TTP's for playing Allies

[lwarmonger]

I've been playing a number of games, both ranked and unranked, against some fairly decent players, however I've noticed some common issues with their play that seems to be fairly consistent across players. Feedback on this thread is encouraged, and I'm sure some of this has been said before, but it is worth posting as a lot of the challenges seem to be largely the same.

1. First and foremost is research. As Allies, people need to have a very clearly defined research order and keep up with it, otherwise they will continue to snowball towards defeat instead of turning the tide. Less tech means more casualties means less national morale means more casualties and so on. Keeping research as maxed as possible until at least 1941 for all countries is pretty important to being able to turn things around starting in 1942-43. This is the number one issue I see most Allied players having. Some recommendations in order of priority:

Russia: Infantry Weapons, Infantry Warfare, Tanks (or antitank, I usually research both), Tank Warfare, anti-air (to level 2), Artillery, Production (this is usually a nice to have tech for most countries, for the SU I'd say it is necessary as it reduces morale loss from casualties, and Russia will take a lot of casualties), industry (each level of which provides 15% increase instead of the standard 10% if memory serves), Command and control (those HQ's will be important to gaining on the Germans), fighters and airwarfare (oftentimes I don't get to these last two until the allies have turned the tide).

United States: Industry (kind of hard to be the Arsenal Democracy if you aren't producing massive amounts of MPP's, and the U.S. gets a 20% increase per level instead of the standard 10%), Air Attack, Fighters, Infantry Weapons, Tanks, Intel (need this with at least one allied power.... I normally choose the U.S. because you need to research nearly everything anyways and it speeds research if you're ahead), warfare techs, Heavy Bombers, anti-air (to level 2), anti-sub, artillery, command tech, production, amphibious warfare (this comes last in the essential techs because most amphibious attacks prior to 1942 are distractions more than truly dangerous anyways), logistics (the supply throughput is helpful

U.K.: Largely the same as the U.S. except higher priority on land warfare, and I usually don't touch the non-antisub naval techs or the industry/production techs (these only give 10% bonus for UK, and also don't apply to convoy MPP's, which means each level is much less than for other non-Japan nations). UK has less to go around, so needs to focus more on holding the line, however still needs to keep up with anti-sub, ground forces and airforce techs to stay competitive.

China: Infantry Weapons, Infantry Warfare, Anti-Air (gotta constrain the Japanese airforce or they will run away with things), Production (once again to help produce units and reduce NM loss from the many casualties), Industry (usually need this to stay in the game with minimal help from everyone else), Artillery (lots of positional warfare), and lastly fighters and airwarfare tech if you have time and resources (I rarely do unless Japan isn't bothering China much)

India: Like Italy, you need to pick what India is going to do for you early on and focus research on that. If it will be a main provider of air forces, focus your tech around air superiority and attack. If it will be a provider of land power, infantry weapons, infantry warfare, Command and control, anti-air and amphibious invasion will be your priorities.

2: As the Allies you need to answer from almost the beginning how you will survive the Soviet Union. The reason you need to answer this question quickly is because you need to focus your engineer fortification builds early on, as this will drive where you end up making your main fight. I've seen three common approaches, but I have an approach that I think is optimized against a strong player. If possible I like to try to turn out another engineer by the time Barbarossa comes around, but don't always manage it (generally speaking research is more important)

Common Approach 1: Build fortifications along the Dnieper and defend far forward. Against a weak Axis player this strategy is the best because you give up the least terrain. The downside is that you are meeting the Panzerwaffe at its strongest, and when its supply is still great and operating under concentrated air-cover. This is usually a recipe for imposing a limited delay on the Germans instead of stopping them, and often loses the units you should be using to make a counter-attack later on when they are all strung out with many turns of limited supply.

Common Approach 2: Fortifications in the marshlands and forests around Smolensk. While better than the first approach, and sometimes difficult to get past, I think the flaw here is that usually the war will be won or lost in the South. The terrain is more open there, and the sheer number of MPP's the Soviets lose by losing the oilfields (not to mention the southern lend lease) can hobble the Soviet war effort far more than the loss of Moscow. Generally speaking even without fortifications in the center you should be able to hold Moscow into at least mid-'42 if the Axis are making their main effort there, but even if you can't, you still have all the resources you need to keep fighting so long as you hold the south.

Common Approach 3: Fortifications on the approaches to Leningrad. The issue here is the same as with approach 2 except moreso. If the Germans go after Leningrad that is a distraction for them... so long as they don't cut Lend-Lease, you should welcome a "northern" approach, not discourage it.

My approach: Build fortifications around Voronezh and Stalingrad. These are the two objectives that Germany must secure in order to make a successful drive to Baku, and Baku is what they need to tip the balance in their favor economically so denying them to Germany enables the Soviets to counterattack more effectively. More importantly, normally when the Germans get to either or both of these cities, they are operating at the end of their supply lines and with long flanks.... if you can inflict damage on their headquarters it is very common to see German supply drop below 5, which will help facilitate your counterattacks even more. Fortifications around these two cities will facilitate this entire strategy, and turn a drive on Baku into a drive further north instead. The longer you hold the oilfields the better off you are and the worse off the Germans are.... you buy more time for the Allies to get ashore.

3. Speaking of getting ashore, we now get to the third part of a successful allied game.... getting the western allies back onto the European continent. How this happens is largely dependent on how much effort the Germans put into North Africa, but I usually like to plan for some kind of limited landing around 1942 (in say Italy or Greece) to serve as a distraction, and focus all my builds and research to at least have the option to land in force on the continent in 1943. France is ideal, but Spain is an option if France is untenable. Preparing for that 1943 landing is critical because things can go bad in the USSR, and the war will be won or lost there.... therefore you need to be ready to help them out. Other than some limited builds to prevent the Japanese from going wild in the Pacific (Special Forces, naval bombers and escort carriers) I usually focus my builds first on a massive airforce, which is how you kill the Wehrmacht, followed by the Army I need to get ashore by summer of 1943.

4. That gets us to how to balance the European and Pacific Theaters.... short answer here is "Germany first" is always right. The war will be won or lost in whether or not the Soviet Union goes down... and only Germany can bring the Soviet Union down. Therefore if you intend to win, you have to make sure you beat Germany. Japan should be an economy of force until you are ashore in Europe in strength... once you are sure you won't be pushed back into the sea, you can go all in against Japan, but not before. I usually only build CVE's, naval air and occasionally some subs when I've got some free MPP's. Carriers and most of the rest are an MPP sink that should be going into an airforce and Army to destroy Germany before they knock out the Soviet Union

Anyways, these are my 2 cents on how to play as allies. Biggest issue I've seen with most players is not keeping up with research followed by not having a plan for 1. How the Soviet Union will remain viable until the Allies are able to come ashore in force and 2. how to get the Allies ashore in force in time to matter.

[Chernobyl]

I do not play mp but I do notice many mp players skimping on tech in ways that surprise me. For example I see USSR failing to get C+C tech, UK failing to get enough ASW tech, or one side failing to reach level 3 Spy tech.

USA tech strategy isn't the hardest for any major (UK is) but one of the easiest to make a mistake and not realize it, because they have enough MPP to go for all techs. But just because you can put 4 chits into heavy bombers doesn't mean you should, especially if you aren't planning on buying many heavy bombers soon. It's far better to have full tech for something else that you purchase many of (and actually use to good effect) early on (before 1944) than to have full tech for more than one thing, none of which you have much of until 1945. Also I see many USA players sending fleets of air units somewhere like Egypt or India (good strategy) but failing to plan ahead to purchase, transport, and safely escort a USA HQ there to maximize air unit effectiveness.

For USSR the choices are hard, but I notice many Soviet units dying when they weren't under control of a HQ, or getting wrecked by bombers in 1943 without full AA upgrades. USSR needs C+C tech, period. But I've seen players just refuse to research this for certain nations like USSR or Japan. This usually results in USSR units dying for almost no damage in return, or Japan failing to conquer China.
Regarding AA tech, USSR needs level 2 badly and it might even be worth putting 3 chits in to get level 2 faster. Bombers are extremely fearsome now that they can bomb during the rain, and they do a large portion of the killing. Once you get level 2 AA, not only can you upgrade your units, but you can spend 20MPP to upgrade a likely target to increase its AA defense bonus (a city like Stalingrad or Moscow, or a fort). Often the Axis player has 5+ bombers ready to blast you and it's clear what hex they are going to target, so you can upgrade these hexes on an ad hoc basis. But while I see many players buying AAA units, I rarely see players remember they can upgrade resource hex AA for defense.

Both sides want to race to level 3 Spy tech, primarily because the +1/-1 swing to research speed is a really bad global effect to have against you. If you consider all the research impact (even gives a small bonus to breakthrough chance) then you realize Spy tech is the most impactful tech in the entire game. Consider how many games a player lose because "Soviet Infantry Warfare level 2 took forever". I always maximize this tech first.

I also see players ignoring tech for Japan and Italy (Industry, C+C) and I generally see a lot more early investment into Logistics tech than I believe is optimal.

[petedalby]

An excellent post - well done.

I think the only thing I do differently is to prioritise Naval Weaponry for the UK. Level 2 is key to make your CVs destructive (IMO).

[lwarmonger]

I do not play mp but I do notice many mp players skimping on tech in ways that surprise me. For example I see USSR failing to get C+C tech, UK failing to get enough ASW tech, or one side failing to reach level 3 Spy tech.

USA tech strategy isn't the hardest for any major (UK is) but one of the easiest to make a mistake and not realize it, because they have enough MPP to go for all techs. But just because you can put 4 chits into heavy bombers doesn't mean you should, especially if you aren't planning on buying many heavy bombers soon. It's far better to have full tech for something else that you purchase many of (and actually use to good effect) early on (before 1944) than to have full tech for more than one thing, none of which you have much of until 1945. Also I see many USA players sending fleets of air units somewhere like Egypt or India (good strategy) but failing to plan ahead to purchase, transport, and safely escort a USA HQ there to maximize air unit effectiveness.

For USSR the choices are hard, but I notice many Soviet units dying when they weren't under control of a HQ, or getting wrecked by bombers in 1943 without full AA upgrades. USSR needs C+C tech, period. But I've seen players just refuse to research this for certain nations like USSR or Japan. This usually results in USSR units dying for almost no damage in return, or Japan failing to conquer China.
Regarding AA tech, USSR needs level 2 badly and it might even be worth putting 3 chits in to get level 2 faster. Bombers are extremely fearsome now that they can bomb during the rain, and they do a large portion of the killing. Once you get level 2 AA, not only can you upgrade your units, but you can spend 20MPP to upgrade a likely target to increase its AA defense bonus (a city like Stalingrad or Moscow, or a fort). Often the Axis player has 5+ bombers ready to blast you and it's clear what hex they are going to target, so you can upgrade these hexes on an ad hoc basis. But while I see many players buying AAA units, I rarely see players remember they can upgrade resource hex AA for defense.

Both sides want to race to level 3 Spy tech, primarily because the +1/-1 swing to research speed is a really bad global effect to have against you. If you consider all the research impact (even gives a small bonus to breakthrough chance) then you realize Spy tech is the most impactful tech in the entire game. Consider how many games a player lose because "Soviet Infantry Warfare level 2 took forever". I always maximize this tech first.

I also see players ignoring tech for Japan and Italy (Industry, C+C) and I generally see a lot more early investment into Logistics tech than I believe is optimal.

There are a lot of great points here... while I tend to research C&C close to last for the Soviet Union, headquarters are usually some of the first units I purchase that aren't replacements for already destroyed units. Having HQ support is an enormous force multiplier for everyone.

Also, agree completely regarding intel tech. The research capabilities are most important, but being able to spot a task force heading is also invaluable for the Pacific naval war (after all, that destroyer or battleship you end up seeing isn't out there by itself most of the time).

I will say my own opinion is that industry and production techs for Japan and Italy are some of the lowest priority for me.... industry doesn't multiply MPP's made from convoys (outside of Lend lease type convoys which are based off of percentage or India to Britain convoy which is the same), so a convoy heavy nation like Japan benefits the least from this. And Japan gets most of the units it fields for free, and won't have national morale problems until the end of the war, so production tech isn't a huge benefit. Vs Italy, which doesn't matter whether it has production tech or not, it will still be having morale problems by 1943, and will never have much in terms of units unless the Axis are running away with the game.

[lwarmonger]

An excellent post - well done.

I think the only thing I do differently is to prioritise Naval Weaponry for the UK. Level 2 is key to make your CVs destructive (IMO).

That is interesting, I'll have to try this. Other than ASW tech, I almost never research anything naval for Britain.... always too many other urgent demands on MPP's.