How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)

[U-505]

Japanese tank dash to Moscow.

[Jennifer]

Oh, I’ve pretty much been doing that in AA50 forever because it’s the only time convenient way to get to Moscow…otherwise it takes like 40 rounds to march there!

[questioneer]

@Cmdr:

Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.

Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.

Really, ever try an efficient KGF?  By round 3, Germany can be looking at massive navies at Z3 and Z12 each landing 12 units of material with air support-yikes.  Russia gets stronger in the east and pushes back, Italy loses Africa.

Personally, I think the Allies are at the advantage in 41- if you play them right- they just out produce and squeze the life out of Germany.  The new Geography makes the Japs too slow- they just get there too late.

Brit Z3 navy and American Z12 navies bring multiple threats and Germany collapses.

Want some details??? :?
Questioneer

[atarihuana]

yes pls :D

efficient?  what about KUSF :P ?

[Funcioneta]

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I’m seeing). It doesn’t mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn’t want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you’ll have proven the game can be balanced.

I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one jap trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I’ll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.

[DarthMaximus]

I do not think that KGF (or KIGF) is dead.  Infact it could possibly be even deadlier since Germany can’t send inf directly to Ita, they have to go through WE or Blk first.

The Axis may get an economic lead, but it should not last long.  Japan will always be strong, but this is no different than Classic or Revised.

If I go KGF I’d go with the heavy shuck from Wus-Wcan-Ecan starting in round 1 (similar to my Revised strat).  You buy something like 10 inf, 1 ftr, a bom + inf could make more sense in AA50, but as long as you buy 6-8 inf for Wus you are good to go to start. 
Can Japan annoy you in Ala later?  Sure.
Will it be effective?  Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on the US player.
No longer can Japan land directly into Wcan.  And can they put a dent into the 8-10 unit shuck?  Not if the US player is good.  For the US Inf + ftrs (or boms) is a killer deterant.

The Allies can do a Heavy Afr landing in rd 2 and then shift the UK to Sz 6 while the US helps in Afr and puts a token threat on Ita.

Japan cannot get to Mos until like rd 5 (perfect scenerio), but can’t have a sizable army until rd 6 or 7 or later.  This gives the Allies 6 rounds to sink the Ger ships, sink the Ita ships, 2-3 Afr landings, reclaim Kar for Rus and start dropping either 14-18 units in Europe or splitting them between europe in Afr and this is all very doable.

The US can get inf from Ecan to Mos in 4 turns, and can get inf from Ecan to Cauc in 3 turns.  Both are shorter than Japans supply lines.

Also, once the Ita fleet is sunk, the US, if played right and they wanted to, can turn its entire income to Japan now since you should still have 3 shucks that are ready for Europe or Afr and if you know Germany won’t be able to take Mos in those three turns.
Depending on how you play and setup the Allies sometimes the Mid-Pac switch (US switches to Pac strat mid game) is better and sometimes it is better to just finish off Europe, depends on the game and Ger inf stack in the core of Europe.

[Jennifer]

Alaska is a dead end in AA50.  You were hard pressed in Revised to use it as a staging ground to take W. USA or E. USA, it’s impossible now that America has +5 IPC more than before!

[questioneer]

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

KGF, dead in AA50???-brave words my friend.  Oh its alive, and even better than Revised if you play the Allies right and hit Europe hard.  Against a forceful KGF, Japan’s best moves are to either
a.) try hitting the U.S. through Alaska- hard!! or
b.) get to Africa ASAP and help Italy.

Denying Italy income is the key for the Allies, if Italy continues to makes 10 or less dollars, than the Axis in Europe will fall- that simple.  Z3 and Z12- remember those zones.  What are they?  Massive navies from the Brits and the Americans giving multiple threat options that Germany/Italy cannot contain by round 3.  And if your playing with NO’s, its even better for the Allies.

Questioneer
:-D

[kendric]

I don’t think tech should be considered when talking about balance. I don’t think any revised player I have matched up with has ever wanted tech. They may be fun\cool but they distort balance with too much randomness, even with the new rules. Any game where you research becomes a non reproducible strategy. Leave tech for playing-for-fun games and leave it out when playing-for-balance/competitive play.

[Bigtiti]

–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• In real life the Germans were also against a Japanese invasion of the USSR. Germany played as a mediator for the non-agression teatrise between the USSR and Japan. Japanese have had their “lower-butt” kicked on many small (and not so small) engagements against Soviet troops at Manchurian borders as to know that attacking the Red Army was a bad idea.

how how, hold it
in 1940-41 they were pushing Japan into attacking Vladivostok
they changed their minds after all, so they wanted Singapore taken, but still…

[Funcioneta]

@questioneer:

KGF, dead in AA50???-brave words my friend.  Oh its alive, and even better than Revised if you play the Allies right and hit Europe hard.  Against a forceful KGF, Japan’s best moves are to either
a.) try hitting the U.S. through Alaska- hard!! or
b.) get to Africa ASAP and help Italy.

Yes, Alaska path is the way to counter KGF, and by itself alone it’s a good reason to even not trying KGF. USA can have 5 more IPCs now with NOs, but Japan will have at least 10 more from the same source, probably 15. Anyway, the fun thing is that Japan can go Alaska path and attack Africa at the same time because they have enough income.

DM said you cannot land directly in wcan. Well, not from Japan, but you can from bur or sfe. Simply land guys there from Japan and setup a 4x4 chain. And there are many wicked tricks for Japan when you start with 5 trannies.

You should take techs into account, but that’s another history. I’m not sure if I would play a game without techs or without NOs

Too risky trying KGF. And adds no fun to the gameplay -> I would not try it even against a novice player

[Funcioneta]

@questioneer:

And if your playing with NO’s, its even better for the Allies.

Sorry, I just read that, and I cannot believe it. Two plus two are still four

[U-505]

@Funcioneta:

Yes, Alaska path is the way to counter KGF, and by itself alone it’s a good reason to even not trying KGF. USA can have 5 more IPCs now with NOs, but Japan will have at least 10 more from the same source, probably 15. Anyway, the fun thing is that Japan can go Alaska path and attack Africa at the same time because they have enough income.

DM said you cannot land directly in wcan. Well, not from Japan, but you can from bur or sfe. Simply land guys there from Japan and setup a 4x4 chain. And there are many wicked tricks for Japan when you start with 5 trannies.

This is optimistic, for sure.

[questioneer]

@Funcioneta:

@questioneer:

KGF, dead in AA50???-brave words my friend.  Oh its alive, and even better than Revised if you play the Allies right and hit Europe hard.  Against a forceful KGF, Japan’s best moves are to either
a.) try hitting the U.S. through Alaska- hard!! or
b.) get to Africa ASAP and help Italy.

Yes, Alaska path is the way to counter KGF, and by itself alone it’s a good reason to even not trying KGF. USA can have 5 more IPCs now with NOs, but Japan will have at least 10 more from the same source, probably 15. Anyway, the fun thing is that Japan can go Alaska path and attack Africa at the same time because they have enough income.

DM said you cannot land directly in wcan. Well, not from Japan, but you can from bur or sfe. Simply land guys there from Japan and setup a 4x4 chain. And there are many wicked tricks for Japan when you start with 5 trannies.

You should take techs into account, but that’s another history. I’m not sure if I would play a game without techs or without NOs

Too risky trying KGF. And adds no fun to the gameplay -> I would not try it even against a novice player

Yes, I’m under the assumption that this is a game w/o tech.  It seems like half the people play with tech and half don’t.  The tech debate is of course for another thread- I won’t get into that.  But yes KGF will work with well in the 41 with NOs or w/o NOs.

Under the above assumptions, if you did go at Alaska, you have to invest in that plan all the way, or it will not work.  But when you do, then you sacrifice other fronts and the Brits and Russians remain a little stronger than usual.  You will give up something.  I personally feel the best plan is to help Italy in Africa.  I would like to investigate in the Alaskan plan a little further with the counterattacks to this and see though.

The game is simply about balance and inbalances in material, space and levering incomes.  Finding these imbalances quickly leans to your advantage.

[Jennifer]

I have not found a single person in about 100 games that does not play with Tech in Anniversary.

[questioneer]

@Cmdr:

I have not found a single person in about 100 games that does not play with Tech in Anniversary.

Wow, your special, I know 100 people that don’t. :-o
Let’s get some forum games going though.
I’ll play you some games with tech if you play with me some w/o them.  E-mail me and we’ll set up a gametime.
I can use the Battlemap and Roller now.  whoo-hoo. :-)

Questioneer

[DarthMaximus]

@Cmdr:

I have not found a single person in about 100 games that does not play with Tech in Anniversary.

:-D

I currently play AA50 without tech if possible.  My main reason is b/c of the newness of AA50.  I want to try and figure out where the balances/unbalances are.  I feel I cannot do this with tech.  I’m not opposed to playing tech games but I know at some point strategy (the ability to carry info learned in game 1 and use in game 2, 3, etc.) is thrown out of the window, and not for the times where people get a great tech in round 1 but more b/c several powers will likely get 2-3 techs each.  It is simply impossible to find the best openings/counters with tech.  HOWEVER, once you play without tech and find the best openings (ie should Ger do Egy, should the do Kar, what about the UK BB, etc?) it is much easier to then go back and account for playing with tech.

For Example, I know you like to hit Kar on G1.  Which is fine but with Tech is your success based on the agressive attack and opening or b/c you ended up getting a G Tech in rd 1, 2, 3 or 4?

I find tech strats similar to LL in this regard, what works in LL will work in ADS and will work with Tech, but the reverse - Tech -> ADS -> LL is not guaranteed to work.  First eliminate as much chance as possible, then grow your strategies from there.  Once you do that it is much easier to adapt.  Just my opinion.

[Jennifer]

I never buy tech in the first round with any nation.  I used to buy a die with Russia in round 1, but that stopped too.

I like to hit Karelia because it gives me that 3rd NO and the return on investment is huge!

1)  Russia HAS to attack it, good or bad odds does not matter.
2)  It’s worth 7 IPC to Germany (2 for Karelia, 5 for the NO)

Technology in this game seems to be a way to get the coup de grace in a game you are already winning.

[DarthMaximus]

I like the idea of investing immediately in round 1 (all countries), b/c
1)  the longer you have the tech the better
2)  you never lose that roll

With UK I may go two rolls and try for the increased factory.  I forget which chart it is on but with the +2 I think it makes a Per IC very possible which could spell doom for the Axis.  I’d probably go 2 rolls with the US as well.

[alvn78]

@Funcioneta:

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I’m seeing). It doesn’t mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn’t want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you’ll have proven the game can be balanced.

I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one jap trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I’ll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.

I am not yet convinced that it is unbalanced yet either. ‘Simple maths’ does not take into account strategic consideration. An axis IPC advantage maybe. Consider that though the UK is rarely under the threat of attack, allowing them to use most of their IPCs offensively (at least once they secure the strait). The simpler route of America in attacking Germany than Japan on America especially with the way the US is set out. As well as the many fronts of Germany. While yes the pressure is on the allies to succeed, it just means the onus is on them to reduce the significance of IPCs.  Plus in your analysis, while fairly standard, is axis with a bit of luck (not too out of this world). So usually it won’t be as bad IPC wise as you place it.

Well thats just my 2 cents