Why the Allies have the upper hand

[bbrett3]

@marcelvdpol:

Yes, there is. Japan will take Africa, and can do so as early as J3. As far as my games usually go:

G1: Germany jumps on Egypt. If Germany wins, so much the better. If Germany doesn’t, Italy will take it (I1). Italy will enjoy several turns of about 20 IPC (2 minimum, as that is how long it will take the UK or US to bring down a strikeforce large enough to take it out). What to do with 20 IPC? As Italy, I usually try to build a Carrier, a fighter and a Destroyer, but I should also be spending some money on ground forces.

While the USA is building up a fleet in the Atlantic, Japan takes control of the Pacific and all the Islands there, costing the US and UK several National Objectives. Because there is no US threat here (and probably the UK did not build a factory in India because of this), I race my Carriers as fast as possible in the direction of the Mediteranian, capturing India en-route. The Carriers can be there as early as turn four, meaning that the Italian fleet might still be alive and if it is not, then the US/UK will have to be watchfull for a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic.

In any case, this game is about the projection of Threat. Not projecting any Threat on Japan is imho a big mistake, as Japan will run rampant through the pacific, cutting off a lot of money for the UK/US, opening up the possibilities of invading Africa and/or Stalingrad. The latter one is specifically a huge problem for Russia, because of the limitation of the Russian Factory of 6.

I have a few issues with what you’ve said here

A) Building a carrier for Italy? Seriously? Even with the 20 IPC income Italy can’t manage to supply a carrier, fighters AND land you units to hold the African coasts from the allies

B) the Allies ( America) can pretty much retake Africa whenever they feel like it, as they can get 2 trans, 2inf, 1arm and 1art and reach pretty much anywhere in Africa in 1-2 turns, so unless you set up your navy to cover west africa it’s just sitting in the Med.

On the flip side I think that the Japanese carries getting to the Med. is a very usable strat, considering you’re taking the Middle Easy anyway

[Stoney229]

@bbrett3:

A) Building a carrier for Italy? Seriously? Even with the 20 IPC income Italy can’t manage to supply a carrier, fighters AND land you units to hold the
African coasts from the
allies

I think this is very doable as long as germany isn’t desperate.  all you have to do is plan ahead, maybe save a couple bucks one turn if need be.  With Italy having so little income, it’s not a bad idea to think about what you might need to buy next turn when deciding what you want to buy this turn, so you can make sure you have the money for what you need next turn.

[marcelvdpol]

If the current discussion shows anything, its that the game is not a clear-cut “Axis must win all the time”/“The axis don’t stand a chance” kind-of-game.

No one strategy is invincible, no one strategy is uncounterable. I think that the game will reward the better strategist and ofcourse the “lucky” player.

[Lynxes]

/JWW

Exactly, So what should we do? I’ve thought about a bid but it doesn’t seem like a basic bid would be enough. Where would you put a bid that would be enough to balance this out? I’m thinking maybe we need to add units before the game even starts.

Hey, have you thought about the optional rule interceptors put out by Larry Harris and Krieghund? It should be pro-Axis since Germany is usually the one hit hardest by SBR. Or do your strategies as the Allies not include SBR? Maybe the interceptor rule will make the '41+NOs scenario more balanced and we can get by without bids which I think are a bit random.

[bbrett3]

Can you explain the interceptor rule, or give the link?

[marcelvdpol]

The Interceptor rule is from World at War isn’t it? I think it goes something like this:

• Before you roll for the damage the bomber does, you first have to fight against defending fighters. Fighters can take off and defend their country on 2’s. Bombers hit fighters on 1’s. The country sending the bombers can send along a fighter escort, which also hit at 2’s. Only bombers making it through the defensive fighter screen get to drop their bombs.
• AA guns work normally, which means they shoot before the fighters/bombers engage defending fighters.

The rule favours defenders, as currently there are very few ways to defend against Strategic Bombing. I might have the numbers wrong, but i’m sure this is the general idea.

[Lynxes]

Here’s the FAQ by Larry Harris & Krieghund:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

The rule is just as in AAE. Maybe World at war was first to have it, but interceptors are a part of almost every strategic World War II game and I think it’s natural to include it.

Krieghund was asked somewhere about if it isn’t too strong for the defender, but answered that keeping fighters in your home IC is a hassle since you want them at the front. What the rule would do though is to make fighter bases for SBR escort really important. I.e., Norway or a carrier in North Sea is necessary to do SBR on Germany with reasonable odds if the German player keeps fighters at home (or, of course, Long-range aircraft!).

[axis_roll]

IMHO, the interceptor optional rule removes SBR from the game.

That penduleum has swung hard from SBR’s being way too powerful (with $12 bombers) all the way to never being conducted, as it’s too expensive.

The AA fire at all planes before air-to-air is really nasty.

[Lynxes]

/axis_roll

It’s only one round after all, and we should factor in two things:

1. The defender has to keep fighters in the home IC. Certainly a factor for UK and Germany, who would rather have fighters on a carrier/in Russia or at the front, respectively.
2. The defender will be losing a fighter here and there if the attacker has interceptors, actually a way of whittling down defences, which should be a problem for Germany and Russia especially.

It’s too early to say what the balance effects will be with this rule!

[bbrett3]

@Stoob:

RE: SBR “intercept” optional rule.  So much of this game is just threats, not actual attacks.  If you have a bomber, and your enemy doesn’t have any fighters in his home territory, then do an SBR.  If he has fighters on defense, don’t do an SBR.    This will “put him on notice” and he’ll either be forced to bring back a fighter or two permanently from the front (where he needs them) for SBR defense or put up with you bombing him every turn.   If he moves the fighters away, then do an SBR again and annoy him.   People over-react to these types of optional rules.  Chill the %$#& out people, it’s an optional rule.

truer words have never been spoken :-D

[axis_roll]

As far as I have seen, a good move is for Germany to buy some sort of plane every round.  With this in mind, it is quite easy for Germany to leave a ftr or two in Berlin.

These are not really out of range of anything.

Germany needs to either push as hard and fast as possible or to slowly build and let Japan do all the work.

If Germany is pushing hard, then a few SBR’s will be too little too late
and a slow build allows the ftrs to keep the allied bombers off them.  It’s not easy for the allies to mount a bombing campaign.

I still maintain my position as the escort rule makes SBRs too expensive to happen (expensive can be measured by opportunity cost, or as people are pointing out… that ftrs have to be places they would rather not want to be).

And of course it’s an optional rule.  We happen to be playing it, so to us, its part of the game and hence, part of the discussion.

[TimTheEnchanter]

While the option of making SBRs when an IC has no interceptors is still there, I think the likelihood that there will be interceptors will lead to a decrease in the production of bombers since SBRs vs. interceptors is a very poor proposition.  If you don’t think “spare” bombers can be used in SBRs, they are not quite as valuable so you’ll buy more figs instead.  Therefore you’re less likely to have that opportunity because there won’t be a lot of bombers laying around.  Again, this rule pretty much kills SBRs.

[Funcioneta]

Yep, Tim is right. Play tech and some Radar, War Bounds or Improved Industry will counter SBRs

[bbrett3]

I agree with the last 2 posters, risking a bomber at 2:1 odds of losing it  to do only 1-6 damage is too much of a risk for me
hell, I barley SBR now

[Lynxes]

These are not really out of range of anything.

Fighters in Germany are out of reach of such unimportant areas as Russia and Caucasus…  :-o

[axis_roll]

@Lynxes:

These are not really out of range of anything.

Fighters in Germany are out of reach of such unimportant areas as Russia and Caucasus…  :-o

If you are playing an agressive Germany, then yes, they are out of range.
You can play a safe Germany and let Japan do the dirty work and then those ftrs are not out of range.

you also do not need to station all your ftrs in Berlin.

Just a couple is plenty to discourage SBRs

Remember Germany should be buying inf and a plane a turn if you are not pushing hard.

[Lynxes]

/axis_roll

You’re assuming a KGF strategy by the Allies. Yet a lot of the players are now saying that’s too much of a gamble and advocating a balanced strategy where UK and US put some forces out to contain Japan. Then you will probably be buying tanks with Germany in order to take Caucasus and gain a foothold to threaten Moscow on your own / with Italy, and then most certainly you will need every aircraft that can fly on the Eastern front!

My point is that all this is too early to tell what it leads to. I just think that the interceptor rule is such a major improvement to the logic and structure of the game that it really should be welcomed. If we end up thinking SBR becomes way too weak, we will hear voices saying that fighter interceptors should be defending on a ‘1’, for example, but we haven’t got the games played to prove that conclusion.

[axis_roll]

@Lynxes:

If we end up thinking SBR becomes way too weak, we will hear voices saying that fighter interceptors should be defending on a ‘1’, for example, but we haven’t got the games played to prove that conclusion.

I stand by my opinion at this time.

IMHO, the interceptor optional rule removes SBR from the game.

That penduleum has swung hard from SBR’s being way too powerful (with $12 bombers) all the way to never being conducted, as it’s too expensive.

The AA fire at all planes before air-to-air is really nasty.

Perhaps we should start a thread and keep a tally on the results of using the optional SBR escort rules.  My guess is that SBRs will be dramatically reduced in games using this rule.

[tin_snips]

this new interceptor rule may reduce SBR’s somewhat, but not dramatically.

you have to remember that if a player is doing so many SBR’s so as to bomb a nation *cough Germany cough back to the stone-age, then they probably aren’t spending much money on forces to actually land and take territory

[Funcioneta]

This rule gives western axis even more advantage. They can defend too easily and USSR cannot risk precious fighters just to stop SBRs