1941 Balance?

[maverick_76]

This is interesting. What do you feel the advantage is for the Axis in terms if you play 100 games, how many would the Axis win if both players were equal skill?

[Argothair]

With no bid for the Allies, no tech, national objectives on, no fighter interception, and the Turkish Straits closed? Axis win 85 out of 100 games. With Turkish straits open, Axis win 95 out of 100 games.

[maverick_76]

Wow, if it was 60/40 or even 70/30 I’d say that isn’t too bad…but 80-95% success for the Axis is crazy.

Well I have definitely not played enough or are skilled enough to be able to see the unbalanced nature yet. Also we played with tech and that actually sucked some money out of both sides trying to get a leg up.

[Argothair]

It takes a while to see how to use optimal Axis strategies! If it were obvious after one or two plays, then the playtesters would have found it. When people are relatively new to the game they inject a bit of randomness into the strategy – instead of always making the best play every turn, sometimes they’ll use a ‘good’ tactic or even a ‘mediocre’ tactic. Even when those so-so tactics show up equally on both sides, they tend to delay the game a bit and make it run longer. Ruthlessly crushing Russia, for example, requires flawless play. If both Germany and Russia make a few mistakes, then Russia will probably survive for a bit longer, on average. But the longer the game goes, the more the Allies have an advantage: the larger Allied income has more of a chance to make up the difference against the bigger starting Axis armies, and the Allies have a chance for their investments in transports, factories, etc. to start paying off.

[maverick_76]

See that is what I noticed, even though the game was 50/50 when I stopped, I felt that unless I could knock Russia out within the next 2-3 turns that the Allies would have been able to steamroll me with superior income, they were hitting on most of their objectives still so the disparity was 2:1 in income ratio.

[Argothair]

Yes, knocking out the Allied national objectives is definitely a key part of optimal Axis play! Because objectives get collected based on the state of the board at the end of each player’s turn, you have to be able to take and hold a key territory to shut down each objective.

To shut down Britain, you can take and hold Egypt or Australia. Taking and holding Gibraltar is usually harder, but can work if the Brits build a factory in Cairo and don’t build much navy. You also need to make sure to leave enough infantry in France (along with maybe an AA gun or a fighter) so that Britain can’t trade with you in France. This can sometimes mean building mostly infantry as Germany on turn 1!

To shut down Russia, you can either take Leningrad early and then move into Archangel, or you can just put so much pressure on Moscow that the Allies are compelled to send in foreign units (usually fighters) to defend the Russian capital. Sometimes you can also pressure Stalingrad, forcing Britain to bring in infantry reinforcements from Persia, but that’s less common.

To shut down America, again, you need to leave plenty of infantry in France, and you also need to make sure Japan takes and holds the Philippines no later than turn 2. Taking Wake Island or the Solomon Islands to shut down America’s Pacific Islands objective is a nice addition, but it’s not always a cost-effective use of your resources…it depends what America is doing. If America is going heavy into the Pacific, you’ll be hard-pressed just to defend your starting territory as Japan. But if America abandons the Pacific, don’t let America collect Pacific income for free!

[Charles de Gaulle]

I’ve actuallly never played Anniversary with NOs.  What is the general opinion on how it affects balance?  I always thought I looked too good for the Axis.

[maverick_76]

From my one play through, I thought it was quite balanced to be honest. But people that have played the game much more say it slants even more in favor of the Axis because they claim that the axis can meet their objectives quickly and also block allied objectives quickly…making the Axis have parity in terms of income early in the game which makes it almost impossible for the allies to win.

[axis_roll]

Agree with Maverick, as the National Objectives are easier to obtain for the Axis and harder for the Allies to maintain/achieve.

My play group modifies the bonus from 5 IPCs to 4 IPCs to minimize the difference/impact

[maverick_76]

One thing that I think can level the game is if the allies can invest in tech and hopefully get it early in the game. Heavy bombers especially can devastate the Germans if the UK or USA can get that.

[axis_roll]

@maverick_76:

One thing that I think can level the game is if the allies can invest in tech and hopefully get it early in the game. Heavy bombers especially can devastate the Germans if the UK or USA can get that.

Yahtzee!

Sure, this is a good way to win with OOB rules.  However, you may win by the dice or die by the dice… rolling 4+ dice for ones (as in Germanys AAA flak shots at your bombing runs) has an inherent great variability in the results.

Germany could try for increased factory tech to offset your bombing run, so there is that counter o an allied bombing strategy (albeit not a very strong counter)

[Argothair]

Yeah, it’s important to keep track of what question you’re really asking.

If the question is “Can I imagine a way that the Allies can win against a competent opponent using out of the box rules?” then the answer is “Yes, sure, that’s possible; there are strategies that give the Allies some chance to win.” Specifically, they give the Allies a chance to win of about 25%. Even getting odds as good as 25% for the Allies requires using very luck-dependent strategies like rolling a lot of dice for tech…at which point the game starts to feel much more like Yahtzee (mostly luck) than Power Grid (mostly skill). Personally, I’d rather not play a four hour game that’s mostly about luck and that gives one side a much better chance of winning…but to each their own. If you and you friends enjoy that sort of thing, then more power to you.

On the other hand, if the question is “Do the Allies have a roughly even chance to win using out of the box rules?” then the answer is “No, no, they don’t.” This second question is usually what people are talking about when they ask if a game is balanced. Out-of-the-box Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition 1941 setup is not balanced.

[maverick_76]

I would love to get more games under my belt to see how much tech can influence the game. Also I’d love to see how viable my “bomb Germany to smithereens” approach is. That is how I won with the Allies the last game I played. Just forced Germany to have to repair factories every turn. And when the UK scored heavy bombers…I didn’t even have to use US bombers anymore.

I agree that this game could have been just luck for me but that definitely stokes my fire to try it again and see if it was just a one hit wonder on my part.

[Seadog]

Old topic, i know…just wanted to state my experiences here. In general, playing with NOs and out of the box, the axis seems far more favored than the allies. I modified some tactics, coordinating the axis-moves more than usual. First u can afford to buy some bombers as german too, if u do not press too hard to russia in the beginning. U still can press a lot, but russia can stay in the game for some turns without being a serious thread. Germany will always be able to secure the frontline. Bombers to attack UK for economy proved a great advantage. It brings the UK in a more defensive position. Japan can still attack China/eastern russia and make island-hopps in the pacifik (depends a bit on american strategy). So in general u can just “bleed out” russia. Africa i just land some german troops (if u can land 1-2 fighters, that makes it really hard for the UK). Just enough to be secure. I always let italy ignore africa, stocking italy with ground units to be able to invade africa, but using them mostly to counter-attack invasion of france directly. "After 1-2 rounds italy is strong enough to counter an allied attack on france, freeing the german troops to march east (depending how well it worked out for Japan it is often not even necessary to push with full force, freeing more german troops for africa). Axis win easy 80-90% of the time this way. Only working strategy against seems to go full pacifik with US, leaving UK in a really weak position (often pressed by Japan in asia, just able to hold india and perhaps parts of africa). The key seems (in my opinion) using the underestimated italian forces to secure the western part of europe and wait for the germans to sweep africa. I tried to stop that as ally-side once with a massive invasion of US/UK troops in africa instead of france. This meant, Japan grew strong really fast in the pacific. In this game the position of germany grew weak, but Japan was so strong it seemed unstoppable.
To mark the point: Playing out of the box favors Axis totally, leaving them all opportunities. The allies mostly only can react to that, not really able to turn the game until they get a really good dice roll or two. Tech seems a good way to counter that but germany can afford tech too early in the game if it does not sacrifice too much troops in the beginning (easily makeable by not pressing to russia with full force).

[taamvan]

@Seadog

I find this discussion very unusual. In both versions, I find a MASSIVE allied advantage. That’s without tech or NOs, but the advantage is even bigger with NOs as I see it (because France is worth $11, $16 if its held over both powers turns, and even more $22 if they both capture it on one turn).

This has to do with the geometry of the map–its an easy path to get fighters to moscow. Also, Russia has plenty of troops to start the game. KGF is devestating on Germany–even buying subs and infantry all game the fleet that comes is not going to be stopped by a cruiser and half a dozen planes and subs because both US and UK have strong fleets.

The tournament has some different rules, but it still shows a 9-7 victory for allies at a <6 bid. I’d say a realistic bid is somewhere more like 13-22 for Axis and I still dont know how they’d win.

[axis_roll]

@taamvan said in 1941 Balance?:

@Seadog

I find this discussion very unusual. In both versions, I find a MASSIVE allied advantage. That’s without tech or NOs, but the advantage is even bigger with NOs as I see it (because France is worth $11, $16 if its held over both powers turns, and even more $22 if they both capture it on one turn).

This has to do with the geometry of the map–its an easy path to get fighters to moscow. Also, Russia has plenty of troops to start the game. KGF is devestating on Germany–even buying subs and infantry all game the fleet that comes is not going to be stopped by a cruiser and half a dozen planes and subs because both US and UK have strong fleets.

The tournament has some different rules, but it still shows a 9-7 victory for allies at a <6 bid. I’d say a realistic bid is somewhere more like 13-22 for Axis and I still dont know how they’d win.

I would LOVE a bid of 14 in AA50-41, OOB rules, no tech, NO’s, Dardenelles open! Even with pure luck dice, Africa falls by round 3, at the latest, India J2 (trading is fine with Japan) and Italy gets both NO’s, and then some.

[PizzaPete]

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in 1941 Balance?:

I’ve actuallly never played Anniversary with NOs.  What is the general opinion on how it affects balance?  I always thought I looked too good for the Axis.

In my opinion without NOs the game favors the allies, and with NOs it favors the axis. I would recommend trying a game with them sometime. It adds an interesting new layer to the normal strategy, and it also speeds up the end game because if one side starts doing well, they the strength to gain their objectives while denying objectives to their opponents, which accelerates the end. I don’t want to imply that it gives victory to the first side to have things go their way, its a long fight for total objective dominance, but it puts the emphasis of the whole game more on the tipping point of the war than it does on actually knocking an enemy capital.

I really prefer it. You may not but you should give it a try sometime to see.

@axis_roll said in 1941 Balance?:

Agree with Maverick, as the National Objectives are easier to obtain for the Axis and harder for the Allies to maintain/achieve.

My play group modifies the bonus from 5 IPCs to 4 IPCs to minimize the difference/impact

That’s a cool idea! I’m going to try that. Do you still do any sort of bid or do you find this eliminates the need for a bid altogether?

[axis_roll]

@PizzaPete said in 1941 Balance?:

@axis_roll said in 1941 Balance?:

Agree with Maverick, as the National Objectives are easier to obtain for the Axis and harder for the Allies to maintain/achieve.

My play group modifies the bonus from 5 IPCs to 4 IPCs to minimize the difference/impact

That’s a cool idea! I’m going to try that. Do you still do any sort of bid or do you find this eliminates the need for a bid altogether?

My play group has many house rules, mostly to try and open up other strategic options that have an equal chance of succeeding as the old Allied game plan of KGF/keep Russia alive (boring!)

My play group thoughts are that the OOB 1941 game (NO’s active, no tech) is very slanted in the Axis favor, especially when you remove/diminish the wild dice variable with low luck like we use. There are several thoughts on how to balance the game in the house rules section.

One of my favorite is splitting India and sz35 in two (add Bangledesh and SZ35b). This may not be easy to implement online, but is very easy in FTF games and really makes a difference IMHO.

[PizzaPete]

Nice! I’ll have to try that one too.

My play group also plays with national objectives and low luck most times. Some things we’ve tried that helps is first and foremost that China is allowed to exit Chinese territory so that Japan can’t let them grow out of of control with no consequence, and also that China’s move is linked to Russia instead of US, so they get to go before Japan and not have to lose the flying tigers. (We’ve also tried a modified version where we just change the placement so that the Flying tigers fighter survives.)

[Argothair]

@taamvan Can you say a bit more about what Japan is doing in your games? It’s true that with a well-executed KGF Germany will be contained to the core territories of France, NW Europe, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania – but that’s still worth $30 a turn and it takes the Allies a very long time to build and load enough transports to crack it.

Meanwhile, a pure KGF usually leaves Japan free to take India, then the Caucasuses, then Moscow – the Allies can certainly rush a few fighters to Moscow, but sending even one ruins the only practical Russian national objective, and if you build too many then you never get enough Allied ground troops to crack the German turtle – fighters in Moscow can’t reach to support an attack on France.

In my experience, without a bid and with NOs on, the Japanese attack on Moscow is much faster than the American attack on Paris, let alone Berlin. How does the Pacific play out in your games?