Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023

@jacobgeo24 said in Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023:

What we need to do is just make sure that US is pumping defenses into Hawaii, they don’t have to be going out and assaulting anywhere in the Pacific, just sandbagging Hawaii as much as they can. Same for ANZAC, they need to sandbag Sydney as much as they can, and they can ask for help from USA in doing so.

This strategy won’t work. Trying to defend Hawaii and Sydney with ground troops is a recipe for failure. If Japan is not being contested in the water than they will collect the Money Islands, take over China and India. They will be collecting a ton of money and then will turn their attention to taking the 6th victory city. To defend both victory cities requires a duplication of effort that ANZAC and USA cannot afford.

@jacobgeo24 said in Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023:

But things may work out if the US and ANZAC challenge the Pacific and can make their way to the Carolines and establish operations there. This could be game over for Japan because from the Carolines, you can reach the money islands, Philippines, China, and most importantly, Japan itself.

This is the correct strategy.

Forcing Japan to spend money on ships helps both India and China survive. Forcing Japan to send their air units out to sea to combat a large Allied fleet removes them from threatening China and India.

Once the US/ANZAC combined fleet cannot be destroyed by the IJN, Japan is in big trouble. From the Carolines the Allied fleet can either move to Japan or Java. Both locations cost the Japanese heavily.

US strategy should be to gain superiority in fleet assets with ANZAC assistance. How quickly this is done is up to the US player.

Two equally valid strategies exist.

1. Send significant forces to Europe early on to assist UK in controlling the Med, taking Norway and Normandy. Then, once this is accomplished, spend 90% of US money in the Pacific to gain fleet supremacy. Only additional ground troops are sent, or built, in Europe going forward.
2. Spend 90% of USA money in the Pacific and beat down the Japanese with Russia, China, ANZAC, India and US overwhelming Japan’s resources. Then when Japan is weak enough, around $35 or less being collected, swing 100% US monies to Europe to stave off the German win. A minor fleet with a few transports is all that is sent early on to Europe to force Axis defense against a 1-2 punch on Berlin and assist the UK in fleet defense.

The one strategy that will fail every time is to try and balance a response that gains no superiority anywhere.

As I said in my Essay, the key for the Allies, is to stalemate one side of the board while gaining an advantage on the other side, then using a monetary advantage to go back to the stalemated side and knock the Axis out. That is the road to glory for the Allies.

@Cornwallis

Thank you for clarifying.

@AndrewAAGamer

Great analysis! I find this very useful. I’ll definitely try it if given the opportunity.

@jacobgeo24 said in Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023:

@Cornwallis Well for that scenario, I think a good response would be looking to try to distract Germany as much from Barbarossa as possible, perhaps by carrying out a Taranto Raid and putting pressure on Italy with UK, buying nothing but infantry and maybe 1 or 2 artillery for the Soviets, now that I know that is the best way to play the Russians thanks to AndrewAAGamer, and try to the the US involved as much as possible. You can position yourself in 91 and be ready with the US to hit the Italians, France, and Norway, forcing the Germans to have to be wary of all 3 areas. In the Pacific, responding to a J1 would be leaving the Soviets in the East as a cautionary force, Japan will be wanting to move fast and with as much troops as possible, so leaving them there would be a good idea to stop Japan from moving their huge armies in Manchuria and Korea south, also preventing them from being used with transports. What we have to understand is that all we need to do to prevent Japan from winning the game for the Axis is stop them from getting the 6 Victory Cities. What we need to do is just make sure that US is pumping defenses into Hawaii, they don’t have to be going out and assaulting anywhere in the Pacific, just sandbagging Hawaii as much as they can. Same for ANZAC, they need to sandbag Sydney as much as they can, and they can ask for help from USA in doing so. UK Pacific just needs to stack men and make life difficult for Japan, and make sure not to loose India, and if they do, they need to have made it stupid expensive for the Japanese and have some operations going in the Middle East so they don’t just sweep up the middle of the board. This way, even if India is taken, Japan will have an extremally hard time getting that 6th VC because for the whole game we have been stacking Hawaii and Sydney so much, it will be a very tall task to take down. So for spending with the US, I’d say 70/30 with the 70 going to Europe. Germany can wipe the floor with the Soviets unless the Allies in some way help by pressuring the European Axis somehow, even with the infantry buys for the USSR. But things may work out if the US and ANZAC challeneg the Pacific and can make their way to the Carolines and establish operations there. This could be game over for Japan because from the Carolines, you can reach the money islands, Phillhippines, China, and most importantly, Japan itself. This would be too much for Japan to handle, especially if they haven’t killed China and Calcutta yet. So a Pacific strategy can work, but when I have seen it, even when Japan was loosing very badly in China, lost Philippines and money islands, and their fleet, Germany was kicking butt without US investment. This has happened in a game I played before. My opponent went very heavy against Japan, I made some dumb moves at times, and I relegated Japan to the Home Islands, and a few holdouts in China, but the stacks of German Tanks and Mechs had just entered China at the right time after completely demolishing the Soviets and Italy was managing the Med, Middle East, and Africa. There was nothing for the European Axis to worry about so they came to Japan’s rescue, and the Allies threw in the towel because when you have 60 German fast movers, a massive air force, and the Italians eating production in the Middle East and Africa with no Allied effort in the Atlantic coming any time soon, the situation is hopeless. So I’d advocate for a more focused attempt to Europe in that situation, and that was my long and rambling reason why! I hope that helps a bit!

Hi jacob

Some paragraph breaks would make your post easier to read :)

@AndrewAAGamer the problem with your 2nd option is that Germany can attack moscow by turn 6 so US forces will be too late to make a difference.

Ever tried the US carrier with ANZAC fighters combo? It takes a huge fleet to be able to grab and defend carolines.

@barnee

100% agreement.

@Cornwallis said in Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023:

@AndrewAAGamer the problem with your 2nd option is that Germany can attack moscow by turn 6 so US forces will be too late to make a difference.

Actually, while the Germans can mount a G6 attack, especially if they build a major IC in Romania, the Russians can easily hold off against that attack with proper defensive play. The G7 attack is far more dangerous and that can be thwarted by the Russians with sufficient British help. Moscow’s real danger, without major US assistance in Europe, is G8, G9 and G10. What must be taken into consideration though is the Allies do not lose the game if Moscow falls. As long as Japan has been choked by the Allies so the US can turn whole hog towards Europe by the time that Moscow falls is all that matters.

Unless Germany can make it to Egypt the Allies will prevail against a strong Germany, a weak Italy and a weak Japan. A moderate Japan and a strong Germany means the Axis are going to win. I think that is why more people go heavy Europe first versus heavy Pacific first but both work as long as Japan is decimated by the time Moscow falls.

Ever tried the US carrier with ANZAC fighters combo? It takes a huge fleet to be able to grab and defend carolines.

Yes, putting ANZAC planes on US carriers should be a standard ploy for every Allied player. The only detriment is it weakens the US attack on the IJN and it is not necessary for the US to sink the IJN. It is just necessary for the Allied navy to not be able to be sunk by the IJN. ANZAC planes on US carriers help in that respect. They also threaten lone or weak Jap fleet units and they assist in taking the Money Islands by planting the US fleet near to same and using the ANZAC planes with ANZAC transports and ground troops to take the islands back from the Japanese.

@AndrewAAGamer with no opposition Ger can take moscow in G7. 10 UK fighters can block that but that gives a lot of room to italy.
Yes i´ve tried KJF numerous time and it works to contain Japan but at the cost of losing Afrika and or russia .

The idea of attzcking the IJN is nearly impossible. So when stacking Anzac fighters on US carriers makes your defense value increase big time (more than the 3 starting fighters off course) so you can position yourself in SZ6 and let him attack you. You might lose but at heavy cost for him so this battle of attrition is good for US when follow-up troops are coming.

Andrew is dropping bombs of Wisdom on us.

KJF is the secret sauce Here’s why: with a strong investment in the pac, Anzac s and China s and UKP s three little incomes add up to superior, overwhelming slow but sure nerfing of the Empire of the Sun. Add the Russians and the US and it is no contest.

If you do kgf, those incomes are inconsequential and ultimately inadequate even for home defense if the Empire puts its mind to it. It is economic suicide to do kgf.

@crockett36

Thanks for letting me know. I’ll do KJF in the future.

I couldn’t agree more.

KGF means that India and ANZAC are doing nothing but desperately defending, making no progress whatsoever.

KGF means a conquered China, India producing 1-2 inf per turn and anzac trading one of the islands per turn, back and forth.

This can’t go on forever, eventually Japan WILL get Calcutta and then has 3 options, all viable and big threats.

A) Go the land route to Cairo, securing the Middle east on the way and reinforcing with factories there.
B) Using transports from India to threaten the whole coast of Africa within 2 rounds, especially the poorly defended South Africa. Even if the Allies DO produce there to defend, these units are FAR away from everything important.
C) Shift the focus to Sydney. My least favourite option, since actually conquering Sydney can be very difficult and is also not helping Germany while building up transports and fleet.

Sure, with KGF Italy is probably very small or nonexistent (being convoyed to <5 PU income) and Germany might struggle to hold the west coast, Maybe Russia can even hold Moscow (although in that case probably not threatening an attack and only producing a handful of infantry each round).
But the Axis often can hold Rome and Berlin long enough for Japan to either help them substantially or getting Hawaii / Sydney.

If I may add one more thing: KJF looks more like history. A ballooning Japan looks absurd. A Germany threatening or even taking Russia was conceivable. And then what? That’s why we play.

Also US, UKP, China and Anzac money can skyrocket. This is unparalleled in a KGF where only America and England grow in skirmish actions.

@crockett36

Agreed.

@MrRoboto so you don´t send anything against the germans?

I´ve found Japan doing nothing seriously after they take India bc they seem to have problems reshifting towards the next step.

It depends on G1 and what the Germans do. If they don’t threaten UK and don’t convoy UK, I send nothing for 4 turns.

@Cornwallis A very effective strategy I have seen used to great effect (although possibly only a one trick pony) is for the US to buy nothing but bombers for the first 3/4 turns, and then a mix of bombers/subs after that.

With a 7 move and J1 the most effective G40 OOB axis strategy you can have 5 bombers in calcutta by US 3 and on to moscow for US 4 with a pipeline following up.

10 US bombers in moscow can wreak havoc on any small german force and provide a useful (expensive!) addition to the moscow garrison.
8 bombers in sydney/Carolines with sub backup keeps the IJN pinned to the mainland.
This is definetely not the be all and end all US strat, and if you know your opponent does this it is easy to counter by delaying the J DoW.
But the first time you face it as an axis player it can be devastating!

@wizmark

Yeah, American strategic bombers used en masse can be devastating. Combine it with the research for heavy bombers (and preferably long range aircraft), and you have an extremely cost efficient weapon of destruction.

I know research gets a bad rap (rightfully so), but if you use it and the US is lucky to get super submarines or improved shipyards (or preferably both), cheap, powerful submarines are a death knell for Japan if used right.

There are definitely counters to both, but they can be useful in the right circumstances.

Mass bombers are extremely valid for US and Germany alike.

That’s reason their cost got nerfed to 14 PU in Balanced Mod, rightfully so.