Allied Playbook Draft v1.0

@taamvan said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

@JDOW Achtung! Constructive Non-Rebuttal Incoming!

Thanks man, much appreciated! Sorry for my aggressive tone. I admit, I am kind of annoyed (although I know it is absurd because there is no rational reason to care) about the fact that basically every strategy thread is based on these one-dimensional ideas that are useless to me. And then I say another try of a player creating some kind of playbook and then I saw “oh dear, one dimensional deterministic stuff again” and I reacted very impatiently.

I would say you explained it nicely in your response. Your guide is a list of ideas that provides inspiration for possible plans and objectives one could have. I think it would benefit from adding a disclaimer that clearly states that it is always a bad idea to stubbornly follow the plan and always check whether the opponent’s play makes you change your objectives and your play.

I am heavily considering giving the community something back and for now, I would say that my playbook would all be about 2 things:

1. Objectives: All-time objectives and situational objectives
2. Execution: A&A is a game of details. 2 Players can have the exact same strategic ideas, one succeeds, the other fails miserably because of poor technique.

But I would guess videos explainings moves using the tripleA client would be the better medium than writing wall of texts in the forum.
Maybe I’ll start a series one day, let’s see.

If I wrote the playbook that way, I could save alot of text by just saying “Dont bother with Sea Lion unless your opponent fails to protect the UK”

Yep, exactly. this is how I would tackle sealion in my strategy guide :-)

If this is a list of potential allied gambits rather than what I would call a playbook, one thing is missing.

Korea landing.

USA lands on Korea from Midway, Hawaii or the Carolines. USSR uses its Amur stack to reinforce said landing and keeps Mongolia alive. Next turn, USA can land planes and build an IC and also start attacking Manchuria. This can be aided by a naval base on Midway, which requires 3 DDs to block.

The good part here is that a large force is needed to stay north to stop this move. The bad part is that you aren’t threatening the money islands.

One playbook I will write. If there is a G1 DOW, build IC on Persia UK2, fighters UK3, move to Moscow UK4. Next step: win.

A couple of things come to mind in reading these surprising responses. Pedagogy is tricky. Learning takes place in stages that can seem wooden, dull, boring. These stages are, nevertheless, important.

Secondly, My strategic objectives, both defensive and offensive, are goals. Taamvan’s summary is a list of what’s in the toolbox to accomplish those goals.

Thirdly, in my view, Oob is a great starting point. Throw in some variation like YGs point system, time or turn limits, house rules, bids or handicaps and some of these tools that are currently unhelpful become actionable.

I also think fun has got to be a thing. There’s a lot of orthodoxy around here. A lot of pressure to conform to dogma. And attitude and pride. I suppose it comes naturally. To play the game you have to be smart. To be the best you have to be gifted. To have fun you just have to relax and show up. And that is why I’m here. And that will keep new people coming and regulars staying.

These guides or playbooks are not for the elites. “Ruskies don’t take a dump without a plan, son!” Everyone needs a goal or two, a big plan, tools, and the willingness to abandon the plan when the situation calls for it and go with a different scheme.

Btw, some of these plans should work because they did work. That would be the game we want. G40 is the wonderful, yet incomplete game we have. G40 was literally driven by a need to make sealion possible. That twisted the set up, the map and the rules. Someday we will either get a mechanic from on high that brings "balance to the force"s or we will communally agree to one. Gl,hf! Enjoying the robust discussion!

@JDOW said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

Again, it does not make any sense to determine a strategy before you saw the G1. The G1 HEAVILY influences the way Russia is to play, so as Allies, lean back wait for the German turn 1 to complete and then ask the following questions:

What did Germans buy? Naval or ground or air?
How many planes did the Germans lose?
Did any fast mover die on French soil?
How many inf did the Germans lose at Yugo?

Based on the answers, the overall strategy can be determined as:

If the Germans played all against Russia (ground buy, no planes lost, good dice Yugo and France) --> Turtle with Russia!
Against well-played Anti-Russian Germans the Russians CANNOT go offensive. They won’t be able to stop the Germans if supported by Italian can openers.
Thus, buy 11 inf 1 art and turtle.
By the way, I could write pages full of considerations on “How to turtle correctly”, playing Russia correctly is some kind of art to me which is underestimated by many players (my personal opinion) but let’s keep it simple for now.

IF the Germans lost a lot of planes/fast movers/inf at Yugo and IF they went Naval G1 -> Then Russians can create more attacking power. I would still advise against 6 armor and rather buy like 7 art, 3 inf, or 4 art and 7 inf.

100% THIS!!! There is a reason there is no Italian playbook, you cannot know what an optimal turn looks like until all fights are had and all pieces moved. I find that having a set of preferences is, strategically, the most rigid one should be when the initiative is not yours. Some of the worst games I’ve played have been when I’ve tried to shoe horn in a strategy that doesn’t suit the scenario.

@Ghost-Army so Mussolini had no plan A or B or C? Eisenhower had no plan a b or c? Strategic planners makeup plans and make up contingency plans I don’t see how this is controversial

@JDOW, got a question about your “don’t lose Egypt cheaply” goal. In a current game with trulpen, as allies I lost it pretty cheaply. Situation UK1:

• SZ92 stack done with 3 UK fighters (tac died in SZ96, bomber attacked SZ106)
• No bid units (10 bid went on ftr Scotland)
• No Ethiopia or Tobruk attack
• Vichy imminent

Now I wanted to keep Egypt I1 (obviously) but also without needing to expend an infantry on a blocker in Alexandria and also use my mech to keep the Syria inf allied. These seemed to be exclusive goals. Ultimately I chose to keep all the troops on Egypt. Was this the wrong call? I’m inclined to think so. I went on to lose Egypt I2 & I3. Annoyingly, Cyprus was claimed by an unescorted TT I1 which I couldn’t sink. I suppose if I would have moved the SZ71 DD to the Red Sea they would have at least needed to expend a DD in SZ98 to protect that, if it would have been worth it.

I suppose there are a few things I could have done differently, putting the bomber in Gibraltar would have been useful.

As Axis, this move (i.e. moving everything towards Egypt) sometimes works for me, but usually not. Perhaps the SZ110 scramble is the difference? I’m not really sure.

Anyway, would you recommend the Alexandria blocker in this situation, something different, or should I just have not gotten into the situation in the first place?

I feel this is a useful question for all in an allied playbook.

Thats the risk when you took when you scramble 110. You lost 2 UK ftrs that could have contributed to the situation. Then you went after the sub taking a dd and the bomber out of play. In total you moved away 1 dd, 3 air units, and an art that all could have helped you defend Egy. Nothing fancy about Italy’s play. I think you just have to consider that when you plan UK1 and decide to go with z92 stack.

@ksmckay Thanks for the thought. I did think about doing Taranto here but I decided to keep it conventional. Perhaps that decision was wrong, although without bid units Taranto is relatively high risk. If you lose, it’s pretty nearly game over unless the allies have something else quickly. I really dislike the idea of a no scramble to SZ110 in this scenario (bid ftr Scotland, both fleets attacked evenly). I would certainly rather risk a Taranto raid than not scramble.

It does seem that trying to keep Iraq for the Aussies was not a good idea here.

@simon33 Sure, the scrambling worked out fine and was probably the right call. But you have to be willing to trade some other objectives in exchange for killing the luftwaffe. I think after you scrambled, you could have ignored the sub and did some different things in the indian ocean so that if Italy went for Egypt you could defend it. It just seems like you went for almost every UK option available and that means you were too thin to defend Egypt which is a lot to give up in the early game. You cant do everything.

@taamvan Clarification: In the Sneaky Karl scenario, can the Japanese still move their fleet through a sea zone with UK or ANZAC ships after an unprovoked DOW upon the Japanese? This makes a difference in Japan’s approach toward Calcutta if they have stacked invasion forces in Kwangsi and their fleet in sz 36. I was playing a game in Triple A and tried to use a UK destroyer in sz 38 to block this fleet from reaching India. However, in Triple A the Japanese ships during combat movement went by it stopping in sz 39 to invade India. ANZAC had already declared war so the political situation read that Japan and UK were in a state of unprovoked war. I apologize for this question as I know this isn’t the purpose of this thread. :grimacing: Appreciate any clarification though. For what it’s worth, I’m not a beginner, but not an expert either – I like the idea of a playbook for newer and mid-tier players. I’m recruiting players here in Guam and most would benefit from something like that.

Yeah, it’s well off topic. Look at the pinned Q&A thread.

Anyway, they could do that if SZ41 wasn’t blocked. If you only had a blocker in SZ38 but not 41, your block would not be effective. Otherwise, no Japan can’t move its ships through UK defended sea zones just because ANZAC did the DOW.

Sorry for the hijack - thanks for answering the question. SZ 41 had a blocker, so I don’t understand why Triple A allowed the Japanese fleet to move through the sea zone.

Can you post a save game? I’m curious about this one.

@simon33 I just went through the rounds myself (solo) and this time Triple A did not allow the Japanese fleet to travel through a sz with an enemy ship. Something must have been different in the game where that happened. I saved over it so I can’t go back through the history. Anyways, thank you for attempting to clarify it.

@simon33 said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

@JDOW, got a question about your “don’t lose Egypt cheaply” goal. In a current game with trulpen, as allies I lost it pretty cheaply. Situation UK1:

• SZ92 stack done with 3 UK fighters (tac died in SZ96, bomber attacked SZ106)
• No bid units (10 bid went on ftr Scotland)
• No Ethiopia or Tobruk attack
• Vichy imminent

Now I wanted to keep Egypt I1 (obviously) but also without needing to expend an infantry on a blocker in Alexandria and also use my mech to keep the Syria inf allied. These seemed to be exclusive goals. Ultimately I chose to keep all the troops on Egypt. Was this the wrong call? I’m inclined to think so. I went on to lose Egypt I2 & I3. Annoyingly, Cyprus was claimed by an unescorted TT I1 which I couldn’t sink. I suppose if I would have moved the SZ71 DD to the Red Sea they would have at least needed to expend a DD in SZ98 to protect that, if it would have been worth it.

I suppose there are a few things I could have done differently, putting the bomber in Gibraltar would have been useful.

As Axis, this move (i.e. moving everything towards Egypt) sometimes works for me, but usually not. Perhaps the SZ110 scramble is the difference? I’m not really sure.

Anyway, would you recommend the Alexandria blocker in this situation, something different, or should I just have not gotten into the situation in the first place?

I feel this is a useful question for all in an allied playbook.

First, against a 110 scramble it is a bit tougher to hold Egypt but the Germans paid a toll.

The logic is: Usually Allies can buy an IC in Egypt in turn 2 and keep Egypt defended. In your game, you a couple of opportunities to defend Egypt better.

1. Bring the inf/aa from Malta to Egypt UK1.
2. Bring at least 1 or even 2 UK air over from India
3. Consider not to take Sumatra with UK but use the India TT to activate Persia.
4. The attack in 106 was ill-advised. The DD belongs to 92 and the bomber to Gib.

It is btw correct to just sit tight with every man in Egypt in UK1
Then, just roll the numbers: Can Italy take Egypt in IT2 in case you bring all air and 4 extra ground units in UK2? Usually they can’t or only if they get lucky.
Also, in the situation you were after the scramble, you should have definitely not attacked the sub in 106. UK absolutely needs the DD and the Bomber in 92/gib. UK needs to keep the pressure on IT and also needs potentials blockers in UK2 to prevent a landing at Egypt in IT2. The South africa DD also belongs to 81 to serve as potential blocker in UK2.

So yes, that loss of Egypt was definitely too cheap and the Allies didn’t play a bunch of cards to defend Egypt better.
Sometimes the price for that is saccing TTs or investing into blockers. A price I am happy to pay. And once the IC stands, Egypt can defend itself sooner or later.

You btw see, the absence of the bomber allowed Italy to take Cyprus and leave the TT undefended. Italy should never have this freedom.

Thanks for your thoughts. Germany’s toll was pretty cheap in this game though.

Kind of what I was thinking you would say which I guess tells me something. Might have to think about it.

I have watching a ton of youtube about the Pac and am very surprised at the strategy employed by the Allies. For one thing they fought in the Far Eastern Pac for a good year. Secondly, after the Solomons, they were abler and aimed to go after the ships and planes. Therefore, I am looking to name a strategy that embodies that. Pacific air and naval supremacy–literally hunting enemy air and shipping. And early. Maybe one transport and a couple of guys. What would you call that? Island hopping?

You are referring to documentation about the real Allied strategy in WW2?
I would say that the island-hopping strategy by the US in WW2 does only partly apply to AAA. I would not even bother to develop a strategy in AAA based on that.