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

@andrewaagamer said in Land aircraft in neutral allied territory:

Only LAND units may take control of the now uncontrolled Neutral.

Precisely we are not talking about an uncontrolled Neutral, but about an uncontrolled allied territory.

@trulpen

right on. It’s a good way to test things. Yea the AI doesn’t play global real well. It does pretty good on some other games. You can give it extra dough. That makes it harder but still would do weird stuff

The allies can (and usually will) still win the game if being 30-40 IPCs behind, IF they can correct this pretty soon. Let’s say in ~5 turns max., they must at least get a total equalization of both economies.

Having said that, if there is no visible possibility to (at least) equalize, the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is only small. I have no exact figures here but I bet the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is 5 IPCs per turn only, if they have no possibility to repair this.

Sometimes every IPC (per turn) counts…

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@WILD:

Wow this thread was cool to revive. Haven’t heard from many of those guys much as of late, but they have some great insight for the allies.

Garg’s point was for the allies to win, they first must not loose. Keeping in mind that Cow was part of the conversation, and is one of the best Japanese players (that thrives on early Japanese attacks). Garg’s point of stacking Anz early and def Hawaii so the Japanese can’t steal a win on the Pac side is directly linked to very good Japanese play. It is also noted that the Anz needs to build some navy and air to help the US, but their main goal is to not loose Sidney.

There is also some good advice about how to use Egypt to supply air to Moscow to prop it up (building an IC & AB as early as plausible), while also building up Egypt to be a last resort defensive stand if Moscow falls. I also like that Q mentioned evacuating India as an option to turtlng and losing all your units. I have evacuated India in the past and traded it to stall the Japanese (they can’t land air on it, so it could be a good chance to kill Japanese ground units). This is a little painful because of the stupid capture capital/plunder rule that should be a one time only IMO (house rule). Those India units can really help in Egypt or Russia if they are alive, and is doable if the Anz and Hawaii aren’t weak, or are shielded. Plus once the Japanese take India they need to decide if they immediately head to the 6th VC for the win (Sidney or Hawaii), or possibly make a move on the Mid East, Egypt, Africa, or north to Russia (maybe linking up with more Japanese units pounding through China).

I agree with all this, generally speaking. Japan can take any one power at the time. The only way to slow down Japan is for all nations to cause Japan to enter attritive battles. E.g., put Japan in a position where they have juicy targets to hit (with something to compensate you for it, like time, loss of position or gain on another front), but too many of them to address.

Ok, I looked everywhere but the dialog box.  Shame on me……thanx…Krieghund…I had a brain cramp.

@Flashman:

For us history pedants I’m putting together a spreadsheet detailing the historical allegiances of each Global40 territory as of June 1st in 1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942.  May add December 1941 to this.

Some problems here, for example do I treat “Bessarabia” as Bessarabia proper (Romanian in 1940) or Transnistria?

Also, Poland in 1939: strict neutral or pro-Allied?  Can we treat the Soviet invasion of East Poland as Stalin “activating” a friendly territory?

My Global 1940 map analysis contains dates that might be useful for your project:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0