We need an allied playbook.

@aequitas-et-veritas

Yeah, a 1ipc territory isn’t going to pay off if you have to spend 1 inf/1 art to take out the 1 inf holding it.

Mechanized Russia can mean being able to take advantage of soft play by Germany - if they blunder at all with Sea Lion you might even win the game by taking Berlin round 5 or 6… - and give Russia some counter options. Certainly useful if your German opponent tends to split up their army.

Offensively one of the most efficient uses of Allied troops that I have found is a joint strike force of both US and UK transports in the Atlantic. If the UK can get enough units to make a serious landing in Europe any force parked in sz 91 can hit every thing touching the Atlantic from Norway down to Italy. This becomes a lot for the the Axis to defend.

Late game offensively a strong UK presence in the Atlantic is needed to take advantage of US can openers in my opinion. The difficult part of this is finding the resources to pull this off while not losing the game in other theaters.

@AldoRaine

Do you think it’s enough to let the UK carry the warships in the Atlantic, protecting US transports, while US can focus most of its war efforts in the Pacific?

@trulpen At the minimum U.S. needs a carrier or two and some can-opener transports in the Atlantic. If the UK is ONLY in the Atlantic and not in the Middle East, you lose a lot of flexibility in helping Moscow or India or Cairo.

Russia needs every piece, and the other allies need all those factory nodes. There may be some more breathing room with a bid placed in favor of Russia, but plans that vary from the extremely vanilla (stack moscow) seem like temptations…and nothing more.

The game is still dynamic and changing because player perception about what is optimal still has some room to move. I contend that having a vast experience and playbook is key so that you don’t go into the game with a rigid strategy that is easy to sniff out. A year or two ago leaving UK with a fleet was taboo but other players have left me with a fleet on turn 1 and then dealt with the rest later.

All why I like weddingsinger’s plan of a Play Option Sea Lion–you only commit to sea lion once you see what UK buys turn 1. Placing or leaving the necessary units West does cost a turn (or turn and a half) of russian advance if you decline the Sea Lion, but its much harder to discern what the German player is trying to do than if he buys CV or TT on turn 1 or steps out into SZ 112. Even the best UK players are tempted to spend money away from the Home Islands starting turn 1–the crazy part is that Germany can conquer UK in the later game if its poorly and inconsitently garrisoned, and especially if all the fighters left/tarantod/died.

Sea Lion is still a poor move–even when this gambit worked and I took UK with a fair number of units left, it doesn’t give you that much money, you need to add men and planes to defend it, it doesnt count towards 1 of Mark Movel’s VCs, and America knows what it has to do.

Thats also why 2 SB is the ultimate Germany buy–it doesn’t telegraph a specific strategy, not even dark skies, but 4 SB can be used to accomplish any germany objective and you can decide on G3 what the actual plan is.

@Guam-Solo yeah! we should play a game.

@trulpen perhaps you missed my rather lengthy entry around page 8 or so. I’m only setting up dance partners and assignments. I first did SOs that were defensive. But having long term goals and roles is crucial to tactical decision making. Try it out. It’ll make a difference.

@Guam-Solo correct analysis.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

But having long term goals and roles is crucial to tactical decision making. Try it out. It’ll make a difference.

Yeah, I missed any entry a few pages back. Sorry.

I don’t have anything against long-term plans. I use them myself. But hey, why don’t we have us a little game were you execute those plans you just laid out? It’ll be fun.

Start it up. Be warned. I am extremely slow. My life is full. AnA is icing on the cake

Great!

No worries. I can be slow too. ;)

I think I caught some info where you stated that you prefer OOB and no bid?

I’m ok with that (have never played BM), but also ok if the premise has changed.

oob, yes. I like tech. I just never buy it.

Revisiting this. 1st piece

United States Playbook
We do not play chess. The sides do not start off equal, and by the end of the first turn and even into the second, the ability of the Axis to destroy units within close proximity is enormous. The Allied situation is dire from the start and gets worse. Most games played online, even with bids, end with Axis victory.

Therefore the principles that guide this Allied US strategy playbook are:
1.to preserve the Allied starting units
2. to give ground where it is hopeless or prudent
3. to determine the place of the battle when possible

The options we have are many and dependent. On the other hand they are not entirely reactionary. The strategic defensive objectives remain the same. We must save the Atlantic, Moscow, Egypt, London, India, and the Pacific. In that order in my view. The strategic offensive objectives are perhaps a little different than the Axis powers. Whereas they are going for either early London, Middle Moscow, middle or late London and an economy that is at parity with the United States at war, the Allies are going for Berlin.  Thee Allies are ultimately going for a radical dashing of the economic ambitions of the Axis and a capitulation. Keeping the Germans contained on the Russian front to the gates of Moscow and no further, kicking the Italians out of Africa and keeping them out of the Middle East, containing the Japanese to a fight for China and southeast Asia and perhaps the Middle East should give the edge to the Allies.

Accomplishing the suppression of Axis ambitions is achieved in two ways

eliminate units on the board and his ability to make war.

The former is obvious, the latter may not be. Destroying an enemy’s ability to make war boils down to economics. Economics in this game is represented on the board by the cash values of the territories and the convoy zones on the map. In order to reduce your opponent’s income, you can do one of three things:

take possession of his territory, disrupt his convoys, strategically bomb his factories.

Conversely, it means not losing your own territories to the aggressors. These factors determine our strategic offensive objectives.

Destroying an enemy’s ability to make war by disrupting his convoys can be a devastating strategy. In fact in several sea zones on the map, it is catastrophic if done in numbers. Parking your navies in the Sea of Japan and in sea zone 97 to the east of Rome are prime examples of this endgame tactic. Likewise, two strategic bombers will shut down minor factories and cost the enemy double to restore them to full capacity. Five bombers will almost guarantee shutting down a major factory. Losses will be high and costly to the ally who pursues this course of action but worth it. Be aware that Germany has two major factories so he can ignore the loss of one of them. Also be aware that German itself cannot be reached from London. A point in Scandinavia or Russia must be secured or maintained in order to thoroughly execute this strategy against the Huns.

In the East, you must get very close to the Island of Japan in order to bomb her. Iwo Jima or the Soviet Far East seem the best candidates. Some have even suggested Korea. Allied planes and tactical fighters can reinforcement Korea from Hawaii if the Soviets were to capture it. A strategy that keeps Russian troops on the east coast of Russia must be used in coordination with these plans. Be careful of the kamikazes. You can non-combat move into a K-zone without triggering their wrath. An attack on a navy in Sz 6 with subs and air will not provoke Kamikazes.

Having discussed how to destroy the enemies ability to make war, we move on to how to eliminate the units on the board. How to do this with the resources on the board and the limited time before a catastrophe like the fall of Moscow occurs is the crux of the game. Historically it was agreed upon by the Allies that stopping Germany took primacy over stopping Japan. Victor Davis Hanson says that for all that kind of talk, a bifurcation developed that the West Coast produce goods for the Pacific.

@crockett36 Good restatement of original thoughts in this thread. I’ve enjoyed everyone’s input. This thread has weaved and wandered off the beaten path sometimes. I know there’s been some varied opinions expressed here, but I think what you lay out is pretty sound.

I like how @crockett36 you affirm the Axis begin with a better footing as I find that very true in TippleA games vs. AI. I’ve been playing quite a few games in the last month as I finally got the game working on my Mac. When I am the Axis the game is over rounds 8-10, but as the Allies it is a longer game.

If you read the designer notes you find that one of the purposes was to make Sealion a possibility. That’s why you can’t get to London from DC in one move. The political rules contribute as well. So yeah, it’s the Axis game to lose.

Guess who just got a laptop after 4 months. Prepare for an avalanche of ideas

@crockett36 spill 'em out!😀

@DizzKneeLand33 said in We need an allied playbook.:

@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.

A half year passed and i had serveral chances to test the US bmbr strategy.
The fact is: it works!

But: it is working when all Allied nation are working together and the Player who is using the US Strat
Bmbr Strategy is very familiar with the game mechanics.
Recommendable for a Tier 2 and higher Player.

I recommend this strategy to learn and to atleast Test play it.
It should be welcomed by all Starters and Advanced Players.

@aequitas-et-veritas buying bombers is a strong strategy in 42.2 and AAZ as well, because they are the only units that can reach moscow before it falls. They can clear blockers (or in BM, japanese garrision) units and also stratbomb the captured russian factories.

In most versions of the game its hard to go wrong with 1 bomber per turn per US/UK simply because they will be the only units that can affect the moscow battle and all the other stuff you’re building is taking 1-2 value territories and takes way too long to threaten germany