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

This article was inspired by studies at defense academy on military strategy and consistent Axis and Allies victories. Many of it is also present in the excellent strategic reflection of AndrewAAGamer.

All warfare is based on 4 principles (and deception)

Principles of War

Dislocation means bringing the enemy out of balance, taking away it’s ability to resist, so that you subdue him to your will. Your enemy will always try to dislocate you at the same time as well. In this strategic masterclass we will delve in how to make sure you emerge victorious after every battle.

In this Strategic Masterclass we will delve into the three major strategic principles you should keep in mind when playing (and winning) your next game: Center of Gravity, Defense, Timing.

1. Center of Gravity

A center of gravity is that point that when broken, the rest of the body collapses. To dislocate an enemy, it is most effective to focus on protecting your center of gravity, and attacking his center of gravity. Clausewitz believes that the best center of gravity was to defeat the enemy army. Sun Tzu, whom I prefer, believes that the best center of gravity is to defeat the enemy strategy.

In the global geopolitical landscape, there are two crucial centers of gravity, one in Europe, one in the Pacific. In Europe the center of gravity is Western Russia, in the Pacific it is South East Asia. The control of these areas decide every game. Ignore them, and you will be defeated. Why is this the case?

Armies cost money
In order to wage war, armies must be amassed. In order to amass them, finances are needed. As Cicero said: “The sinews of war are infinite money.” Therefore, one must always consider it’s economy above all else. There are three ways to gain money: territory, capitals and national objectives. These three elements are the most important aspect of every game.

Strategies versus Tactics
Let us delve into the difference of strategy and tactics for a moment.

Strategy
Strategy is the allocation of resources (time, human & material resources) or concentration of power to achieve a goal, in our case: competitive income and highly effective armies due to buying good composition, so that military units can defeat armies and capture victory cities and win the game.

Tactics
Tactics are always based on confrontation, so limited to the battle. Military units against enemy military units, to defeat them and thus gain a strategic advantage. Western generals and populations at large like to focus on tactics, this is our expertise (like Clausewitz). They often suffer from strategic inertia. As tactics are not concerned about money or centers of gravity – you can gain 100 victories in 100 battles yet still lose the war (as United States did in Vietnam or many other wars). So most important in tactics is army composition in moment of confrontation.

Back to why Western Russia and South East Asia are the centers of gravity in Axis and Allies Global 1940. We have observed that to amass armies, money is crucial. Money can be gained from territories, capitals and national objectives. Capitals are usually well defended and thus need an extreme concentration of force – this is not easy to achieve. Much easier is to capture national objectives coupled with territories, often less well defended as the priority of the defender is the protection of its capital.

Point Swing within the Balance of Power
When territories with national objectives are captured we call this a Point Swing, it affects the Balance of Power. The Balance of Power is in favor of the Allies due to the enormous industry of the United States, and due to Allies control over vast amounts of territory. The goal of the Axis is the push the Balance of Power into their favor, the goal of the Allies is to keep or return the Balance of Power in their favor.

The regions in the board that have the most dramatic point swings are thus the centers of gravity. We can make a distinction of 3 centers of gravity: crucial, important, valuable.

Crucial – 60 IPC Point Swing
These regions decide the game. If the Axis neglect them, they lose. If they conquer them, they win. The vast and luxurious trade routes and cities in South East Asia adds +30 IPC to Japan while it negates -28 IPC to the Allies. This is the center of gravity in the Pacific. The productive agriculture and industry in Western Russia adds +30 IPC to Germany while it negates -25 IPC to the Allies. This is the center of gravity in Europe.

Important – 35 IPC Point Swing
These regions heavily tilt the Balance of Power in favor of the Axis. They are important, yet the game can be won even without these regions. These are the oil from the Middle East and Caucasus, the conquest of China and the trade in the Mediterranean Sea.

Valuable – 20 IPC Point Swing
When the Axis is able to conquer these areas they add value, so they are always good to keep in mind. But, they will not decide the game or be worth sacrificing units that could otherwise focus on the crucial center of gravity. These are the gold from Africa below the Saharan and iron ore from Scandinavia.

2. Defense trumps Offense

While the attacker has a powerful advantage over the defender of having the initiative to strike, when the defender increases it’s defense to such extent that the strikes of the attacker can not penetrate it, it will win. So always follow this rule: negate being dislocated. When the enemy is unable to dislocate you, you will gain 100 victories in 100 battles. As when you can not be defeated, you can more consistently defeat the enemy before he defeats you. It might seem so simple, but is so powerful. What does this mean?

Strategic defense
You must always protect your capital. It is your most important objective, if you want to win. Of course, this depends on the availability of the attacker. When he is out of reach, nothing has to be defended. When he is in reach, all must be done to repel the attacker. Ideally, you even deter the enemy to consider assaulting your capital, or do you something to compel the enemy to stop the assault on your capital. Both deterrence and compellence are strategies to coerce your enemy to do or not do something. Deterrence is preventing the enemy to do something. Compellence is stopping an already undertaken action. What does this look like in the game?

For the United Kingdom, always buy 6 infantry and 1 fighter in your first turn. In the Pacific, also focus on buying only infantry for India and Sydney in your first turns. Your focus is to deter the enemy from thinking it is possible to conquer your capital. Italy has the luxury of a powerful German protector and potential safe zone in the Mediterranean, yet must also always be aware of its capital.

The United States is so well defended that when defended strategically it cannot be captured. The best defended mainland area is Western Europe, it is the best region to defend. As a result, it is not strategic to capture countries in Western Europe when you are unable to hold it against German counter-attack. Germany can easily repel minor invasions with minimal cost. The only way to negate this German defense is a combo-attack of UK and USA on Denmark to conquer Berlin.

Japan is very easy to defend from an amphibious assault, you can easily amass 10 ground troops per turn. What is not easy to defend against a powerful American fleet is Sea Zone 6. So always make sure your fleet has the ability to protect or counter-strike SZ6. When not approached strategically, defending the Empire of Japan at large is also difficult. As the Pacific is so vast and you need to be at different far away locations, ensure you have optimized your internal logistical routes. My preference is to build a harbour on French Indo China so you create the Triangle between Japan, South East Asia and the Lower Pacific. The Allies will attack you from all sides so your priority is to weaken different fronts, to negate the different fronts to attack at the same time and to be ready to counter-attack lost ground. However, when you are able to make use of timing to weaken enemy fronts early on, establish a strong internal logical safe zone and continue to empower your fleet, it can be well defended.

Russia, as centre of gravity, is most likely under heavy attack every game. There are two philosophies to defend Russia, the vast retreat or the mobile counter-attack. I prefer the mobile counter-attack as I find it more historical to Zhukov’s doctrine and more effective in my games. In the vast retreat you aim to amass as many troops as possible to Moscow for the final battle, even the Siberians. In the mobile counter-attack you use mobility to greatly increase your options, as Japan can do with the harbour on French Indo China. This mobility is provided mainly by mechanized infantry instead of infantry and the perfect geographic locations in Russia to optimize this. As a rule, you never retreat the Siberians are this would make their offensive/defensive power disappear for the majority of the game – while it is so decisive in concert with the other Allies on the Pacific board.

Tactical defense
The same strategic principle applies to the tactical level, the battles of army against army. For this we use the best unit of the game: infantry. It is by far most cost effective in defence, but also offensive (as it defends the high value starting pieces from dying all game long). We could summarize their power in two words: mass and fodder. Then we delve into their best reinforcements: fighter, bomber, tanks.

Mass
In all cases of defense infantry will be the decisive factor of winning a game. The one with most infantry, coupled with just several upgrades such as AA guns and high value units will win the game. As a result it is imperative to always build infantry constantly. In the case of Germany and Russia, you want to upgrade them to mechanized infantry when fighting each other at the Western Russian front. This is because of German’s ability to blitz with Italian can-openers (using combo-attack to sneak through Russian territory). It is also because of Russia being able to defend multiple fronts on land and being able to counter-strike when the opportunity arises, as Japan is doing on sea. Besides infantry the most important units are artillery on land and submarines on sea, that greatly enhance your offensive power. I like the composition of 70% infantry for 30% artillery.

Fodder
Every player has starting high value units, while most lack mass amounts of infantry. Your goal should always be to keep all your high value land troops alive: tanks & airplanes. These are your most precious and prized possessions. Never throw them away without a great strategic advantage. This is also why you build (mechanized) infantry as player always. You will often observe that the player that builds most infantry consistently will usually win the game. It is also why it is so difficult for the United States to capture mainland territories, as it can only bring infantry to the frontlines through transports, 2 at once. The most important units to combine with fodder is the fighter, bomber or tank.

Fighter
By far the best defence unit, as a nation you want to have 3 to 5 at least. Due to scramble the ideal joint defensive unit. Aircraft carriers do not add the value on their own, they add value because they allow 2 fighters to join your fleet. When you have a minimum amount of fighters (3-5) you will experience how every mass will greatly enhance your ability to win battles.

Bomber
Why bomber, as it only defends at 1? The defence of the bomber is not its ability to defend which it very low, but it’s vast mobility that enables it so always return back to safety. It range makes it the most effective offensive unit on both land and sea. The ultimate joint operations (and thus flexible) unit is thus the bomber. Yet as defensive trumps offensive, and this using attack as the best defense, bombers are much more niche – often reserved to Germany, USA, UK or a rich Italy.

Tank
As aircraft cannot land in just conquered territories (besides the Dutch islands) they are very powerful in either defense or offense, but not when you are waging a conquest in Russia or China, always ready to counter-attack your now unprotected ground troops. In that case, you want to have elite ground troops moving up with your armies. However, there is nothing worse than 4 Russian infantry with Russian air force destroying your 6 German tanks. So even more than with airplanes, make sure you have enough fodder reinforcing your lines preventing your original tanks from ever dying. Russia is here of course the power that can benefit above all others from some early tank investments, Germany already has them.

In this light, there is another reason why combo-attacking is so powerful such as Italy-Germany or UK-USA. You can reinforce the airforce of your friend in the territory you just captured. So when Italy captures that crucial Russian territory in it’s turn, now Germany can land it’s airforce before Russia attacks, the same applies to USA-UK order.

What does this mean? Never buy cruisers, only in limited cases battleships and tactical bombers. Your fleet will need 1-2 destroyers against submarines, but your sea fodder should always be submarines.

As Germany and Japan it should be a principle to always buy 1 submarine every turn, combined with lots of infantry. As our goal is win the economic game, we can use these submarines effectively to negate national objectives, hunt unprotected high value fleets or convoy capitals.

3. Timing (particular for Axis)

The most valuable resource, above human or material resources, is time. Especially in a game like Axis and Allies when the Balance of Power is in the favour of the Allies when the Axis are inactive. The Axis greatest strength is their explosive power and initiative to project that power. The United Kingdom has this same strength in relation to Italy.

In the beginning, most Allies are still quite weak, while the Axis are quite strong. This difference will disseappear with every turn due to the Balance of Power. The only way to overcome this as attacker is to push the Balance of Power into their favour by 1. Point Swings through conquest 2. Favorable Battles and thus more costly losses at the side of the defender.

Japan
That is why Japan must always declare war in it’s first turn, as the United States are not yet ready to counter-attack, the UK battleship (20 IPC) is still vulnerable and UK pacific economy can be crippled before it was able to buy infantry (from 17 to 10). As the center of gravity is South East Asia, conquering this as soon as possible will greatly change the Balance of Power in the Pacific. By impoverishing UK pacific, it greatly empowers Japanese strength to focus in the seas on USA and on land on China. You use timing to attack a front before the other fronts are powerful enough to take advantage of your concentrated power somewhere else. When you are not aggressive as Japan, you will lose, as you did not use timing to prevent the Allies from being able to work in concert while UK is a powerhouse due to it’s wealth. Besides always making sure you are empowering your fleet with aircraft carriers to land your fighters on, you are building fodder to fight Russians/Chinese, assault capitals or defend Japan.

Germany
That is also why Germany must always focus on Russia, with G1 buy to be able to conquer London when not well defended (but this should never be possible with must-buy of 6 infantry and 1 fighter) such as failed scrambles or over-ambitious against Italy. An ideal first buy is thus 6 artillery + extra. You always try to optimize your further buys for a G5 capture of Moscow, so mechanized infantry, tanks or planes. The longer it wait’s the more powerful it’s enemies will be at both fronts. Like Japan, you want to prevent having to commit to two fronts at the same time. Like Japan, you use timing as your greatest ally to attack and defend at the correct moments. Like Japan, when Germany conquered it’s center of gravity (Western Russia) it will win the game.

United Kingdom
As the United Kingdom your main goal is to cripple Italian fleet. This is possible because at the beginning you have the explosive power and initiative to attack Italy while divided. Never waste this opportunity as when Italy get’s the opportunity to expand, it will greatly shift the Balance of Power. It must only be possible for Italy to grow after heavy German investment and focus in the Mediterranean (and thus not on the center of gravity in Western Russia).

Russia
One more notable country on timing is Russia. When Germany tries to attack you from several fronts such as Scandinavia, Northern Route, Southern Route, Black Sea or even Caucasus, he will divide it’s forces. There is very likely to be a moment, either due to bad luck in a battle, or careless movement, that an opportunity arises for you to strike, when your striking force has mobility 2 instead of 1 (hence the mechanized Russians). When not all German fronts are fully mechanized (as I found is often the case due to starting troops) they can only counter-attack with 1 move, while you have 2. So that gives you timing to relocate your mobile mass to where it is most needed. Even when the Germans respond by concentrating all their troops in 1 army, your mobility gives you the opportunity to misuse it and sever their logistics / invade their soft belly. I believe both Napoleon and Hitler failed not because the Russians followed the vast retreat, but the mobile counter-attack. Try it and you will forever love playing guerrilla Russia. My first buy of Russia is either artillery to power starting Infantry or when feeling aggressive 6 tanks. Then focus on building mechanized defensive army always ready to counter-attack the opportunity arises. Bonus tip for Russia; get Iraq, send 2 Infantry to UK transport in Persia to get the two Italian countries in Africa and two islands in front of Italy. The extra IPC can make a crucial difference. Patience is crucial but will pay off most of the time.

Conclusion
My experience is that when you apply these strategic principles in your battles of Axis and Allies 1940, you will emerge victorious. I even believe that when we start applying these principles to our military or even civil disobedience campaigns, we will start winning. As the nature of war has been constant since the beginning of time. Like all those thousands of years ago, the four elements are still as relevant today, as when Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War.

So to recap:

Strategic Principles

Got it. That’s what I thought. Thanks Panther

@Young:

GRASSHOPPER’S G40 CARD DECK

YouTube video review…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNjEQzW4On8

Hello everyone,

I would like to share with you my card deck customization in hopes that it improves your G40 gaming experience. It’s a professionally made deck of 54 cards which are now available through artscow and can be accessed by clicking the following link…

http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/grasshopper-n15lei8zzj4y

It includes all 37 oob national objectives, all 12 oob research & development breakthroughs, 2 reference info cards, and 3 blowup space cards for large fleets.

Cheers,

YG

All,

Is this deck the original rules for A&A Global 1940?

It looks really cool but I don’t want to order something that is a variant.

Also, do you suggest 1 deck per power so people can peruse during the games.

Thx
jonpfl

I’m curious which statements here are differing from what you’ve seen in the league? Do you feel that this NO is playing differently or is more relevant in the league?

I suppose its important to realize that any statements you read here on the boards are largely anecdotal. It comes down to how much of what you read accords with your own experience. And of course results will differ depending on what conditions you typically play with. For example, I noticed just now you mentioned the Russian bomber in another thread. In G40, and in other prior A&A games, many people have used additional Russian aircraft as an expedient alternative to the open pre-placement bid. An Extra Russian fighter in AA50 for example, or a Bomber in G40. In G40 specifically, that option is preferable to me, than an open bid for UK. Its the sort of set up change you really have to force though, because given the option most people would take that same bid amount and instead throw down 4 infantry or 3 art units in separate territories to spread the advantage, or a pair of subs to break a naval battle. Anyway, the point being that if you are using a Russian bomber in your games regularly, then chances our you’ll be seeing different results from people who try other balancing options. Beyond this, there is also the No Tech aspect, or things like whether or not players are using standard dice rules or low luck rules. All this stuff can skew the results in a given set of games, or provide somewhat different play-balance results from the games of people who play other ways.

I will say this about G40, if you play standard dice, there is a fairly substantial swing potential on sz 110 and sz 111, not to mention with casualties in France. This can be a pretty big deal for an opening battle that sets the stage for the whole game. The results there can be a lot more consequential than say Classic/Revised when a transport hit, or a destroyer dudded out was in the opening round. The old German battleship headache comes to mind. Or take for example how in Revised the swing on the W. Russia battle could really effect the whole game in a massive way, such that some players would just quit outright in the opening round, if the dice didn’t go their way. Something similar can occur here (though perhaps not quite as extreme) with sz 110 and 111. If the Luftwaffe trades well in those battles it can be a huge boon for Axis. If they trade poorly it can be a small nightmare for G. Low Luck can control for that to a certain extent, but what you gain in consistency by using LL during the opening round, you lose out on in dynamism during the endgame. This is why I tend to prefer dice since they are so unpredictable for the endgame, though I appreciate the place for LL and understand why so many are fond of it. Still even a small bid disrupting either of those battles, or the battles in the med, can take it from a risky swing to a clear and obvious choice, especially under LL conditions.

So all that is just to say that the conventions in your playgroup, the typical bid, what sort of rules you option in or out, can really affect the patterns that emerge.

You’ll probably have noticed as well, that because A&A uses a very fixed set up and involves a number of scripted first round battles, that players often use a technique that you might call mirroring. Where players tend to model their strategies and opening moves, on things that they’ve seen stronger opponents do. Adopting the strategies that beat you last time, we might call it. This happens a lot after a board first comes out, or especially with players who are new to the game. So what happens is a kind of gameplay evolution, that selects for the best opening plays and weeds out the poorer ones over time. So right after a new board comes out everyone is excited, since the playing field is leveled, and nobody really knows how to exploit the map. Very quickly though, players start adopting standard buys and standard openings, until at some point (after a year say) someone hits on a strategy that is very dominant, which never remains secret very long. Soon variations in it get more popular, until eventually it becomes a scripted move (something everyone does.) Its usually at this point, if the advantage is clearly going one way, to one side over the other, that people start seriously examining bid solutions.

Whats interesting about all this, is that if you are playing with someone who is inexperienced, and does something totally batshit crazy, that you wouldn’t expect anyone to do ever, sometimes that sort of game can actually get entertaining as well as challenging. Since you really don’t know how to predict the erratic behavior of the newb. These games can be fun, since they force all sorts of weird decisions on you. Like wow, he built that? I guess I have to go destroy it now, and do something I wouldn’t usually do haha.

I agree though, from an archival standpoint, its nice to have a league and a way to track what sorts of things are happening in games (what sort of bids are being used for example, and what opening moves.) The overall tally Axis wins to Allied wins. But even there, the nature of the dice can be pretty nuts in providing different experiences.

All this is just to clarify something that it might have been worth saying at the outset. When I talk about game “Balance” or “Balance by Sides” what I am really referring to is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ among both players that the starting conditions provide a roughly even shot for either to prevail. There’s no way to be really absolute about this, since as soon as you roll the dice in a single round of combat, you shoot off into so many different variables that its probably impossible to say anything with certainty… eg. whether a bad roll somewhere can be recovered by an amazing one somewhere else, later on. So really what we a striving for is the sweet spot, where the feeling of balance is the same for both players at the outset. Where one person isn’t constantly grumbling about how the odds are totally stacked against them from the get go, or how if they don’t win battle X, “its basically all over!” I’m not sure how much you could learn from seeing my games in an after action, since I’m perhaps not as cut throat as others, and I like to experiment a lot (often with game mechanics.) I don’t mind losses and haven’t bothered to keep a running tally on anything.

If I’m in the lobby and I have more time to play, I also almost never concede defeat, at least until I see the deep endgame ;) Since that’s the one that fascinates me most in A&A games! The deep endgame, for those unfamiliar with how I use the term in A&A, is how things play after capitals have already fallen. So in Classic or Revised or 1942.2 the Deep Endgame is when you are down to just 4 nations. In AA50 when you are down to 5 etc. Another way to think about it is the gameplay when W. Allies can take over Russian land directly because the capital has fallen.

Pretty good at grinding it out, since even a losing game can be entertaining, and it teaches you about the production spread and the importance of the center ;) But now I’m just rambling.

Is it the general premise of this thread (that Russia’s NOs are too weak, and virtually pointless) that you find problematic? Or the proposed solution as a bid alternative? I guess I’m just a little confused where you think we’re running off track. Most of the results posted in that league forum for g40 games (at least for the last several months) show Allies being bid out consistently, often at above +10 ipc. So I feel that it supports the general position of game unbalance in favor of Axis. I’m not sure what bearing any of those games would have on my proposed solution right now, since those games are virtually all using pre-placement bids. What I have suggested here is a standard income modification for an NO as an alternative to what people are currently doing, which is bidding pre-placement. Does that make more sense from the perspective of a bid replacement/balance perspective?

i would also rather fight on his turf where i get income generating for as long as possible. once you have to back down that’s when you are basically saying, “I lose moscow sooner or later.”

Destroyers allied to the attacker do not negate defending subs’ abilities because they are not in the battle.

@Pelanderfunk:

I like the early attacks against the US, but it looks like Russia was becoming a problem.

The attacks against America were half baked - I was still at the drawing board but jumped in anyway.

A bigger problem than Russia is UK in Africa, the Mediterranean, and South East Europe.  If Italy were an asset to Europe and not a liability, I think I could deal with the Russians.  In fact, if I could lock UK out of the Med (without extra effort from Japan or Germany) I would combine the Japanese North American campaign with Sea Lion and be sitting pretty.

What to do about that pesky Med…

@oztea:

Dooming moscow is not a gamebreaker in this edition
It opens the possibility of getting france back in the game, if the Allies can push past normandy

At 17 if it controls all but FIC, it is a power that is near Russia’s IPC stockpile when it fell.

This is interesting, trade Russia for France (at some point). The axis strengthen would be way out of range unless most of it was lost in the battle for Moscow (make them pay). The US swoops in to destroy Italy and you now have 3 allies all in western Europe (knocking at Germany’s front door), instead of two coming from the west, and Russia in the east. If Italy does fall the 3 allied powers will have back to back turns (ooch).