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.

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.

Less the grab Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas. More the 800 ships with a ton of sailors and 10000 marines. The strategic objective part is that you are putting so much pressure on the Japanese navy, fighting, losing, fighting, losing, fighting, winning that they cannot do what they usually do, infect the map like a virus. It’s the piece meal approach of Midway versus the “wait until I get a navy big enough to demolish the IJN.”

This is assuming a non Sealion game. This might look like an invasion of Iwo Jima. Collect a navy there. Get some bombers to harass the island and voila it’s the front line! Waves of metal coming at them every turn, with the advantage that you are able to land on the island and lose the carriers. Subs in reserve to take down the cap ships.

Russia can be assisted by the British because pressure is not as great as it normally is?! Could call it the Nimitz. He wanted to go directly to Japan.

One thing I’m wondering about is should you avoid the Gibraltar airbase if you do a SZ110 scramble? I’m thinking if USA isn’t going to be at war by turn 2, almost certainly. You really need the US planes to populate the airbase while the UK planes move to Egypt and/or London. Can you still stack SZ92? Maybe.

You can block SZ92 with only a DD in SZ94 and then only the bomber can reach from the Italians. You still should have 1-2Cruisers, 1DD 1CV up to 2ftr. The main fear is the Luftwaffe coming down and smashing your fleet. If they bought 2 bombers, landed all remaining planes on W Germany and the Italians take Algeria, the stack is unlikely to be good. It may be much better to defend Algeria from the Italian landing. 3uk inf 1french 1AA plus 2ftr can hold off 2inf 1art 1arm 2ftr 1bomb 59% of the time. A little dodgy but the attack isn’t that likely to be attempted. These figures do assume though, that all Med planes can be used except the tac which might have died in SZ96. If a ftr is bid in Scotland, and SZ111 not attacked (or the planes survived), you can still fully load the CV.

Turn 2, planes on Algeria can reach Egypt but not London. So it isn’t as good against a Sea Lion. You could move the CV to SZ110 and put the planes on it, although that does mean probable death for the CV. Might be worth it if it saves London or significantly increases plane losses taking it.

@crockett36 said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

Less the grab Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas. More the 800 ships with a ton of sailors and 10000 marines. The strategic objective part is that you are putting so much pressure on the Japanese navy, fighting, losing, fighting, losing, fighting, winning that they cannot do what they usually do, infect the map like a virus. It’s the piece meal approach of Midway versus the “wait until I get a navy big enough to demolish the IJN.”

This is assuming a non Sealion game. This might look like an invasion of Iwo Jima. Collect a navy there. Get some bombers to harass the island and voila it’s the front line! Waves of metal coming at them every turn, with the advantage that you are able to land on the island and lose the carriers. Subs in reserve to take down the cap ships.

Russia can be assisted by the British because pressure is not as great as it normally is?! Could call it the Nimitz. He wanted to go directly to Japan.

Assuming the Japanese move in predictable ways (into China, SE Asia and the DEI), I like to do a limited island hopping campaign like this:

1. Take the Marshalls. This protects American transports off Hawaii from Japan-based bombers.
2. Take the Carolines. This forces the Japanese to take a more circuitous route to Australia and can be used by the Allies as a springboard to the Philippines, Borneo, FIC or Japan.
3. Take Iwo Jima. Build an air base on it, not for bombers (which don’t need it), but for fighters to protect the American fleet. Stack bombers on Iwo and hit the Japanese IC every turn.

While I’m doing the above, I also gradually build up a good-sized sub fleet to strangle Japan via convoy disruption…and you can usually accomplish steps 1-3 with about 3 fully loaded transports (plus the necessary surface warships, of course).

Very nonintuitive for me. How does this help Moscow or Eurasia. But I’m having this done to me and it stimes overall Axis income in a big way. In my only Allied game right now I am focusing on building a sizable Indian and Pac fleet so that Japan feels the need to bunch up.

@crockett36 Careful - Japanese code breakers intercepting this communication. If I read that the water distillation plant has broken down at a location code named AF–I’m not falling for it.