Yeah, I definitely didn’t think of things that way. Mostly the AAA just stays in the US the whole time. I’ll give it a try.
We need an allied playbook.
-
@trulpen said in We need an allied playbook.:
- The obvious exception is a G2DOW,
Typo. Of course meant G1DOW.
-
@oysteilo said in We need an allied playbook.:
A minor in Persia is never advised in my opinion. If you really want this, it is much better to attack Iraq, British 1. It accomplish the same and is order of magnitudes bettee than Persia. I really don’t se the need for the Persia complex
The problem with Iraq is twofold:
1: you can’t easily take it UK1
2: Planes can’t reach Moscow.Some players prefer to fortify Egypt but I don’t really like that move. Once Egypt is secure, this mIC is far from the action.
I do agree though that an mIC in Persia is more vulnerable to a German/Italian mechanised tag team. If this happens, a lot of planes flying in with some amphibious troops hopefully can defend, otherwise USSR should be able to cut off the forces.
The thing is though that Iraq is even more vulnerable than Persia because of the 1 less turn of building that is possible.
-
@simon33 Im not sure what you mean–cant take it “easily”, yes, you certainly can you just ignore the Italians where they are trapped with $2 worth of crap.
Persia lets you fly direct to Moscow–so eventually you’ll want a complex there.
Then that’s about timing so you can’t build it until you’re sure that UK is secure and you can defend it. You taranto so the Italians can’t rush it.
-
@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:
@simon33 Im not sure what you mean–cant take it “easily”, yes, you certainly can you just ignore the Italians where they are trapped with $2 worth of crap.
What are you attacking Iraq with UK1? I’m not aware of any option which does not involve a large sacrifice, such as not taking Sumatra - perhaps ok if there is a J1 DOW.
-
@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:
this convo is just a digression from that original goal. I dont think there can be an allied playbook without it being an endlessly complex series of if thens. crockett brought it up so maybe he has a different view.
The key problem I see in 95% of all the discussions is that people think the game can be analyzed by making concrete plans on what to do in turn 1, 2, 3. 90% of this is pointless for 2 reasons:
- In contrast to chess, there is luck involved and one can never predict the exact position at any point. Not even at G1 as there is plenty of options on how Allies spend the bid.
- A naked plan is worth quite little in A&A unless the player understands key principles on HOW to operate plans and on WHAT is important as Allies.
If I keep the analogy to chess many plans I read here are like: In order to win with white, play e4, then castle queenside and then make a mating attack on the kingside.
This is useless advice, because it means nothing if the player does not understand fundamental principle of chess.Back to A&A: 2 players can execute the exact same plan as they are often discussed here in the forum: Round 1 build this and round 2 build that, do this and that etc
The outcome of this (even when assuming average dice for everyone) can be fundamentally different depending on the knowledge of the players on HOW to execute a plan.The differences in experience, skill and understanding of fundamental principles of A&A are often so big amongst various players, that the outcome of executing a plan can be black and white. Total success or total failure, massively depending on either the skill of the “attacker” or of the “defender” in this situation.
This leads often then to conclusions which are entirely wrong “ABC does not work” --> Just because you failed to execute it, this does not mean it cannot work
ABC is imbalanced (often heard for Dark skies) --> No, it is not necessarily imba, maybe you just lack understanding of key principles in order to player properly against it.My general advice would be: Think less about plans on what you do in turn 1, 2, 3 but think about key principles and key objectives you want to achieve and then the most important part:
Work on the details on how to execute a plan efficiently, such as:- How to trade efficiently
- How to avoid blockers
- How to pose as many threats as possible
and many more
This is certainly not easy, and in case I would elaborate on that, I would certainly do a video series about it. Just writing all that stuff down is so dry and cumbersome.
To me, it only makes sense to explain these principles on the board, but the TripleA board using a screencast and now recording an actual board with a camera. -
@oysteilo said in We need an allied playbook.:
A minor in Persia is never advised in my opinion. If you really want this, it is much better to attack Iraq, British 1. It accomplish the same and is order of magnitudes bettee than Persia. I really don’t se the need for the Persia complex
I prefer none of Iraq or Persia. I do not say NEVER build it, but the only IC I would always advise is Egypt.
The reason is: All other ICs are usually built for the Germans as Allies cannot prevent the Germans from taking it.Egypt is the only one that is harder to take and that UK has to defend with their teeth (not only against Germany but early also against Italy)
And also, never forgot: Instead of investing 12 in “nothing”, you could build 3 mech in SA.
-
If the South Africa factory is to be used to produce units to defend Egypt and contest the Middle East, I suggest starting with three infantry there on turns two and three that slow walk to their destination before you start producing mechs. Producing mechs there on turn four will get them to Egypt at the same time as the turn two infantry and you’ll have saved six IPCs in the process.
If you want another IC in the area, Iraq is modestly better than Persia despite the extra turn it takes for fighters produced there to arrive in Moscow – Iraq is just a little easier to hold.
-
I agree with JDOWs sentiment.
However, a mIC in Iraq is usually a lot easier to hold than one in Persia. Doesn’t mean it can’t fall, but being closer to Cairo does make a huge difference in several ways.
Usually UK can’t really expend 9 IPC for production in SA during the first two turns. There are several more relevant investments, like a mIC in Cairo, eventually also an ab, an ab in Gibraltar and keeping London safe.
-
Yes, that is why Middle Earth is an interesting idea, but not necessarily a great strategy (as taped) because it just focuses on a southshuck in isolation.
And most people don’t even reply to the point JDOW is making because they don’t have enough experience to understand it, even though we’ve been saying it for years.
JDOW built the JDOWJ1DOW strategy that I’ve copied for years–and its something you keep in your playbook based on your read of the enemy strategy, but its a plan that allocates every unit move.
no plan survives first contact with the enemy -Moltke
Back to Simon33’s question–rewatching GHG’s video he takes Iraq and Persia on UK1, he can bring armor, cruiser shot, infantry, arty, the planes from India (which can land in syria with the rest of the taranto surviving planes). Thats a blowout if you bring it all. He also activates persia.
I never personally did it that way until I followed his more detailed plan to see how it works in practice–and I’m not in love with his overall plan or the timing, but I think its pretty easy to do both. And yes, you avoid Sumatra but that money goes to the weaker UKP and the idea here is to position UKE for the longer game.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas Would you care to give us your list of spots? Just noticed this as a significant comment!
-
@taamvan great thoughts there Taamvan!
-
@jdow said in We need an allied playbook.:
I prefer none of Iraq or Persia. I do not say NEVER build it, but the only IC I would always advise is Egypt.
If you do this, you can’t build both Iraq and Persia. This is a more defensive strategy. If I knew for sure that the Axis would concentrate on the German-Italian mechanised tag team, I would do so also.
Whereas the Iraq+Persia combo supports the UK ranging into the Caucasus, if they don’t fall to the Nazis.
-
@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:
Back to Simon33’s question–rewatching GHG’s video he takes Iraq and Persia on UK1, he can bring armor, cruiser shot, infantry, arty, the planes from India (which can land in syria with the rest of the taranto surviving planes). Thats a blowout if you bring it all. He also activates persia.
Hold on, if you bring an arm+art you are using both transports so can’t activate Persia.
-
@simon33 arm comes via syria from egypt. mech is in alexandria so cant make it.
Watch the video. For years I thought I understood it and his plan is dangerous overall (Sea Lion, Factory Take) but his opener and UK1-3 plan wasnt clear until I carefully watched what he did and tried to imitate it.
All the best.
-
@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:
@simon33 arm comes via syria from egypt. mech is in alexandria so cant make it.
You have the setup wrong here. Arm starts in Alexandria while the mech starts in Egypt.
-
excuse you old friend—GHG has the setup wrong and I didnt bother to confirm it!
BRING THAT BUGGY
All the best!
-
If there is no j1 declaration then I think the Iraq and Persia move is a good one if you want flexability. With war declared, those planes are out of position
-
@taamvan could you post a link from this Video please?
Thank you. -
-
Out of position to do what? They are not needed on UK1-3 to defend UKP, and Japan is usually so tough that 2 planes and a few ships don’t project much threat.
Those planes ARE in position to defend the SB, TB and any other fighters that survive Taranto. One of the worst things that can happen to UK is to win taranto and then land the planes where the Italians can and should wipe them all out because there is only 1 or 0 infantry to protect the planes.
Suggested Topics
