We need an allied playbook.

I thought a bit about an according Allies strategy guideline and came to the conclusion, it would be best to find an approbiate answer to a J1DoW and a G2 DOW since these would be the most represented Axis strategies.

All the Input made so far is good but in order to make an Allied playbook that everybody “could” use, a J1DoW and a G2/3 Opening should be the starting set up.

@aequitas-et-veritas Good observation. I appreciate all the input in this thread so far and have used parts of it in my last couple of games. I think Crockett’s belief is that reactionary strategies are often (not always) lazy–or at least they cause vacillation or even paralysis in achieving strategic objectives. For a new player it can be difficult to comprehend how to spend the U.S. IPC’s, or that what you purchase rounds 1-4 say a lot about your strategic objectives (or lack thereof). I think new players also miss the importance of economic warfare on the axis. In this sense, sorting out allied strategic objectives (and necessary purchases to achieve them), and then calculating where to sandbag the axis (economic war) make for two very sound pillars of strength for the allies. Perhaps somewhat akin to Young Grasshoppers “4 Pillars of Strength” for the Japanese. As a new player I would find these immensely helpful (even now I do).

However, I think @aequitas-et-veritas’s suggestion of a J1 or G2 DOW context makes sense as well. The beauty of Cow’s Japan playbook is that it gives a new player a script to follow for several rounds. Turn order affects this for the Japanese and German playbook as they can decide when to attack and bring U.S/Russia into it–and especially the ability to strike at allied pieces before they can be repositioned for safety. In some J1 attack scenarios Pearl is attacked and in others it isn’t. So I think scripting is more of a challenge. The beauty of Crockett’s “playbook in progress” is that he has given us 2 pillars of strength with flexibility to respond to different axis opening moves. If I recall correctly, Cow was pummeled for his J1 DOW suggestion for awhile. It took some time for the community to change the widely held view that keeping the U.S. out was a better way to go. I see playbooks as a work in progress, with trial and error, working towards a coalescence of thought.

It would be awesome to see you, @aequitas-et-veritas, throw out a straw man J1 or G2 DOW script for the allies! I say that with respect and humility because so far I’m reading and taking a lot from the thread without sitting down and stabbing at strategic inputs myself…

US Playbook: summary

I began with the end. The goals of the strategic objectives that I’ve laid out has been to destroy the enemies ability to make war and eliminate the units on the board. The work of laying down a “floating bridge” GHG by creating an efficient shuck sets the Americans up to devastate the enemy by asymmetrical warfare while matching boots on the ground or planes in the sky with the Axis powers.

The enemy’s floodwaters might overcome a sandbagged territory or two. Hopefully, instead of profiting by these conquests they are spent and easily mopped up by reserves that don’t have to contend with the air force or naval bombardments when they attack the weary defenders. Operation Ricochet depends on this. We have begun to nibble at the edges. The question then presents itself. Which edges should we nibble? The short answer is the valuable ones. Remember that we are mainly attempting to dash the economic ambition of the Axis.

By my count, the Germans are making 47 pre-Barbarossa, with 10 IPCs of National Objectives. When they flood the Soviet Union they can grab around 16 easily and stand at the gates of Moscow, with 5 more IPC from another NO. This is around 78 IPCs. The Allies can not survive long if this endures.

Robbing the Huns of Scandinavia reduces that income down by 10 and forces them to sandbag or risk losing 8 more PDQ. Greece might be a stretch, but there are nine IPCs in the vicinity. Most of them are near sz 97. A fleet there would ensure the Italians stay home to defend and places the responsibility for recapture squarely on the Germans’ shoulders.
Here we see the value of multiple fleets surrounding the enemy. He might be able to wipe out our troops in the Balkans, but he has to fear landings in so many areas that he must defend the capital and place the rest of his forces in a reactionary position.

@crockett36 In the Pac, from an economic standpoint, nothing jumps out at the American. However, if one assumes the responsibility for annihilating the IJN, the possibilities open like a flower in May. Easily the best get is the Philippines, with the NO. Malaya would be next in value for money made by the Allies via income and bonuses. As to theft and gain, stealing one of the money islands disrupts 8 plus dollars of the enemy’s revenue stream and puts some in your side’s as well.

US Playbook: summary

Turn 1: Buy all carriers, put them in the Pacific.

Turn 2: Buy bombers

Turn 3: Buy bombers

Turn 4: Buy bombers

…

Turn 27: Buy bombers

That’s the long version. The short version is “carriers then bombers for life” :)

@DizzKneeLand33

AKA light skies

except it doesnt work too well
because you’ve got to have a safe place to land
and a fleet
and those bombers,
though the single most powerful unit in the game,
cannot protect or take territory or
hold blue water

Well, we can agree to disagree.

I will just state this fact. a US bomber built in WUSA can make it to Moscow 3 turns later, killing Japan units when needed on its way from WUSA to Queensland to India to Moscow. Bombers can defend a large stack almost as good as infantry, and they sure get there a heckuva lot quicker.

So, as the USA you can focus on Japan while reinforcing Europe when needed. Or killing a med fleet if Moscow falls – making the capture of Egypt more problematic.

The bottom line is that they are very fast and very flexible.

And, of course bombers hold blue water (be they USA or Japan) – they create very large dead zones, thereby protecting said water on their way to protecting Russian land…

@DizzKneeLand33

I agree with each of the things you are saying individually,

What I disagree with is the conclusion that buying any 1 unit idiomatically or based on a pat formula can win you the game. Even I was just espousing USA “subs subs subs” but its a “carriers first then subs then sbombers with dds mixed in” plan not just build 200 subs = u win.

@taamvan well of course it can be deeper than that. The first round of carriers is to support ANZAC. What the bombers do in addition to full board support is to keep Japan’s navy pretty much grouped together. Every game is different, but the key is this: keeping Japan from winning. If you can do that, and then shift to Europe/Egypt, the Allies have good chances even when Moscow falls.

In the end, Moscow will fall against a good German player. That’s really when the game begins, not ends. Keeping the Axis out of Egypt is the key. And, if the US can send planes to make the taking of Moscow more painful to Germany (and not the UK) and to clear the Med and so forth, then the UK can focus fully on Egypt. This is the key to Allied victory imho.

A bomber only costs 12 ipc’s. If you can hit a land stack in one go (say with 25 bombers) then indirectly those bombers control land. And, if you consider the costs of transporting US troops to the mideast, bombers are actually cheaper than infantry when you do the math (and more effective).

Everything counts in large amounts… :)

EDIT: Consider how far ANZAC planes can go on US carriers. US moves then ANZAC before Japan. Even more dead zones are created in the Pacific this way.

@DizzKneeLand33

did you just drop a Depeche Mode quote in an Axis and Allies conversation? Bravo.

Sir, I salute you.

Well sometimes this is your last chance. After that, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and DizzKneeLand33 shows you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.😉

@aequitas-et-veritas

since when is “Eat Me/Drink Me” a red blue thing? I find the pill colors so confusing–which color pill do I take so that I can remain in the world with the tender grass fed steaks BUT THAT ALSO INCLUDES a copy of the complete works of Jean Baudrillard in audiobook format?

Didn’t Hitler think he could just bomb Britain into capitulation? Seems like “boots on the ground” is always necessary and US needs a shuck system in place for this. Aircraft can’t take territories and can’t defend fleets needed to bring in troops to Europe–if US leaves shucking to the Brits. Have you play tested the light skies strategy against good opponents?

@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:

@aequitas-et-veritas

since when is “Eat Me/Drink Me” a red blue thing? I find the pill colors so confusing–which color pill do I take so that I can remain in the world with the tender grass fed steaks …

is that the kirk douglas farah fawcett sci fi ? : ) The blue one that is : )

and sorry corn fed makes for tender :)

Economic area values:
Americas 68
Europe 62
Soviet Union 37
Africa 21
Middle East 6
China and Korea 30
Southeast Asia 13
Pac islands 20
Aus 10
=267

In addition, the starting values:
SU 37
Ger 30
Jap 26
US 52
GB 28
UK 17
Italy 10
Aus 10
Fr 19
Allies=163
Axis=66
Neutrals Pro=

End of turn 1: Not counting National Objectives
Ger 39-47
Rus 35-37
Jap 30-42
US 50-52
China 7-11
GB 25-31
UK 14-21
IT 10-18
Anz 10
Fr 8-13 no income
Allies=141-162
Axis=82-107

End of turn 1: with National Objectives…
Ger +44-57
Rus 35-42
Jap 30-52
US 55-87
Chi 13-17
Bri 30-36
UK -19-26
Ita 20-28
Anz 10-20
Fra -

Should probably do Max NOs for Axis in the Middle game …

The question is: how much do the Axis have to earn in order to be unstoppable? This wouldn’t account for the use of the pieces on the board at that moment, but the growing sense of inevitability for future rounds. Obviously greater than half or 51 percent makes sense. 134 is that number, without adding National Objectives. This also does not factor in the ebb and flow of income as territories are captured and lost every round. Grasshopper has a victory token that crystallizes this concept. I think his number is 144, though I think his includes NOs. If we assume Italy has been chased back to the continent and has 8, Germany and Japan must split the 126 between them or 63 a piece. With all of China, SE Asia, the money islands and the Philippines, Japan would earn 62. This must be the waterline for Japan. One can easily see how important it is to nibble early. The loss of Bombay has to be countered with a gain elsewhere ore immediately retaken. A doomed transport must retake an island or a territory at this crucial juncture in the game.

Germany before OB, hovers around 54. They can quickly shoot to 67 at the gates of Moscow. …got to go

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

Didn’t Hitler think he could just bomb Britain into capitulation? Seems like “boots on the ground” is always necessary and US needs a shuck system in place for this. Aircraft can’t take territories and can’t defend fleets needed to bring in troops to Europe–if US leaves shucking to the Brits. Have you play tested the light skies strategy against good opponents?

Yes, I’ve played it right here on these boards. Been gone a few years but back playing in league, and it’s the strategy I’ve used pretty much throughout. I’m not the best league player, but I’m not the worst either…

EDIT: So, I think the playtesting has involved about 30 games so far, although I’d have to find my older games.

Let me go one step further. I’m not sure you guys have seen a good Germany who buys a lot of bombers. You will be so busy trying to keep up with capital ships with the USA just to shuck a few infantry that will be decimated upon landing.

OR

You can buy bombers. I mean, it makes a lot more sense in Global than you would think. This also doesn’t work for other A&A games – well, not to this extent. Bombers are also prevalent at the top levels of even classic games when you are rolling tech, but you need land units as well.

This game is different.

@Argothair Believe or not, I just listened to this thread in its entirety yesterday. Great compact playbook! I was in the middle of my busy season and I get more juice from creating and writing than just absorbing. Now it’s slowed down as of this week and I finally caught up. I’m trying to do something even larger and perhaps more comprehensive. Hopefully, it helps the community. One thing I haven’t gotten to and perhaps you could comment on would be strict neutrals, the Spanish beachhead, etc. Also, would you consider putting it out on Youtube or would you mind if I did on your behalf? No pressure. I want to promote Allied strategy and Allied strategic thinking. America is soooo difficult to play.

@crockett36 Hey there! I’m glad you like it. You are more than welcome to read or summarize my advice on YouTube as long as you give me some credit for it as part of the video – I’m not likely to be recording a YouTube video of Global advice anytime soon.

My thought about strict neutrals is that they’re there to help you punish your opponent when they do something really strange or make a mistake. If neither America nor the UK is putting anything into the Atlantic, for example, then Germany can attack Sweden and Spain while Italy attacks Turkey, and you can mostly get away with it – this can help you take Gibraltar, Egypt, Iraq, etc. without wasting a ton of money on transports. Conversely, if Germany and Italy are dropping huge stacks of infantry into France and Rome but are leaving Poland / Romania / Bulgaria / Greece wide open, and the UK has a big stack of infantry in the Middle East, and Japan has already activated Mongolia as a pro-Allied neutral by invading Amur, then you might be able to attack eastern Europe from the Middle East through Turkey – sure, Germany can walk into Spain and Sweden, but that’s not a big deal; you’re basically allowing them to keep Western Europe in exchange for a British factory in Greece and a Russian tank swarm fueled by the Spread of Communism NO that will ultimately take Berlin before Spanish infantry can reach it.

These are pretty rare scenarios, though, and of 10 games where you’re tempted to invade a strict neutral, you should probably just pass in about 9 of those 10 games and stick to more conventional strategies. The Spanish beachhead is not as exciting as it looks – you’re closer to New York, but you’re correspondingly further from Berlin; it saves you a few bucks on transports, but you lose that money by needing to fight formerly neutral infantry, and the attack as a whole doesn’t necessarily save you any time.

Of course, if your opponent is foolish enough to invade a strict neutral, go claim your prizes! It often makes sense to leave one mech hanging around somewhere near the area where your opponent might be tempted to invade strict neutrals so that you can quickly capitalize on the newly available fighting forces. Once the mech runs in there, you’ll be able to fly in air support and get a decent offensive punch. Be aware that you cannot ever activate neutrals with a plane, so even if neutrals are ‘on your side’, they are still off-limits to your planes until you move a land unit into their territories.

@crockett36 Am I reading this correctly, you can listen to a thread?