@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
After Action Reports
-
I can honestly say, and most readers would agree with me, that’s the best AA Report I’ve read yet!
I digging the skill level of your players. I wish I had a gaming group 40 players strong. Where are you from again?Japan and Germany looked like monsters throughout the game. My recommendations:
Try focusing less on KIF (Kill Italy First) and more on CIF (Contain Italy First). Invading Italy proper seems like a logistical nightmare. How about pushing Italy off of Africa and then concentrating on France - where the REAL IPCs are at. Or perhaps bailing out Russia. Would this be more logical. Or is the tempo surrendered from switching fronts (Africa to Northern Europe) too much?
-
I see two mentions of techs and they are both fairly powerful techs for the germans (rockets turn 1 and partroopers). Did anyone else get techs? How much did they play a role in the outcome. Germany with rockets can quickly start hurting the allies to the tune of several ipcs per turn, and paratroopers open up a whole range of possible avenues that might not have otherwise been accessible.
-
Guys, I’m really glad you enjoyed the game report. People seem to be responding well to it, so I think I’ll do more. It helps to keep track during the game too, to see if your side is winning economically too. I just jot down these notes on paper or my laptop as we play.
So here are the answers to your questions:
@TG Moses: We are from Portland OR, every other Friday we have 3 games going simultaneously. USA built a large force to contain and then invade Italy, I agree. Perhaps you are right, maybe we waited too long to sink the Italian fleet, USA turn in Round 4. Perhaps sinking the Italian fleet is best done by UK on Turn 3 or even Turn 2. At any rate, the economics of the Axis overwhelmed us, even though we took Italy and held it for a couple of turns. By the way, the USA invasion force of Italy was 12 fully loaded transports, plus air power.@Tim - Yes Germany getting rockets turn 1 was totally sucky. It was, over the course of the game, over $30 lost by the UK and about $10 by Russia. $30 is two fully loaded transports. Would that $30 have made a difference? Probably not. Germany got Paratroopers late in the game and that sucked when they took back Norway and Finland. Japan got a technology but I forget what it was, it didn’t come into play - something like Radar or something I forget. As a last ditch move before abandoning Moscow, Russia spend $15 on technology just to see what would happen, and got Industrial Production - OH THE IRONY! :-) No one else bought techs.
-
Another report, another one of our players made this report of his game. He is credited with the idea of making these economic report and turn highlights. His game was a wacky one, with naval arms races in the Pacific and the Atlantic.
Title: USA vs. Japan 1942
Date: 2/27/09
Special Rules: 1942 – NO’s + Tech
Victor: Axis Victory > Allied Concession Concession
Game Length: 8 rounds
Bias: Equal skill.Economic Report:
Japan Russia Ger UK Italy USA 0 31 24 37 31 10 38 1 43 34 54 36 23 48 2 35 33 52 28 24 48 3 53 29 57 23 25 48 4 54 28 62 20 27 45 5 55 21 55 31 27 45 6 52 30 52 38 26 53 7 57 18 40 42 28 53 8 Allies giving upDescription:
Major Events-
Japan gets Radar in 1st turn; then long range aircraft in 3rd turn; then jet fighters in 5 turn; then super subs in 6th turn
-
UK moves out of India toward Southern Africa. Axis giving chase, territory by territory.
-
US re-occupies Borneo, Java and the Phillipines by turn 6. Still Japan scores plenty of points by then occupying India and Russian far eastern territories.
-
US Airforce destroys main Japan fleet (except for 12 submarines) in Phillipines in turn 7.
-
Japanese subsmarines then destroyed US fleet in turn 8.
-
Germany built aircraft carrier in 1st turn; destoryed parts of UK fleet in north Atlantic; naval arm race is on!
-
Italy took over Brazil in turn 4.
-
Italian fleet destoryed by UK air force in turn 5.
-
US invaded North Africa in turn 5.
-
US atttempted Rome invasion in turn 6 - failed! (Eventual one US tank vs one Italian tank). But Italian peninsula empty of all forces!
Observations/Recommendations:
Over 7 turns, the axis accumulated +143 IPC more than the Allies - probably not a balanced scenario with the NO’s with teams of equal skill.Link: None
-
-
@TG Moses: We are from Portland OR, every other Friday we have 3 games going simultaneously. USA built a large force to contain and then invade Italy, I agree. Perhaps you are right, maybe we waited too long to sink the Italian fleet, USA turn in Round 4. Perhaps sinking the Italian fleet is best done by UK on Turn 3 or even Turn 2. At any rate, the economics of the Axis overwhelmed us, even though we took Italy and held it for a couple of turns. By the way, the USA invasion force of Italy was 12 fully loaded transports, plus air power.
Again, I’m no expert at the game. And I definitely don’t have 50 games below my belt. But 12 fully loaded transports seems excessive, not to mention the tempo lost and IPCs spent going into so many transports. I really think a Africa first - France later strategy would work here. And yes, the Italian fleet must be dealt with as soon as possible – even if board position has to be sacrificed to achieve it.
Observations/Recommendations:
Over 7 turns, the axis accumulated +143 IPC more than the Allies - probably not a balanced scenario with the NO’s with teams of equal skill.Excellent. This isn’t conjecture or guesswork, but an observation supported by THE FACTS.
-
Here’s some more economic analysis for us nerds out there (thanks to Microsoft Excel) relating to my game above “Kill Italy First, Then Lose”
Rnd G J It 1 45 41 15 101 2 53 53 23 129 3 43 59 24 126 4 48 62 24 134 5 45 64 21 130 6 33 67 23 123 7 39 72 11 122 8 44 75 9 128 Axis 350 493 150 993 Rnd R UK US 1 31 42 48 121 2 33 32 48 113 3 32 29 44 105 4 27 30 43 100 5 38 38 44 120 6 28 29 45 102 7 23 43 45 111 8 19 35 57 111 Allies 231 278 374 883I calculated the income until round 8, because that was about the time the game got decided, but we kept playing for 2 1/2 more rounds. As you can see the Axis led the Allies by 110 over the course of those 8 turns. Only once did the Allies have the lead, Turn 1.
A couple things:
-
These values do NOT include the fact that Germany was rocketing UK and to a lesser extent Russia. These values are the money received at the end of each turn by each player.
-
If the Allies had attacked Italy earlier and sunk their fleet on UK turn 3 instead of USA turn 4, that might have reduced Italy and their NOs, reducing the Axis income from turn 3 through turn 8 by a total of ~$50. Granted though, if sinking the Italy Fleet by UK was happening, the UK might not have been invading Norway, Finland and France as much, thereby losing UK money and/or giving more money to Germany. Net total gain over 8 rounds? My guess about $25 for the Allies if Italy lost her fleet earlier. Of course strategically speaking an Italian player with no navy tends to build Tanks and planes and go after Russia, as as it was in our game Italy never went after Russia at all. I can’t decide what’s worse for the Allies - a rich Italy and more $ for the Axis or a poor Italy with Italian tanks in Russia??? :-)
-
-
Title: Whoa, a german fleet!
Date: 3/13/09
Special Rules: 1941 with Tech but not Nos
Victor: Allies Victory > Axis Concession
Game Length: 5 full rounds
Bias: Slight Allied advantage.
Description:
Allies: Mostly go after Europe, build some forces in Pacific. Allies go after Italy hard first, then focus on Germany.
Axis: Japan tries to squash Russia, then ends up helping Germany/Italy. Germany builds carrier and later a battleship and destroyer.3/13/2009 1941 with Tech but not Nos General Strategy: Attack Europe Ger Russia Japan UK Italy USA 1 33 29 29 35 10 40 2 37 27 34 32 10 40 3 35 28 40 29 10 38 4 32 34 43 28 9 38 5 27 32 45 31 15 Game ConceededMajor Events
1 Garmany builds carrier, sinks UK Battleship, Japan does not take Philipes, US gets long range Air
2 UK holds egypt, sinks Italian fleet with bombers, Germany and Russia trade territories, Japan IC in Manchuria
3 Germany buys more fleet, Japan takes India, Philipenes, UK/UK combine fleets in atlantic
4 Germans lose in Libya, Russia takes Norway and Finland, Stalemate in Poland, Japan sends planes to Europe
5 UK Sinks german fleet, USA invades NE Europe and destroys 6 fighters and bomber there, USA sinks most of Japan fleet
Economic BreakdownG J It 1 33 29 10 72 2 37 34 10 81 3 35 40 10 85 4 32 43 9 84 5 27 45 15 87 Axis 164 191 54 409 R UK US 1 29 35 40 104 2 27 32 40 99 3 28 29 38 95 4 34 28 38 100 5 32 31 38 101 Allies 150 155 194 499Commentary:
This game had a slight Allied bias in terms of skill. However on another table we had a similar setup, but with a slight Axis bias in terms of skill. Their game the Allies still won, but it took 9 turns. Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias. Without NOs a slight Allied bias for 1941. Can anyone say “variable N.O. value bid system”?Sample Allies Bid: “I play allies and I’ll give you 40% N.Os” (this means All IPCs worth 2 IPCs instead of 5 IPCs, with the 10 IPC Russian One being with 4 IPCs)
-
Commentary:
This game had a slight Allied bias in terms of skill. However on another table we had a similar setup, but with a slight Axis bias in terms of skill. Their game the Allies still won, but it took 9 turns. Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias. Without NOs a slight Allied bias for 1941. Can anyone say “variable N.O. value bid system”?Sample Allies Bid: “I play allies and I’ll give you 40% N.Os” (this means All IPCs worth 2 IPCs instead of 5 IPCs, with the 10 IPC Russian One being with 4 IPCs)
So the allies win these last two games and then you proclaim '41 with NO’s are Axis biased?
Perhaps the wild card affected your perspective.
Did tech play a <key>component in the other allied win? Long range for USA = Killer weapon, especially round 1.</key> -
axis_roll, you really make me laugh. I didn’t “proclaim” anything… you quote my post in order to then misquote me and twist my statement. Are you really trying to be this unnecessarily negative and/or argumentative? I hope not.
I said in fact, quite the opposite, that it’s “too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion” in regards to bias. Sure Long Range helps the Allies win, but the other table had an Allied win as well, with an Axis advantage in skill and no tech rolls.
Respectfully and without ill will towards you, I ask kindly to keep it positive and take any negativity elsewhere with someone else, please? You are welcome for the detailed after action report.
-
axis_roll, you really make me laugh. I didn’t “proclaim” anything… you quote my post in order to then misquote me and twist my statement. Are you really trying to be this unnecessarily negative and/or argumentative? I hope not.
I said in fact, quite the opposite, that it’s “too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion” in regards to bias. Sure Long Range helps the Allies win, but the other table had an Allied win as well, with an Axis advantage in skill and no tech rolls.
Respectfully and without ill will towards you, I ask kindly to keep it positive and take any negativity elsewhere with someone else, please? You are welcome for the detailed after action report.
WTF dude? Sorry I chose the wrong verb in your eyes. I think YOU chose the negative connotations of my statement. There was no hidden attacking agenda, I can assure you. One of the definitions of proclaim is:
“to indicate or make known publicly or openly”
The internet is a pretty open public place.
I was merely trying to point out that the allies twice won with NO’s but that you typed (good enough verb for you?) 1941 version with NO’s has an Axis bias.
Your conclusion contradicts the two game outcomes you reported. So I asked if tech made up for that inconsistency.
And you did eventually answer that question: tech was not a factor in the allied win.
Can you follow-up with reasons as to why:
Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias.
-
For of all, you misread my original post which said there were “Special Rules: 1941 with Tech but not Nos” – that means NOT N.Os. Both games did not use National Objectives.
Secondly, I give up. You win. This forum and these people are definitely not my style. I’m done having conversations like this. Sorry to do…whatever I did. I’m not going post anywhere but in this thread anymore and will avoid posting any more commentary on these After Action Reports. Hopefully this will prevent further conversations like this one which are a waste of time and database. I like the game and hope that by limiting my posts to commentary-free facts it may somehow contribute in some small way to making the game experience better for everyone. Please don’t bother replying, just keep this thread for the factual reports, good luck to ya.
-
Apologies that I missed the “No NO’s” part of your post. However, it didn’t follow with your comment on the game bias, so I was confused and made a wrong assumption. :-(
All this because I wrote “proclaim” instead of “typed”. BTW, I did ask you to clarify your opinion regarding the game balance because your train of thought was non-sequitur to me. :?
Sorry you are so stressed about a message board that discusses a game in which the goal is to have fun. :|
To quote a classic comedy from the 1980’s
“Lighten up Francis”
:-D -
Title: Atlantic Fleets collide
Date: 3/15/09
Special Rules: 1941 NO Tech YES Nos
Victor: Axis Victory
Game Length: 8? full rounds
Bias: Slight Allied advantage in skill
Description:
Allies: Went after Europe hard, landing a large quantity of forces into africa
Axis: Germany fleet held in the baltic, Italian fleet with Japanesse backup held in the med. Germany pounded Russia hard early, then pulled back to protect the coast with Japan harrasing the US and pushing hard toward the middle east.Deciding Point: Was when the allies lost way to many boats taking down the axis fleets, and were then mopped up by axis air.
-
Okay. I had a chance to update.
The last two games should be up now. :-D
-
That game against bugoo was one of 4 if I remember correctly, I feel that I played bad in both that game and the other game I lost as allies, especially with naval warfare. We played 4 games total and axis won all of them. From rnd 4-5 in both my axis games I felt I couldn’t loose.
As allies I thought I probably would loose after turn1 :|
For me there’s one of 2 options, either we’re doing something wrong with allies, can’t play Russia right, or naval warfare, or axis have an advantage which is perhaps as big as the allies got in AAR w/o bids.
-
I’m edging closer and closer to the latter.
After five months I think it’s time we had a look into a bidding system.
-
I think the axis advantage in AA50 is in fact greater than the allied advantage in Revised. After all, many would agree that axis had about 40% chance of win without bids in Revised, and I think the chance was near to 50% playing 4 players face to face.
Now I don’t feel allies have even near a 40 % chance of win in AA50, and splitting axis team in two players will not change much, even if one plays germans and the other ITA + JAP, because axis fleets usually don’t need much cooperation
I think axis advantage in AA50 is closer to allied advantage in Classic than Revised one
-
Classic was ridiculously in favor of the ALlies – it wasn’t even close after Russia moved. Even after Russia got restricted, the Allies were still at a supreme advantage. But you’re right:
(imbalance) Revised < Anniversary < Classic
-
Title: Spring Break '41 (1941)
Date: 3/22
Special Rules: Tech: yes (Heavy Bombers nerfed to roll at 5 for attack and greater of two dice for SBR) NO: yes
Victor: Allies (Axis concession)
Game Length: 4.5 hours
Bias: About even
Description: Started KJF but Russia got some incredible rolls making Germany an attractive target. German vulnerability and Italy having some success in the Med diverted a huge amount of US focus to Europe/Africa who focused soley at Italy to help Russia fight a one front war. The UK by round 3 had IC’s in India, Australia and the East Indies which after holding against Japanese invasion started pumping out more ships (from E Indies and Australia) and tanks than Japan could handle. UK made a huge point to sink any Japanese transport that was built, which made retaking the Phillipines and Borneo fairly easy especially after the UK got Paratroopers. The UK single-handedly would’ve crushed Japan if not for the USA making quick work of Italy, forcing an Axis concession.
Observations/Recommendations: Japan should have gone straight for the E. Indies but viewed America as a bigger threat, did not see 100% of UK’s effort going into Asia. Allowing the US player to focus soley on Italy sped up what was becoming a certain allied victory. -
@TG:
Classic was ridiculously in favor of the ALlies – it wasn’t even close after Russia moved. Even after Russia got restricted, the Allies were still at a supreme advantage. But you’re right:
(imbalance) Revised < Anniversary < Classic
I’d say least balanced:
Classic Worst, in favor of Allies
Revised Bad, in favor of Allies
Anniversary, close to neutral, can have a very slight bias for the allies or the axis depending on how round 1 turns out.
Suggested Topics
