We need people. Please sign up!
Here is the link:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22003.30
AA50 Bias
-
1941 unbalance is clear before playing because of J1-killing-China problem. Ahistorical, KJF and KGF killing strat, this needs heavy bids for China. There is not a slight bias to axis, there is a very big bias to axis.
1942 seems more balanced. We should play many 1942 games to know if it’s so
Ok, Ill favor your statement, " its a big imbalance in 1941. " I am still reading Players who are doing typical KGF strategies. Players follow what they know, until forced to find a new route. If the japanese setup is this strong, we should begin to see KGF failing in 1941. Of course the player, strong or weak, can he/she take advantage of the Japanese position and options. I like the challenge. I hope we begin to see many wins for the Axis in the 1941 setups. This would proof the concept. Its early yet, many games to play before the natural tendencies of each setup can be stated proof positive. Again I find the unbalance of each, 1941for Axis and 1942 Allies as a balance unto itself,
if this proves true, maybe we can have tournaments where we play each position 1941 and 1942 or maybe each round alternates setups.A balanced imbalance? interesting concept. hmmm. What players seem to be very concerned about is a fair fight given optimal strategy and average dice. I certainly would like a game that accomplished that, as i doubt i can find time to play 2 fulls games in a session. But perhaps you are right, that this version of A and A has been designed to be unbalanced. I hope this is not the case, but it would explain the reasoning for 2 scenarios. Only the game designers can reveal this for sure, and Im sure they are going to let this game speak for itself for some-time, before giving us the clues.
-
In the first game I played with my friends, we played the '42 setup. The Allied team decided upon this strategy: UK vs Italy then Germany, USSR vs Germany, USA vs Japan. Needless to say, it went horribly.
First, even with the USA going full tilt against Japan, it was unable to seriously bring it down. By the end of the game, the Imperial Navy was still strong, and the Japanese army had made major grounds in China and the Soviet east. Allied victory in the Pacific seemed far off, despite gains in Borneo, the Philippines, and long range aircraft (which really helped speed things up).
Second, while the British campaign against Italy initially went well, it became a protracted campaign that wasn’t really going anywhere. The intention for the British was to quickly destroy the Italian navy and then take Rome before it could adequately defend itself. The first part of the plan was a glowing success, but the second, not so much. Italy proved to be a tougher shell to crack, and Germany was becoming too powerful. Thus, the British decided to let Italy be and focus on D-Day landings.
Third, the German campaign in Russia went really well. They had advanced artillery and paratroopers, and really gave the Soviets a licking. The Russian military collapsed rather quickly, mostly due to over extending themselves when they should have probably been more defensively minded. It wasn’t long until Moscow was surrounded and under siege. Moscow fell two rounds before the Allies gave up.
The game could have probably kept on going, but it was getting late, and no one was interested in a protracted war of attrition.
Endgame incomes with NO’s (approximations)
USA- 65ish
UK- 35-40
USSR- 0Japan- 33
Germany- 70-75
Italy- 9 -
If allies or axis need bids we can only speculate….for now.
I don’t want to say some players are stupid, but you cannot judge balance if you are playing with tech!!!
As for tech and NOs, I don’t use tech, but naturally and logically, if ppl prefer tech, then use it. We all play for fun, some even use house rules, and in AAR tech is actually not an optional rule… :-)
This reminds me of some of the KJF + other discussions in the revised forum, you cannot judge strats and/or balance if techs are in play.
If we are serious in trying to measure game balance, then we must play lots of games with both scenarios, 41 and 42, with and without NOs, then time will tell :wink:
-
First, even with the USA going full tilt against Japan, it was unable to seriously bring it down. By the end of the game, the Imperial Navy was still strong, and the Japanese army had made major grounds in China and the Soviet east. Allied victory in the Pacific seemed far off, despite gains in Borneo, the Philippines, and long range aircraft (which really helped speed things up).
This is why I can’t wait to try KGF variants against multiple opponents in AA50. The fact is, Japan is too powerful in a naval sense… if America throws everything at it, Japan still likely will have more or less the same progress on the mainland as if America did nothing at all, maybe less if America was truly effectively whittling away at Japan’s navy…
America could spend all of its money trying to take over the Pacific, or spend all/most of its money finishing of Italy, and soon Germany. The endgame will be a messy and arduous affair if the Japanese player refuses to surrender, but it will safely be an allied victory if Italy falls before Russia has to take to the defensive against Japan (Japanese units adjacent to Moscow).
Theoretically, this should produce better results than a KGF in revised because Germany COULD hold off the Allies for a long time. In AA50, Italy doesn’t have that same luxury.
-
If people are doing many games to try to average the outcomes to determine the balance, you might as well use low luck dice. You will get a much more accurate average.
-
My point is I think a lot of things have to be play tested before it is declared the Axis win every game with OOB rules.
Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.
-
Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.
One hour after playing 1941….“dmm game is slanted to the axis…dmm it!” :roll:
-
One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.
-
One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.
this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs
-
this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs
It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.
-
It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.
I agree that the USA can slightly aford tech more than others, but the second part of your statement I must disagree with. Japan especially and Germany can both benefit from may techs from both tech trees even more than the USA can because both of them use Air/Navy and Land, where the USA wouldn’t use most of the Land techs until late in the game.
-
@Imperious:
Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.
One hour after playing 1941….“damm game is slanted to the axis…damm it!” :roll:
My point, I still do not believe this is a bad thing. We know the 1942 setup has been a problem for Axis players in the past. Now, we have a possible counter setup for the Allies in the 1941 setup. Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong. The Allied challenge, overcome the Axis operational tempo, the Axis were deployed and moving. It is like a monster chess game, One color Axis, is seven moves into the game, when Allies are just begining to move. The answer for the Allies should be tough to find, because it was. I do not yet, see it as impossible for the Allies, only tougher to find the Allied win. would the game be worthy, if we strolled in, did our best 1942 kGF and, yawn, victory-NO!! We need many more games, to research the answer.
Possibly, we could start a thread, tracking each players games as research data:
Setups used 1941-1942/Who won Allies-Axis/ Number of players 2-6/ Techs used yes-no/, NO’s used yes-no. We could quickly gather data from everone’s play. -
Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.
….unless you are Timerover51
-
Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.
….unless you are Timerover51
The problem with that is the USA ipc production is 40 in the game and in the real war it would have been 60-70, maybe more. If you gave the USA its real production though I fear everyone would still do KGF anyway…so what’s the point??
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that. -
Bluestroke said
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
I couldnt agree more with you buddy! USA-KGF……zzzzzzzz :|
the only time I would do a KGF start for the US is if I was playing for money. Talk about historic _in_accuracy. The US was all over the Pacific… -
well we could make a historical set up and see if its more balanced for 41.
I don’t think its historical in the slightest except it was designed to be balanced and that’s a fail ‘fo show’.
-
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
Seconded. If A&A devolves into this again, then I’m quitting completely. I do hope to be proven wrong however. :)
-
you show up? We don’t see you like for once every 3 years. Your like a comet!
-
What can I say, I’m as timeless and immortal as this Forum.
Why, if you look at the picture attached, that’s me on the far right (above Monty) alongside a prototype copy of Axis and Allies. Unfortunately, the pieces kept sliding off the board so we just used it as a map.
––
After three years, I can say things have changed a lot. For instance, the rise of the Super Posters – yes, I’m looking at you Mister 7068. For a long time, I didn’t think anyone besides Yanny, CC, and I would break 5000. But A&A:50 has that effect of bringing people back. Like a Renaissance.
-
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
Suggested Topics
