I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious. No Taranto I believe. Axis win in Europe
Safe Russia strategy
-
The bid helps transfer pressure elsewhere. If Italy is unnerfed, it can take the oil, help with sealion, ward off America, defend Germany, and contribute a nice stack of 2+ armor and 6+ mech to punch through the Russian line. If Italy has an airforce (which will be dead if it gets forced into an attritional counterattack), it will be killing Russia too.
If Italy is strong, UK cant put a base in Iraq/Persia, because Italy will own that. If Italy is weak, its troops get cut off, no amount of German help will eff. hold the mehgrab/levant regions and the UK can focus on other things.
That is why the bid is a game changer.
Tirano and I discussed putting all the way up to a 38+ bid on the UK home fleets or France but there are few (better) ways to re-work the entire starting scenario than by putting UKs odds way up to hold/take/boggle the med, which only takes 18+ish.
Still, there is no definitive answer about the effect of many artillery (4-5) you could place all over Russia that, over time, would make it impossible for the German endgame stack to stand next to Moscow (lest you attack it with 10+ arty). No one on the boards uses the bid this way; the reason is that Russia may or MAY NOT be in the war from game start, so if you add a bunch of extra stuff to RUS it may just sit there for a while whereas UK stuff can always have a new influence on the game from UK1.
-
There is no safe strategy except hide in Moscow and try to hold the south as long as possible until someone comes to help you. If no G1 DOW, buy tanks or arty. the key is to build up your forces with heavy lifters until Germany comes at you. Then buy all infantry. As soon as Germany runs out of gas (which they eventually will), slam them when you can.
-
yea I rarely see bids go to Russia as well. Sometimes a fighter. Guess that wasn’t the best way to make my point. Basically Russia needs outside the box help to have a chance
-
The only bid for USSR I ever requested was to put some kind of firepower in the East because the Japanese player, I never played against so we agreed to put an artillery over there. I got used around turn 5.
-
We have never used bids, only our creativity. The game is not that unbalanced like most feel. Our group has played many different strategies over the years. Some were one time novelties that someone came up with on Triple A and others were just whims. My biggest gripe about playing with bids is that it dilutes the game first of all and it dilutes a player’s ability to create new strategies that will yield a win. Our games are about 50/50 overall Axis/Allied victories.
The other problem is that too many people seem to be afraid to lose. It’s a game and you can play again if it goes bad.
My 2 cents. -
The statistics are overwhelming. In League play in 2015, the Axis won 251 games to Allies 210. That 54.4% victory chance are for games that include Allied bids typically in the 20-30 PU range. Take away the bid and the good players should be able to win as Axis approximately 75% of the time. There are a few critical spots in the early game where dice can sway the game back to balance, but after that the game increasingly pushes more towards the Axis’ favor.
The game is a bit more balanced in face-to-face matches where moves and battles are not so meticulously calculated. Also there is so much more variation among player skill levels in most groups than found in the elite pool of League players. A win a vast majority of live games in my local group, but struggle to win half of them in League play. Still we have constant fights in the local match since some of the better players are insisting that game is balanced but also insist to play Axis without giving the Allies a bid.
I am not afraid of losing, but I am afraid of wasting eight hours if the Allies fail to even the game back up with good luck early in the game. No thanks.
-
Mr. Harris,
Your recitation of the facts has def. converted me, as I began by arguing minimal bias but now, I see the light. Part of the effect is an insistence on playing the Axis if victory seems more interesting than variety.
That’s why I keep seeking out the live play and disdain AAA. The best warriors are there, but the game is much more fun in person and as we keep nostalgically stating, it is an immensely fun and attractive game that is just engaging to play (for 8 hours, after that…phew). Going up against newbs isn’t interesting, but at least in our groups, everyone understands the rules, framework etc, so its not as if the competition isn’t exciting or that victory is ever certain, and if it were, we would just reallocate the most experienced players to opposite teams (or force them to change sides every week).
The bid clearly addresses some of the shortcomings of the initial setup and playout, it adds choice. Varied editions, and varied setups (G40,41,42 etc), conventions, and varied friends keep the game interesting.
-
Mr. Harris,
Your recitation of the facts has def. converted me, as I began by arguing minimal bias but now, I see the light. Part of the effect is an insistence on playing the Axis if victory seems more interesting than variety.
That’s why I keep seeking out the live play and disdain AAA. The best warriors are there, but the game is much more fun in person and as we keep nostalgically stating, it is an immensely fun and attractive game that is just engaging to play (for 8 hours, after that…phew). Going up against newbs isn’t interesting, but at least in our groups, everyone understands the rules, framework etc, so its not as if the competition isn’t exciting or that victory is ever certain, and if it were, we would just reallocate the most experienced players to opposite teams (or force them to change sides every week).
The bid clearly addresses some of the shortcomings of the initial setup and playout, it adds choice. Varied editions, and varied setups (G40,41,42 etc), conventions, and varied friends keep the game interesting.
I used to think that live play was more fun, but it’s much less hassle to let the computer authorize move, count the units, discard casualties.
I like rolling the dice, but when the battles get large it gets tedious too.
-
We have never used bids, only our creativity. The game is not that unbalanced like most feel. Our group has played many different strategies over the years. Some were one time novelties that someone came up with on Triple A and others were just whims. My biggest gripe about playing with bids is that it dilutes the game first of all and it dilutes a player’s ability to create new strategies that will yield a win. Our games are about 50/50 overall Axis/Allied victories.
The other problem is that too many people seem to be afraid to lose. It’s a game and you can play again if it goes bad.
My 2 cents.Well do you do anything different? No Victory cities? House rules? Better allied strats? Or is it weaker Axis play?
-
As far as different, we do have some house rules but they are mainly to spice up the game. See my posts in the House rules section. They do affect the game sometimes but have only on about 3 occasions changed everything. What has really changed is the Allied play is much stronger. The tactics have shifted from attacking to developing strongholds as well as a lot of strategic bombing.
-
I like to counterattack as much as possible with the Russians against Germany. You have to take a good look at it first though to make sure that each counterattack is in your best interests. I do this to keep as much money in Russian hands as possible and out of German hands so that you can continue to build as many units as possible until you are overwhelmed. Hopefully you can last until the Americans show up in Europe and draw the Germans away from the Eastern Front.
I made this video to demonstrate my Russian strategy, it’s about 38 minutes long;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq17jkmkuHc -
WOW!
“The game is not that unbalanced…”
Come on in and play the league w/no allied bid and see what happens. Axis play is tight and will thrash any unready allied player. Like others say, check the stats. Axis win CONSISTENTLY more. I’ve played over 200+ games myself the past couple years. The Axis advantage is real. The debate as to why the Axis win is old and more or less resolved.
1. the VC conditions are way, way favorable to the Axis.
2. the territory spread allows the Axis air force in Europe a magnificent defense/offense spread (DARK SKIES ANYONE?)
3. the allies have too few IPCs since they have to ship most of their stuff while simultaneously defending their convoys from Axis air power…
if you want a safe Russia strategy, here it is: don’t play.
Russia is the sacrificial dog, it must play hide and seek, weaving and dodging the Axis while all the while getting ready for the final showdown. The fall of Moscow is if not the end, the prelude to the end!
KILL!
-
Well said Karl. I am sure that you would hand an easy defeat to anyone wishing to play Allies sans bid. You sure win often enough even spotting the opponent a 20-30 PU bid. There certainly are things that the Allies can try and they might work with either good dice rolling or a bad opponent. Still, that is not a sign that the game is balanced.
Aggressive Russia strategy can work if the German side is careless or has lost too many fighters in other regions of the board. Otherwise Russia is trading infantry pieces with a defense of 2 for German pieces that would have had an attack of only 1. The minor gains in territory might compensate for the trade, but it usually has minimal benefit for the eventual siege or encirclement of Moscow.
-
You have to pick your spots carefully when you are being aggressive. You don’t do it if there is no economic benefit to it just for the sake of being aggressive, you only counterattack when you can come out ahead in the exchange. If the German player is competent and on top of their game then you may not get a chance at all and have no choice but to retreat. Every player makes a mistake now and then though you just have to be ready to make them pay for it.
-
I’m starting to try some different strategies to slow the Nazi steamroller:
-
Scramble G1 - kill some Luftwaffe. Who cares about losing half the RAF?
-
Early US assault on Norway if possible
-
A lot of Strat Bombing
-
USA onto Normandy if not Norway and preferably both
-
Keeping the USSR’s Baltic Sub alive as long as possible. While this is alive Germany needs a DD to be able to build a TT in SZ113.
Basically, anything that weakens Germany strengthens Moscow relatively.
I think I’m starting to improve my (currently infinitely bad in 2017) ratio. There is no one strategy which kills them but you don’t have to. The USSR if living healthily can do that.
If USA gets on Norway, Germany has to do a lot to kick them off which takes them off killing Moscow.
-
-
This is an interesting discussion. I think both Arthur and Karl has hit the nail. No question that Axis are overpowered and the need for bids is obvious. One of the best league players, Adam514 says he need a bid of 60 for an even result if he was to play himself 100 times. But this is of course with AAA.
In other situations the need for a bid is much less. For a face to face game between unexperienced players there is no need for a bid. As your experience is growing the need for a bid becomes more and more obvious. The first 20 games or so you are more or less learning unless you have a natural talent for the game.
As a side note, defending Russia: If Germany buys 6 art and 2 inf round one and follows up with additinal men (fast moving) in round 2 and 3 and bombers in round 4 and 5. Moscow is dead on G6. You can’t stop this. Try to get allied fighters to moscow by end of round 5, it is really hard. With a bid it is easier because more of your UK fighters will survive the opening round (unless you scrambled round 1, in that case Italy will have fun in the med). Well, there are ways to get fighters to Moscow. Those extra fighters will make the deal less attractive to Germany as they will typically have only maybe 5-10 land land units remaining
-
The only way axis are winning a lot is by maximized play.
Well, der.
Of course the Axis try for optimised play. So do the allies. Aren’t you saying that the axis should play more weakly and the only thing which makes Axis strong is they play well?
-
Going around via the Med is a serious commitment though. If the Axis take Cyprus (which I think you meant instead of Crete) they then have to land on TransJordan or Syria. In all cases they are vulnerable to being hit by Italy.
-
how are you getting UK fighters to moscow end of UK3 or UK4? Are you taking out italian navy or not?
-
If the Allies put a huge amount of effort into it, they can make Moscow survive a G6/G7 attack. At the very least they can make the exchange unwise since Germany would lose too many planes. In such games, I swing my German fast movers down into the Middle East. With bomber and fighter support, they can blow through any resistance until they approach Egypt. The German income quickly rises to 80+ while Russia is struggling to add enough infantry to continue life for a few more turns. A couple tanks and bombers can swing over to assist Japan do critical can-opener moves. If Japan is doing okay in the Pacific, the game is essentially over at that point. Economic victory is a very valid way for the Axis to win. With easier logistics, they will be able to win in 12-20 rounds if their income matches that of the Allies.
In the Balance Mod, the Allied income is significantly boosted. Adding another 10-15 PUs for the Americans allow them to hold off the Germans in Europe even after the Middle East is captured. The immortal Chinese partisans keep that country alive long after they would be dead in a standard game. Those changes, or a huge Allied initial bid, are necessary to prevent the Axis from winning in the long run simply by capturing the Middle East and sending fast movers over to conquer Siberia. Simply keeping Moscow around until Round 12 does not mean success for the Allies if massive numbers of planes are required to keep the capitol from falling.
Suggested Topics
