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

@groskopf said in Losing as the Allies every time!:

@AndrewAAGamer , No bid.

Well that is a major issue right there. It is generally accepted the Axis have a major advantage in Global 1940 OOB. Bids of 30-50 are typical and I have seen them and played them higher than that.

Check out our Tutor Game below where there is a discussion of where the bid should go and why.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35254/tutor-game-andrewaagamer-x-vs-trulpen-and-everyone-else-a-50-oob/367?page=15

@SGT-Pitbull
Rulebook Europe 1940.2, page 21, under
“Liberating a Territory” (especially second paragraph).

@Elsass-Lorraine:

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

I didn’t mean to be harsh just speculating. I get it. This game is special because it has a lot more nuance than one would readily perceive.  I have no problem with the thread just made me scratch my head.

@PainState:

@StuckTojo:

@Gargantua:

I have seen some guys doing all sub bids. If you can get the bid to 30 -� � 5 subs with all major fleets can do alot of damage, and can really assist UK / hamper axis early; And make G1 painful to plan.

1 off canada,
2 off UK with fleets,
1 off gibraltar,
1 with med fleet

Sounds like a sub-standard strategy to me….� � :-P

I’ll be here all week, folks.

LOL

You are very witty good sir.

:-D

PS: is there a cover charge at your next gig?

Nope.  Just keep feeding me whisky.  :-D

YG, I haven’t seen Low Roller’s document (BGG requires a person to register in order to download files), so I can’t really comment on it – but here’s an idea that you might want to consider for your own rulebook project, since it may save you a lot of work and may perhaps also be safer from a legal point of view.

I imagine that your project to rewrite the entire Global 1940 ruleset as a combined document will require you, as a first step, to create an outline of the document that you want to create – basically, a plan for the structure of the whole document, arranged in whatever way you think will be best from the point of view of clarity and ease of use.  I also imagine that, as another preparatory step, you’ll need to make an inventory of all the parts of the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that you wll want to use, with page references to those parts of the two rulebooks.  One way to make that inventory would be to plug the page references into your structured outline, to give yourself a complete plan of where in the rulebooks you’ll need to go to write each section of your projected document.  (This may not necessarily be the way you were planning to prepare the project, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that this was going to be your methodology.)

Anyway, what occured to me is this.  Having prepared a detailed outline of the type I’ve described, and having inserted into the outline all the required page references to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, you might not find it necessary to re-write anything at all.  The document I’ve described would serve as a kind of sophisticated index – a conceptual one, not an alphabetical one – to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that treats them in a combined way and that provides access to their content according to whatever logical structure you think would be most convenient for use by players.  The players would still have to go from your document to the rulebook page to which you referred them, of course, but the point is that you wouldn’t have to spend any time actually rewriting the two rulebooks, which would save you an awful lot of work.  Furthermore, since you’d neither copying-and-pasting the rulebooks (which would be questionable from a legal point of view) nor re-phrasing the actual content of the rulebooks (basically trying to get around potential copyright problems by putting the rulebooks into your own language), you might be on safer legal ground.  Essentially, you’d be providing people with a structured and easy-to-use way of accessing official rules, rather than either reproducing or rephrasing the rules.

@Karl7:

@Talleyrand19:

Been following this thread as best as possible so sorry if this was already mentioned and I missed it…

But what happens if Allies spend most of their money on the Atlantic with only a few capital ships in the Pacific to join up with Anzac. The Atlantic money goes to transports and capital ships and then tanks and infantry. With England’s help, you hit Spain and Gibraltar  (for the naval base). Then every single turn the US can land more stuff and set up a nonstop funnel. If Russia does its job then axis should not be able to keep up on both fronts. If Germany sent its Dark Skies bombers to try to stop the funnel, then fine you can wipe each other out and still land more US troops the next turn.

My friends and I have done this to each other and the Spain landing always overwhelms the Axis eventually. …

What have you all experienced when trying this?

Yes, this is a good strategy.  The weak point is then the Germans blitz into the middle east, ignoring Moscow.  They can get an economic advantage and then just sit back and outbuild the allies.

Perhaps have Iraq and the Persian territories be treated as True Neutral, just give the UK and USSR extra units to make up the potential difference.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

voted japs cause that s the country with most options. it s almost impossible to have a boring game while playing japs. :)