We need an allied playbook.

I just realized I posted this in the wrong board. Can anyone move it to the find players one please?

@the_jetset:

In fact, it could even be argued that Germany should collect the IPCs for these Vichy French territories after capturing Paris.  … but that might be going a bridge too far.

While I agree with this in spirit, I do think it could be taken too far. You could have people that say it should be this way for all countries: Once the capital is captured, the capturing power now controls all the territories and units of the vanquished nation.
For one thing, this would eliminate any possibility of liberation and I think this game would end up being a sort of Deluxe Risk rather than Axis & Allies.
Imagine this scenario:  Germany goes after Russia and tries punching straight through to Moscow along the north route, thereby NOT taking Ukraine or Stalingrad.  Suppose Japan didn’t attack Russia at all in the far east.  Now suppose Russia was foolish and bought a battleship for the Caspian Sea instead of infantry so they didn’t have a proper defense in Moscow and Germany wins.  Now Germany controls territory all the way to the Pacific and Japan now has a buddy to their north instead of an enemy. Plus, Germany becomes instantly rich, almost doubling their income with all the Russian 2 point territories plus all the troops that were guarding those territories (not to mention Germany’s shiny new battleship in the Caspian Sea.).

I wonder if a crazy rule like this would make games longer or shorter?  Capital defense would probably be even heavier.

@Dafyd:

I think that any question when we are trying to improve our skills is a good question…especially if we are really trying to learn.  The Hessian and ShadowHAwk are right.  The key to the Pacific are the two power fleets of Japan and the U.S.  The U.S. must go after the Japanese fleets.  Carriers loaded with planes are very important as well as the subs and detroyers.  As a side mission and with the permission of your Soviet ally, land troops in Siberia and help take back Soviet territories from the Japanese if they have begun to starve out the Soviet Far East.  It takes resources from the Japanese and can alter the attention of the Japanese player a turn or two if they are interested in defending Korea or pressuring the Soviets.

Good stuff here.  I’m a fan of 3 part attacks on Japanese fleets.  As an example:

Japan leaves a chunk of its fleet in SZ42 (off Java) for whatever reason.  They’re not worried about an attack because America doesn’t have the fleet off of Queensland to come after them.  What I’ve done in those situations is attack with the American ships, then follow up with India planes and Anzac ships/planes to finish them off. You’ll lose your American ships, some India planes and Anzac ships/planes, but if you wipe out half of the Japanese fleet it’s brutal for Japan because, as dominate as they can be, they can’t afford to lose too many major pieces.  America can lose a mini fleet and replace it; Japan cannot afford to be spending multiple turns rebuilding its fleet.

Thanks, ColonelCarter!

Those comments make a lot of sense to me.

I can’t remember exactly why I didn’t attack that German fleet that was left without aircover, but I do remember I looked at the possibility. Probably was scared about the axis combination: IT3 take Egypt->GE4 has a NB and can reach Gibraltar from there. Any FTR that attacked that little fleet would be unable to defend Gibraltar. I must admit though, loosing Gibraltar to GE4 would have been perfectly acceptable in this situation (I could have left it completely empty). My bad ;-). Glad I can comfort myself this was not a very crucial mistake of some sorts :-D. Same for the Rhodesian INF.

I guess it all boils down to: put more pressure onto the Japanese First (a lot of people give this advice). And by the way I LOVE your tips about how to do so in the Pac. That will alter the way the Japanese can execute their plans. It’s so easy to forget USN is not ‘glued to their coast’ and Queensland is a valid staging point even when not at war.

The only thing I don’t like is that this will (again!) force the allies into a Pacific Focus. I suspect this must be some ‘revenge’ of the developers for all those years (in the 1st edition) the allies were able to execute their historic plans of ‘Europe First’  :|.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

Interesting idea, and would make for one hell of a night……but if every power had to take the time to write down every move, it might take a while unless they know short hand LOL. Plus it could even slow things down more in the thinking department because now you have so many more what if’s…  All hands on deck moving units around afterwards could cause a frenzy too (going to need some kind of order).

I know some people do an all axis/all allied turn order, maybe look into that

@JimmyHat:

I think you can attack unescorted transports, because they would not have any larger combat ships to hide behind.  This would be the only occurrence though because the kamikaze pilots are trained to go for the big combat vessels and not the weak, cheap transport vessels.

No, you can’t.  The errata has not overridden the pac40 rulebook, and the errata applies to Alpha 2.  Alpha 2 only changed the triggers to kamis but it didn’t change how they work.
Kamis can only target surface warships, and it’s not an attack (so deceptive to call it that).  it’s ONLY a defensive action declared at the end of a combat move (not during a combat move) in exactly the same way scrambling is declared.

This also has never changed, it’s ALWAYS been if combat move ENDS in a kami symbol SZ, which ALWAYS means either combat in the seazone or an amphibious assault.  You can’t combat move if you aren’t going to conduct combat.

Figure out how to hit the USA on G3-G7 along with Jap help and It help  Gib is key