By ‘landlocked’ I meant that there was no Royal Navy present and not enough UK aircraft to help. G1 took out 110 and 111, built an airbase in Holland and parked a small German fleet with an aircraft carrier in 110. I had a round of destroyer builds in 109 but the Luftwaffe just took it out. By UK 2 the Med fleet was gone primarily to one sided rolling. I saw Crocket36 combine the UK Med fleet with the French destroyers off of the coast of Southern France. This worked for me once before, but in this game it went terrible. The Italians rolled hits with nearly every roll in round 1 of the battle and the UK landed one hit… Order of casualties was tough because the Italians took Southern France first which meant I couldn’t take a hit on the UK aircraft carrier because the 2 planes would have nowhere to land and die if Italy withdrew. So Italy ruled the Med investing in ships each turn while the US was kept out of the war for as long as possible. The UK would have been fine in the long run, but the game was lost early when the (novice) Russian player threw a lot of his forces at a concentrated stack of German Armor/Infantry in Western Ukraine. Russia lost 85% of his attacking forces in the battle and ultimately opened the door for Germany to Russia. The trouble with new players is knowing how much to coach vs. letting them play their own strategies out while not controlling it too much so that they don’t have fun. UK would have recovered in a longer game, but the first two rounds really set them back.
![](/forums/assets/uploads/_imported_profiles/avatars/avatar_185163.jpeg)
Best posts made by GuamSolo
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 But we would also like to hear Crockett36’s opinion of the ongoing discussion - since you’ve been driving this thread!
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@AldoRaine @weddingsinger @M36 @Argothair Wow - a lot of catching up on this thread for me! I enjoyed the dialogue and see some new approaches for UK. It does seem like the conversation is focused on the opening moves for UK. How would you guys fold your dialogue into the bigger picture of this thread - an allied playbook? I actually think that this recent discussion of UK opening moves dovetails with the more general objectives that @crockett36 has spent a lot of time on. I would see it this way:
-
Defense of London comes 1st. This also involves preserving units you start the game with and trying to destroy enemy units as well. With that the decision to attack the Italian Med fleet piece meal must be weighed against the possibility of a Sea Lion. Watch what the Germans do G1. Maybe a stack in SZ92 is a good option to help save London which is what you guys have been talking about.
-
Defense of the Atlantic is 2nd. This sets up the UK to pose some threat to “nibble at Germany” and work toward a main objective of the allies–Destroying the Axis’ ability to wage war. If the Axis own the Med, or the waters around London this is really difficult. Maybe the stack in SZ92 also helps with this?
-
Defense of Egypt is 3rd (most important). I think that the consolidation of the Italian Med fleet makes this difficult. Especially if UK have to swing their fleet from SZ92 up to help defend Sea Lion. The allies have left the Italians with a strong presence to take Egypt. In the game I used as an example earlier in this thread the UK lost their Med fleet and Germany owned the waters around London. Italy kept slowly building their navy up (with few troops in Italy to defend any invasion). But an aircraft carrier, destroyer, etc later it eventually led to the allies loss.
So, Taranto is a fairly certain/safer way to neuter Italy’s Med Naval presence and North African ambitions. I would like to hear from Aldo or whoever has used the SZ92 stack what happens when there is no Sea Lion and the UK fleet is left in SZ92. Do they engage the combined Italian fleet for a mutually assured destructive battle?
And, more importantly, how that fits into the meta strategy for this allied playbook? How do opening moves play into the allied decision regarding order of importance for defending positions on the map? How does this set the allies up in the early game to nibble at and debilitate the axis war machine.
-
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Sounds like you fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia! :grinning:
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Well that makes more sense…but for a moment in my bewildered imagination you were the greatest tactical genius in the community to execute a Round 1 Taranto and finish with a SZ 92 stack. :relaxed:
-
RE: [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.
@Sgt-Mclusky Yes - “ocean” is accurate. This topic is fresh for me because I just went through a lot of old threads about cruisers. There is one started by Young Grasshopper that is good and I think there are links in that thread to some of the other better threads. Argothair and Baron-Münchhausen also have a lot good thoughts on cruisers.
I think you may get few responses here. Many of the guys on this website have already posted a great deal of content on this subject and may be worn out by it.
I have a small group of guys here in Guam who play periodically and we have been working on a Pacific house rules expansion. We want to involve cruisers more, but also really want to see battles for the islands scattered throughout the Pacific. In many of our games the Japanese Navy and US Navy consolidate their fleets over many turns building towards a massive battle. One of the ways we are trying to get Japan and the US to divide and conquer the Pacific islands is to upgrade and customize the cruisers. After reading through the OCEAN of content on cruisers I landed on three types of cruisers:
Cruiser Upgrades & Customizing
All cruisers have a total movement of 3 for Combat & Noncombat combined. All cruisers are 1 hit kills and use OOB rules for bombardment (except Light Cruiser Transport has modifications to its bombardment rules).
Heavy Cruiser – A3(4)-D3(4)-M3-Cost13 unit. Designed for long range, high speed with heavier caliber naval guns. Attack/Defend at a 4 when fighting in a sea zone where NO other battleships are present (axis or allies).Light Cruiser Transport – 3-3-3-12 unit. Functions like OOB cruiser with three additions. 1. It can carry one Elite infantry (Marine or SNLF). 2. This unit may support amphibious landings on islands with bombardment in each round of combat with defenders returning fire if killed by bombardment. 3. One transport may be paired and get a +1 movement with cruiser as long as they move together start to end.
Light Cruiser Flak Tower - 3-2-3-11 unit. Smaller naval guns means it loses defensive strength against other war ships, but it has been upgraded with AA guns that provide AA ability. When combined with other ships to form concentric circles of air defense within a flotilla the AA strength goes up.
AA Fire - 2 roles @1 prior to combat. In Defense: When paried with a carrier its 3@1 prior to combat, and if a triumvirate of cruiser-carrier-battleship then 4 rolls@1 prior to combat (with a ratio of at least 1 plane per roll). Also, every subsequent round of combat there is 1 roll@1 if the triumvirate holds undamaged. There is a max of 3 Flak Cruisers on the board.
The hope is that the cruiser’s new features specifically aid their Navy’s ability to spread out and go after islands. Our group is “cutting their teeth” on these Pacific house rules. As we play we might see the need for modification - but for now maybe it helps you.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 I like how you prioritize strategic objectives which gives newer players guidelines for decision making as opposed to a scripted line of moves/purchases. Very well articulated and I like the VDH reference. Thanks.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 Have you seen GHG’s Floating Bridge strategy video? I like his set up for a shuck basing the navy off Gibraltar and using Morocco to unloading units coming from U.S. but also loading from there into transports with the range to shuck troops to multiple Med targets. The Brits drop an airbase on Gibraltar too allowing a scramble to defend the fleet. Do you think your thoughts here align with the floating bridge approach?
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@aequitas-et-veritas Good observation. I appreciate all the input in this thread so far and have used parts of it in my last couple of games. I think Crockett’s belief is that reactionary strategies are often (not always) lazy–or at least they cause vacillation or even paralysis in achieving strategic objectives. For a new player it can be difficult to comprehend how to spend the U.S. IPC’s, or that what you purchase rounds 1-4 say a lot about your strategic objectives (or lack thereof). I think new players also miss the importance of economic warfare on the axis. In this sense, sorting out allied strategic objectives (and necessary purchases to achieve them), and then calculating where to sandbag the axis (economic war) make for two very sound pillars of strength for the allies. Perhaps somewhat akin to Young Grasshoppers “4 Pillars of Strength” for the Japanese. As a new player I would find these immensely helpful (even now I do).
However, I think @aequitas-et-veritas’s suggestion of a J1 or G2 DOW context makes sense as well. The beauty of Cow’s Japan playbook is that it gives a new player a script to follow for several rounds. Turn order affects this for the Japanese and German playbook as they can decide when to attack and bring U.S/Russia into it–and especially the ability to strike at allied pieces before they can be repositioned for safety. In some J1 attack scenarios Pearl is attacked and in others it isn’t. So I think scripting is more of a challenge. The beauty of Crockett’s “playbook in progress” is that he has given us 2 pillars of strength with flexibility to respond to different axis opening moves. If I recall correctly, Cow was pummeled for his J1 DOW suggestion for awhile. It took some time for the community to change the widely held view that keeping the U.S. out was a better way to go. I see playbooks as a work in progress, with trial and error, working towards a coalescence of thought.
It would be awesome to see you, @aequitas-et-veritas, throw out a straw man J1 or G2 DOW script for the allies! I say that with respect and humility because so far I’m reading and taking a lot from the thread without sitting down and stabbing at strategic inputs myself…
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@Argothair Those are really good thoughts @Argothair especially regarding assigning countries to new players based on their personality type. The reality is that these new players are new friends of my son who is a freshman in college. I hosted the game for their spring break. My son played Germany so the two experienced players were split.
Here’s the funny part of the story…I did talk about strategy with my allied counterparts. When Germany made their first thrusts into Russia I coached Russia on hitting the Bessarabia stack because the German units were spread across the whole of the Eastern front evenly. With the air units the German player can’t predict where the Russian would strike. He wiped out the Bessarabia units.
Later, I had to leave the game for half an hour. The German player consolidated everything with a thrust into one territory. On Russia’s next move he tried to hit it with his air units and tanks and not enough infantry. When I walked back into the room everything was on the battle board and the other allied players were telling me, “We told him not to do it.” He lost nearly everything and what could be retreated was destroyed on the next German turn leaving them next to Moscow.
The Russians had a stack of infantry in Lenningrad up north but couldn’t get them to Moscow on time now that the Germans were close. But this is were you just have to roll with it and let new players learn and enjoy the fun of the game. And that’s not to say I can’t learn from games like this as well - because my son/Germany played really well and had UK on the ropes despite what other allies were doing.
I think the ship builds in Canada is a great counter move that you suggested. You can bring them over on the same turn you purchase and drop ships next to London. What we ended up doing was swinging the US fleet we had parked in 91 up to relieve London - while at the same time sneaking a group of transports to Rome and taking it while the Italians were busy in Egypt.
In the end we lost 2-1 using YG tournament rules.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
I think it is just important that the UK takes out the Italian ships - even if over a couple of turns. If they aren’t, then the Med is difficult to deal with and the US when it gets there must engage in a big battle whereby casualties will force the US to replace ships needed to protect transports thereby delaying shucking into Europe - giving Germany more time to get to Russia. So, back to Taranto UK1. That might be the easiest solution because the Italian fleet can be attacked piece meal.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
As this thread is up to 9 pages now, I thought to re-direct readers back to pages 1-2 where a lot has been written for an allied playbook including opening moves for each allied nation. @Argothair detailed some very good opening sequences for the allies, and @crockett36 has written a lot about objectives for the allies.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 It’s interesting to hear your personal opinion that your original objectives were defensive. I think that’s why I like the Taranto opening as it helps defend North Africa but also is an aggressive attack. I finally got Triple A to work and have been playing through different opening for the British. I find that as the UK I am deciding between investing in units for three areas: Britain for defense and future Dday, Egypt minor IC for NA campaign and push towards Greece, and Persia minor IC for India help and defense against Japan moving through China for Moscow. But three areas are a stretch, better strength investing in two of them.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@barnee I got Triple A working - finally…
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
@crockett36 No scramble and no suicide attacks. It had to get real some time…enter USA :cold_sweat:
-
RE: Can't post game results
@Panther It is working - so thanks. Turns are posting for me now.
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@crockett36 No, I haven’t had the opportunity to try it. I don’t get many games in–but I’ll get to play one during Christmas and would like to try the floating bridge combined with the objectives you’ve lined out in this thread.
-
RE: G40 rules for "away from table" gaming (in an office etc.)
@Rauno-Kinkar I have been watching the Youtube wars using Siredblood’s map and tournament rules. This game is played similar to what you are setting up. Each player takes their turn and records it and then uploads the turn onto Youtube for the other players (and viewers like myself) to watch. I have noticed that the players communicate through messenger about casualty choices, scrambling, and kamikaze. Maybe you can watch some of those videos and see how they do it. Hope that helps.
-
RE: Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
I certainly thought about it. But I remembered an old saying: “An Italy in one hand is better than two Egypts in the bush!”