@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
Keep in mind buying bombers forces the axis player to keep valuable fighters on the defensive rather than Moscow for fear of getting bombed to death.
I’ve got 15 min before I need to get ready for church. The strategy that I’m going to put forward has and can give you unrestricted access to Normandy, SFrance, Holland, Denmark, WGermany and Norway every turn after it arrives. Think of them as irresistible raiding parties. This is satisfying and makes the game fun. In the second stage of development, the Allies can see France back in the game as a playable power. In this stage you could also pop a factory in Norway and (believe it or not) Holland. After they are in place, I think, gears can perhaps must be shifted.
One of the key factors in the late game is the map. Obviously Denmark is a huge issue. Grabbing that is essential to threatening Germany and that must be threatened almost every round so that he garrisons it against a double assault. Just as significant is WGer/NItaly. Consider this a line that must be cut. Assuming transports in 91, Italy has to garrison the south. The north will be weak and can be blitzed by a large number of planes. WGer can be shelled and invaded and then invaded again by the Brits. Cut this cord every turn and let the French grow strong enough to flex her muscle and now you have a three wave attack that must make the Huns rethink their career choices.
Meanwhile, What do you do with the elaborate navy and shuck that you’ve been building?
More thoughts to come later.
This is an exciting array of options. T
@crockett36 Whatever fleet you have has to survive the full German air force. That’s often 14-18 attackers. Once the fleet has to break into two pieces (to sit in 91, 112 and 110, or any other choice territories) it is much easier to pick off and the US and UK have to operate in lockstep to avoid losing half the fleet. Germany can usually hail mary that battle because if they kill the transport stack, thats game.
Liberating Paris under OOB rules is a disaster because it collects full income, throws off friendly allied control, and then the Axis take it back.
Yeah, haven’t seen 14 to 18 attackers. . My navies keep floating.
But as far as theoretical strategy goes, you can see that a clever allied strategist can keep the air force in the West at the very time it is needed in the East. Certainly you can agree that you can place a fleet in the channel with scramble and be untouchable. And you need waves. The allies have to assume casualties. My builds have been almost four planes per turn because I assume I’m going to lose four guys and four planes a turn.
And if you take over the coasts, many times that steals valid landing areas for the tacs and fighters. And you want them to attack you. Luftwaffe eat fleets AND fleets eat luftwaffe. Wars are not won without bleeding.
How does Dave do it? Didn’t you say he likes to build a factory in Norway? He must pass the gauntlet.
You should have seen me at Grasshoppers place playing Deluxe. I counted and recounted every air that could hit my fleet. It was huge. More money is infused into the game. I think I was getting around a 100 per turn as America. And Ger never took the shot because he knew he would have been toast. And he did have 18ish air that could hit me. Fun game the second and third day. The first day was so discouraging–it felt like June 1940. Great game.
The shuck infrastructure.
@crockett36
Hi there!
Only one question: how much seazones you will (or you think you’ll be able to) cover with those 4 carriers?
Cheers
That’s for the English Channel. Depending on what can hit me and what can hit 91. I try to make the 91 attack a 30 percent chance of victory for them because I want to kill those bombers if they take the shot. Assuming bombers are coming from the capitals, if you conquer Africa to Tun, have Normandy and Holland every turn, bombers have no safe landing zones except S France which they must garrison. If they garrison it, it can be invaded by the boats in 91 in conjunction with the fighters in the English Channel and bombers from Eng. Check out the thread “allied playbook game”.
