We need an allied playbook.

@crockett36 we can do something like that.
I recommend a non league no LL, no Tech reg. dice and vanilla 2nd ed. G40 game for the purpose to get 1st Hand Infos and Help for new and advances Players.
I will start with a Standard opening and we will go from there.
The terms are good for you?
Maybe this should help us all to get a solid Allied playbook to cover most of our all concerns.

Screenshots after each allied turn should give us visual outlines of each round.

@aequitas-et-veritas I would prefer to do tech for historical reasons, but I rarely buy them. Rarely being never, but no promises. it is, in my opinion, the greatest fault of the g40. But I play the game that is, not the game I want. To all other terms I heartily concur! Thank you. For the common good!

@Argothair I will take the Pearl out.

@Argothair can you give me a tuv on those attacks? with another dd and a cruiser in there that might be a good rope a dope move. assets loss vs gains, I’m judging the Japanese as the winners.

@crockett36 it’s a feel good move, but what are your strat/economic objectives?

@crockett36

I take issue with U.S. not scrambling at Hawaii. Its a losing defense, but killing the destroyer and maybe extra plane is the priority. This is because the U.S. fleet at San Diego can reach and assuming Japan keeps 2 fighters to land on the carriers, you can take out much or 100% of Japan’s fleet at Wake and Japan losing carriers and planes is a big win.

The issue for Japan becomes that you can take 3 hits (destroyer and 1 carrier) before you have to choose between wounding a carrier (and automatically losing 2 planes) or losing planes and risking the battle.

You can use a transport to take Wake on J1, but now we’re talking about missed opportunities down the road… that transport usually brings troops south and will be out of use for 3 turns (J1-J3) if it survives at all. But that would allow your fighters to survive.

So… is that worth it for the U.S.? Maybe. Japan loses 2 carriers, 4 planes, 2 destroyers, and a sub. (88ipcs, depending on if you take Wake Island with a transport) vs U.S. (78 ipcs after losing 54 ipcs from Japan’s attack). That may sound unbalanced but the U.S. makes 30+ ipcs more than Japan for 3+ rounds this way. Focusing your attack south closing that gap noticeably quicker and you can still keep the U.S. back from interfering for a while.

Japan will also lose a transport at Borneo to the UKPac. Now Japan can’t take the Money Islands on J2. You let China keep Yunnan, so they’re buying artillery.

So slowing down the U.S. cost Japan 1-2 ipcs on J1, 10ipcs on J2, 5+ipcs on J3 and UKPac gets +8 or more ipcs… its hard to know what happens after that but China and UKPac can be relatively aggressive with no real threat of Calcutta falling to transports. ANZAC’s fleet becomes a threat quickly since Japan only has 1 carrier to help defend its fleet.

You don’t have to take the Pearl out, @crockett36 – I’m not saying your Axis opening is bad; I’m just saying it’s different from what I’m used to. As you suspect, the TUV for the Allies on the pair of attacks is negative, even including the DD in Hawaii that you can kill for free, but it’s not badly negative, and for some of the reasons @weddingsinger points out, I think losing all that material so early in the game tends to weaken Japan’s momentum enough that it’s worthwhile for the Allies to take the economic loss of 20 IPCs or so in TUV.

If you send the transport to take Wake, then I would not make the attacks – but that means you’re either sending only 1 transport to the Philippines (you could get diced and lose that battle) or you’re skipping the attack on Borneo (India gets rich), and either way, you don’t have a third transport in Indonesia to finish hoovering up the money islands, so that puts you down 9 IPCs on J2 and possibly also on J3.

Anyway, I think your overall plan of attack for the Axis is just fine. I wasn’t trying to criticize your decision, just pointing out what I saw as the pros and cons of a strategy that was different than what I’m used to. :)

@Argothair

I should mention, since I realize its not clear… when I lay out my issues with a strategy like @crockett36 's, I don’t mean I won’t consider it. I am merely offering my issues and allow for follow up. I already decided I’m not anti-Crockett’s UK navy stack while skipping the Taranto raid. Rather, early play testing suggests it is a very interesting and useful strategy.

Arguing for me isn’t about ‘winning’ an argument, but merely discussing every angle to make a strategy as efficient as possible.

well said weddingsinger. the market place of ideas is the besting shopping mall of all. someone somewhere said “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” if you examine the priority of my us playbook, you will see that I prioritize the Atlantic. My concern in the Pacific is singular: the defense of Honolulu. So those planes are super precious to me. I did what I did this turn to garrison the island. I will resupply with a plane per turn until satisfied it is impregnable.

@Argothair yeah, I don’t like weakening the Phil invasion or putting off the money islands. Pearl’s not worth that. But I could add a bb the zone and that would be that.

Can you guys post screen shots here in the thread? I’ve never been able to get Triple A to work on my computer so I’m enjoying reading the interactions about your game but guessing somewhat at the larger “look of things” on the map. If not - no worries.

@Guam-Solo Here is the Pacific theater after US1 from Crockett’s save game file

If you’re curious about anything else specific, let me know

I edited out of Manila Bay a bb and a dd and placed them with the 2 Japanese carriers. allied playbook turn 1engl.tsvg

Thanks for posting a screen shot!

@Guam-Solo said in We need an allied playbook.:

Can you guys post screen shots here in the thread? I’ve never been able to get Triple A to work on my computer so I’m enjoying reading the interactions about your game but guessing somewhat at the larger “look of things” on the map. If not - no worries.

Hi Guam

We need to get triplea working for you :) did you try the gargantua thread ?

link text

I think most of it is still relevant. I hesitate to speak for anyone, ( guess I will anyway ) but Panther is very helpful with software questions/problems among his other talents. :)

@barnee Hmm - no, I didn’t even know there was a thread for that. I only recently came back to the forum. When I try to download Triple A I’m told I need a new version of Java, but I can’t seem to down load the version needed. I had a computer tech guy look at it. He thought he could fix it for me but never got to it… I’ll take a look at the Gargantua thread.

@Guam-Solo yea I think java 8 either 191 or 201 is what’s needed. I’m not sure if the new javas work with it or not. If you have trouble ask @Panther

@barnee Indeed, Java 8 is needed for the current TripleA stable (1.9.0.0.13066). It is always recommended to have the latest update installed (currently update 201).

@Guam-Solo I recommend that you check our dedicated TripleA Support Category, especially the stickied topics there. You’ll find everything you need. In case you need support, just ask. :slightly_smiling_face:

allied playbook turn 1fre.tsvg

@crockett36 Why did the UK park their fleet off Malta instead of doing the Taranto raid or stacking in the safer sz92?