We need an allied playbook.

The question is: where is the point of no return for the Axis where victory is assured? When should the American player concede? Conversely, what economic number is so low it is destined to bleed the enemy over the course of say five turns?

@DizzKneeLand33 I like all bombers for four turns with a mission to Moscow. Then one per turn to account for attrition. Do you have a triple A game you can post? Also, is it only America that should do this or the English as well?

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. …

However, neither Germany’s nor Japan’s strategic objectives are easy, particularly all of China and Bombay by turn five or six. In addition, we have four turns of builds, around 240 IPCs to create the structure we will need to stop the Axis from ruling over the world. This is one of the reasons America’s actions must be somewhat independent of what is transpiring elsewhere. We are building a superpower from nearly scratch. Let me say it again, our logistical system of transferring units over water must be mostly complete by turn 4 or 5 at the latest so that we may match the industrial output of the Axis with our own. If the Axis and the Allies are receiving about the same income and we need to spend more on transports while they are buying tanks, we will lose.

In addition, we must be able to affect the enemy’s income by turn 6, 7 at the latest. By affecting his income, I mean that it must be a permanent decrease. He gains the Caucasus but loses Norway. And then the Caucasus is recaptured. He gains Bombay but loses Korea. And then Bombay is retaken. These pressures preclude many of the options that I have earlier mentioned as possibilities. Any nibbling at these malignant empires must move the Axis further away from earning 134.

@crockett36 either you think outside of the box or you follow up on the red guide line.
You do or you don’t do.
There is no inbetween!

😉

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

Let me say it again, our logistical system of transferring units over water must be mostly complete by turn 4 or 5 at the latest so that we may match the industrial output of the Axis with our own.

That is a very good point to give new players when they read up on an allied strategy.

I’m thinking of ways to summarize, or outline the overall allied playbook. @crockett36 would you say something like this is a fair representation what you have laid out?

1. Realize Strategic Objectives that will allow you to both nibble at the axis powers and build a shucking system. This can be deciding to station the Pacific fleet in Australia to threaten the money islands or Philippines as opposed to sea zone six. I draw this from your post earlier in this thread:
   "The four most plausible targets are, in no particular order:

Queensland / Indonesia / Philippines
Sea Zone 6 / Korea / Manchuria
Southern Italy / Northern Italy
Norway / Denmark / Western Germany / Berlin"

The US can’t go all in with units to achieve these objectives at the expense of building a shucking system. It must do both.

2. Engage in economic warfare by taking away territories or national objectives that fuel the economy of the axis war machine.
   This must also be guided by the principles you (Crockett) laid out regarding preserving allied units and sometimes allowing the axis to win with a goal of counter attacking. These principles stated were:
   "Therefore the principles that guide this Allied US strategy playbook are:

to preserve the Allied starting units
to give ground where it is hopeless or prudent
to determine the place of the battle when possible"

3. Finish purchasing units needed to shuck troops into the European theater by turn 4 or 5. That guides the U.S. a lot. This also comes from your last point:

“Let me say it again, our logistical system of transferring units over water must be mostly complete by turn 4 or 5 at the latest so that we may match the industrial output of the Axis with our own.”

These are three of the best things said in the thread IMHO. As the thread gets longer I like to summarize the thread this way so that if I am teaching a new player they can see the main points altogether.

@crockett36 my goal as the axis is to stick to one objective and that is if you go east plan for an invasion of Russia if you want to go west do sea lion and stick to it I find it easier to take out Britain than Russia sometimes unless you place factories with Germany right on the borders of Russia one in Poland or one in Romania

@Kingme This thread is about an allied strategy to beat the axis.

@Guam-Solo I think if England is about to be conquered defend it with infantry and fighters and start attacking German ships if your America go for Germany first always japan is too far away while putting something in the pacific for awhile

@aequitas-et-veritas outside the box, please.

@Guam-Solo great summary. I’m trying to be comprehensive. Still more to get to including true neutrals, fade and strike in detail, the disadvantages and advantages of being dispersed and more on how economic factors drive our strategy. I’m playing today and I’ll try to do a video on what my playbook is before the game.

@Kingme It is easier to take London. However, not a fan. Don’t tell anyone, but I like to take a panzer and sip lemonade in the Persian Gulf.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

@aequitas-et-veritas outside the box, please.

Then try out what DizzKnee suggested🤔😉😉

@aequitas-et-veritas i like bombers. I think flying 4 rounds worth to Moscow can save it against a t6 assault.

I have a game to post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7wtCQPM8k&t=15s&list=PLjUekJ1aTPN_61m4Tqai4ssgz0U0TesID&index=2

This is my game plan for the Allies, economics driving strategy.

One of the factors that I’ve skirted around in discussing nibbling the edges is the problem of dispersion. Unless you are on a flotilla crossing the channel with a ton of other guys, the Allies generally will suffer from being too few in number to face any serious segment of the enemy’s ground machine.

On the one hand, it is Russia’s job to do that. On the other hand, the call for the second front is real and urgent. Factories give you a hope of producing troops right there where they are needed. Scandinavia or Greece for instance. This is often disappointing. However, a minor factory can produce enough units to nibble the edges. Doing so can keep our adversaries from earning more than the red zone 64 ipcs mentioned previously. These, though, cannot be relied upon to produce a death blow.

@crockett36 wow that was interesting I think if Germany is to survive in axis and allies global a fleet is definitely a must to have and they can do it too who was overall victor