Thanks gents. I’m currently editing my video for upload to YouTube and my argument sounds nearly exactly identical to @Cernel .
I appreciate all the feedback.
How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)
-
OK, it does seem like the Axis are having a quite big advantage
Am i the only one thinking the axis are at the disadvantage here?
Just played a game (admitidley with 6 players) but the ais was crushed beyond belief…
-
Am I the only one here who believes that BOTH sides can win without a bid :?
This is not Revised ppl, it’s a new game, it’s more complex than AAR, and the best strats are not discovered yet.
-
i’ve played the game twice now (once with NO and once w/out) and I do believe Allies has an advantage. Before Japan can get to Moscow, the Allies will be breathing down the necks of Germany and Italy.
-
@Nix:
OK, it does seem like the Axis are having a quite big advantage
Am i the only one thinking the axis are at the disadvantage here?
Just played a game (admitidley with 6 players) but the ais was crushed beyond belief…
KGIF?
-
i’ve played the game twice now (once with NO and once w/out) and I do believe Allies has an advantage. Before Japan can get to Moscow, the Allies will be breathing down the necks of Germany and Italy.
KGIF, how predictable. I thought this game was created to get action in Pacific?
When are we gonna stop dicking around and admit this game is the same ole broken record and come up with ideas that make this a global conflict? I tried but no one is listening.
-
/Flying tiger
Once we’ve played the game for a few months I’m sure we’ll be trying out some ideas if the Axis seem to be kicked in the butt by a KGF strat in a big majority of games. People right now I think are trying to play the game and optimizing strategies. In particular we should expect quick offensives by the Germans and Italians before American invasions take place, so that Russia can be made to collapse. On the other spectrum we could see Japan attacking Alaska from turn 2 and on so that USA can’t throw all at Europe.
I don’t think we need difficult changes though like changing major things, the simplest thing would be to just give the Axis a 12 VC victory condition which would mean the Pacific couldn’t be ignored. But again, we should try the game out more first!
-
KGIF?
No, UK, russia kicked down germany italy, US kicked japans navy in the nuts. We where playing with tecs thought.
-
How about inventing some nice Allied counter strategies to the KRF (kill Russia first) ? They haven’t been all tried yet, have they? So no, I’m not convinced the Axis got a '41 auto win…
If the USA is active in the Pacific then THAT IS a counter to KRF. Japan cannot ignore USA. Getting the USA active in Pacific should be the game designers main goal. They tried but they failed and this time it’s worse than ever.
-
I still think it is too early to tell.
It is going to come down to the play of Japan.
If Japan is routinely ignored by the US while Russia is almost always getting killed by a G/I/J 1-2-3 then that would tell me that the US can’t ignore Japan and thus you are forced to have at least some Pacific action. But if the US can ignore Japan while Germany still falls way before Moscow then we could have the same old same old.I do think, in this case (US ignore Japan), that Capital trades may become a possibility, G and I for Russia, it which case if there was no US Pac presence I think Japan (with Cauc and Mos) may be able to either take Wus or Liberate either Rome or Berlin meaning Capital trade is good for the Axis (if Japan is left alone). Again, this would all eventually lead to the Allied players realizing you just can’t afford to leave Japan alone b/c even if Europe falls they can continue to fight on quite well earning 75-95 ipcs. But we simply need more games to be played to determine how big of a threat Japan can be when left alone.
The problem, and IMO there is no way around this, is the game is a land based game. You need land units to take Capitals, period. Germany and Russia are essentially the only countries where you don’t have to every worry about buying a ship. So a country earning 30 (all land units) equals a country earning say 40-45 (where you need to buy not only trns but ships to protect the trns).
Thus Germany and Russia are going to dictate the game pace. If they both come out guns blazing it really leaves their Allies no choice but to come to their aid, this requires UK/US to shuck to Europe and Japan to press Moscow from the East.Now in AA50, due to the increased distance form Japan to Moscow, it may turn out that to better aid Germany you don’t need to spend the 6-7 turns to get to Moscow, you can spend the 2-3 turns and trade Ala/Hi and directly threaten the US. In turn this could force the US to come up with some type of Pac strat, but we just need more time to see how games really play out.
-
My 2 cents worth on re-balancing.
I’ve played AA50 several times and agree with many comments that the Axis (Japanese) are way over powered. Godzilla rules. (As a background, I have been playing AA since the 1981 Nova Edition). The main problem I see is that the Japanese navy starts way oversized in relation to the USN, which at the start of the war was larger than the IJN (except in fleet carriers, where the Japanese had 6 and the US 5, plus the training of pilots and the zero for the first year in the war). Remember that Japanese naval ascendancy during the war lasted less than 6 months.
Also, the US should be the Arsenal of Democracy and be the industrial giant of the war, not the Japanese.
Minor issue with the weakness of the British RN versus the Italian/ German fleets. What’s missing is the RN fleet based in Alexandria. The automatic capture of Egypt by the Germans and Italians in the summer of 1941 shouldn’t be. It should be possible but not easy.
Suggested changes:
1. US Sea Zone 44 Add 1 cruiser and 1 fighter
Sea Zone 56 Add 1 cruiser
Start with improved shipyards (even if not using technology)
Start with War Bonds (even if not using technology)consider adding 1-3 Chinese infantry to the empty Chinese territories
The IJN will still have a strong initial advantage, especially where they had it in the naval air arm. The USN will at least have the opportunity to build a force to challenge the IJN. As it stands now, why bother. Hopefully this will allow a “global” war and encourage a strong US presence int he Pacific.
2. UK Sea Zone 15 Add 1 Battleship and 1 DD.
This will prevent the pretty much automatic capture of Egypt on turn 1. The idea that the Germans could amphibiously assault Egypt in the summer of 41 is absurd. The Italians will have to fight for it and won’t have shore bombardment on the first turn.
3. USSR Russia add 1 Fighter. The Red Airforce was significantly larger than the German Luftwaffe and even after losing much of their planes in the initial assault, they were numerically significant.
4. Germany. Start with Increased Factory Production (even if not using technology).
That’s it.
Personnally I don’t see any issue with NO’s as they all seem pretty realistic to what those countries had as war time objectives. I think they are a very nice touch to the game.
-
I think with those changes the Allies win easily. The US would dominate the Pacific and the Japanese probably wouldn’t really start getting active in Asia until trn 5, and thats if they can even get active in Asia.
-
1-3 inf in empty chinese territories is not enough. China need to be a full power with a new setup able of resist J1 and India needs a IC and maybe a couple of units OR China full power and delete 2 jap trannies. That would balance the stuff.
-
I’m not convinced there’s a need to rebalance anything.
If so, the only change I’d make is to put a fighter on India.
-
If I were limited to one change, it would be to give Russia 1 fighter. I mean common, they start the game with only ONE offensive piece on the board?? WTF is that?
-
@Cmdr:
If I were limited to one change, it would be to give Russia 1 fighter.
i agree 100%. their airforce may have sucked in the first half of the war, but Russia still had one
-
@Cmdr:
If I were limited to one change, it would be to give Russia 1 fighter. I mean common, they start the game with only ONE offensive piece on the board?? WTF is that?
So I take it you do not think artillery is an offensive piece?
The sub can be considered offensive too -
After some thought the game actually is balanced. In AAR it was an allied advantage. In AA50 they have balanced the game (50-50 win) by making Japan stronger to counter the KGF strategy.
The real question should be how do we make this a “GLOBAL WAR” and keep it balanced?
A fighter in Russia does not make it a global war.
I still stand by changing the NOs.
-
I honestly think about the only change that NEEDS to be done is move the Chinese fighter off the front lines.
With NO’s Russia can quickly buy up the offensive pieces it lacks. The UK has plenty of money on the first turn if they want to buy an IC. I think if played correctly the US can challenge Japan and contribute in Europe. However as far as the Allies go China is basically free IPCs to Japan. they have a very limited means of resistance and for all purposes no means of attack. Never mind they cannot enter the territory that the Chinese Army actually contributed to liberating in the actual war.
-
@Flying:
After some thought the game actually is balanced. In AAR it was an allied advantage. In AA50 they have balanced the game (50-50 win) by making Japan stronger to counter the KGF strategy.
The real question should be how do we make this a “GLOBAL WAR” and keep it balanced?
I disagree. The allied advantage in AAR was very slim (it vanished playing FTF with at least 4 players) and was possible a global war. 1941 gives monster advantage to axis (mainly Japan). It’s not possible a global war (Asia cannot be hold), only a USA Pacific strat that in fact is the only slim chance allies have to win with balanced skill players.
1942 is another history, maybe India and China can survive, giving a global war and maybe a balanced gameplay.
-
@Cmdr:
If I were limited to one change, it would be to give Russia 1 fighter. I mean common, they start the game with only ONE offensive piece on the board?? WTF is that?
So I take it you do not think artillery is an offensive piece?
The sub can be considered offensive tooIf you want my honest opinion, no. I have Artillery in my armies, but I also have transports. Not exactly “offensive” but they can be used that way and they do make offensive engagements possible/stronger.
To me you have the following:
Infantry - Defensive
Artillery - Neutral
Armor, Fighters, Bombers - OffensiveIt’s just MY opinion now, I’m not saying YOU cannot see them as offensive, but in MY opinion, as humble as it is, they are not really offensive.
As for the submarine, it’s a lame joke. I’d trade it in a heartbeat for a fighter for Russia. I mean common, they HAD fighters! I remember reading about how they plated the propellers with armor so that they could chop up the tails of enemy fighters when they ran out of ammunition. What, they had the propellers but no fighters?
It’s a joke. To be honest, Russia should have 4 fighters in 1941 and 1 fighter in 1942 to represent losses over the first year. Not 0 fighters in 1941 and 2 fighters in 1942!
I do agree that the Chinese fighter should be moved off the front line. Gives China a chance to do something offensive for a change. (Remember, Japan can take out 3 Chinese Infantry, the Fighter and take 3 Chinese territories before China even moves.)
Suggested Topics
