unit to attack Yunnan J2. The downside is that there’s a only about a 60% chance of taking the territory with your art & planes intact without bring in bombers.

@simon33 I think maybe your preferences are so different from mine on this one that we’re having trouble communicating.

Sure, literally, it is possible for the Allies to make it impossible for Japan to take Yunnan J2 after a normal J1 opening, regardless of whether you hold an Japanese infantry back in Kiangsi. In practice, I think Allied players would very rarely want to fly the entire Russian air force to Yunnan, because holding Yunnan is worth 4 to 7 IPCs of income (depending on whether you’re playing Balanced Mod) and the ability to purchase 3 artillery instead of 4 infantry (useful, but not utterly game-changing; the entire Chinese stack shifts from an attack of about 12 punch to 17 punch, and it is slightly worse at defending).

If you stack Yunnan with literally everything that can reach as the Allies, that exposes you to strategic bombing in Russian factories on G3 and in India on J2, it makes your R3 trades much weaker and might even allow the Germans to stack one space deeper into Eastern Europe, and it makes a Japanese harbor purchase in Formosa on J2 stronger because there are no longer enough units defending India and Burma. In my opinion, these disadvantages outweigh the extra Chinese income and the extra Chinese punch.

I hear you saying that you’re somewhat interested in the question of whether to attack Yunnan with 3 land units or 4 land units on J1, but that you are pretty sure it’s wiser to attack with 4 land units when declaring J1 because without your bombers, 3 land units doesn’t give you a strong enough attack. That’s fine. I mostly agree with you about that specific point, especially if you’re insisting on taking Yunnan, rather than just clearing it.

What I’m interested in is whether it makes sense to try to capture Yunnan at all on J1 during a J1 DoW. I go back and forth on that question. I like attacking with 3 land units and 2 planes and then retreating when you are down to 1 infantry or so – you might get lucky and capture the territory, and on average you will kill more infantry than you lose. Together with a small attack on Hunan, you can bleed the Chinese pretty dry on J1 and keep Kwangsi safe for a while.

It may seem clear to you that a full J1 attack on Yunnan is obviously a good idea, but it’s not clear to me. If you want to explain more about why you’re so passionate about capturing Yunnan on J1, I’m genuinely interested to hear more about your opinions, but just declaring that “it’s one of the least close calls in the game” isn’t helpful to me.