Hi, I know this is an old topic, but I’m curious if everyone still thinks 6 is a good bid for the allies, and if so, are you playing with the national objectives enabled?
I play with the objectives, and we usually do a bid of 9-12 for the allies.
@Imperious:
He has alot of bravado, but the results don’t demonstrate the reality of his claim. He latter posted his remarks on BGG, but he practical experience in playing this method is lacking. But he is a clever guy and i am sure his contention was the result of home study.
He has used the same strategy in Revised and my many variants with mixed results. I don’t think the Buy just tanks thing works against every player and every game.
Ah, I see. One of those strategies that depends on the opponent being intimidated by it, like the all tank buy for G. Of course, things start going the wrong way when the opponent isn’t intimidated at all :-D
I have been trying to find time to post a detailed counter to the Japanese Fighter Gambit (as I call this strategy), but I ran into Christmas and haven’t had time to go over the details like I want. I still hope to post this at some point, but I thought I would offer my thoughts based on what I have done so far, which is to play a couple of solo games trying to implement Michael Tan’s strategy as best I could while defending against it as best I could. I would go back and change things if I later realized they were sub-optimal, so this was not a “game” at all. I also tended to use “low luck” rules for resolving battles. My conclusions are:
(1) The strategy is not “unstoppable.” Michael himself admitted as much, noting that luck can ruin even the best plans. I do believe that the strategy is not beyond the reach of Lady Luck, as poor dice rolls early could easily turn the tide and allow Moscow to hold on (given an expert Allied defense of course).
(2) The strategy is a very good one. Japan’s sacrifices in giving up her fighters and her bomber(s) do not cripple the Rising Sun and these fighters give Germany a great advantage in securing forward ground against Russia (and later, if they survive, in making it hard for the Allies to take France or Rome or Berlin or Warsaw).
(3) The optimal Allied counter to the Japanese fighter gambit seems to mix offense and defense. Sending Allied units to Moscow, especially fighters, is probably critical to saving Moscow, but if the Allies only worry about defense, they won’t be in a position to take advantage if Moscow does indeed survive Germany’s push. Allied bombing raids and amphibious assaults targeting vunerable Italy seem the best bet.
The Bottom Line: Against all but very experienced players, I would imagine that the Japanese Fighter Gambit would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union by Turn Four. Even against experienced players prepared for the strategy, I see Leningrad and Stalingrad falling very early into Axis hands. However, I do think those experienced players can save Moscow while simultaneously preparing a modest invasion of Europe. Together, this offense/defense strategic response to the Japanese Fighter Gambit seems to put the outcome of the game back up in the air. The key moment to me is Round Four. If Moscow can survive that Round, her Allies should be in position to take territories in Europe such as Rome that would minimize, though perhaps not completely make up for, the fall of Moscow on Round 5 or later. One final point is that, unlike some posters, I don’t see the failure of this strategy to lead to Axis collapse. I think the Axis players can push forward with this strategy, easily steamrolling Moscow if the Allies don’t respond just right. If the Allies do respond appropriately, the Axis aren’t doomed but have gained valuable ground and can pull back before committing suicide. So, I think this is a very viable Axis strategy even if it isn’t unstoppable.
Is a house rule needed? My feeling on this is mixed. No, a house rule is probably not needed because the game isn’t truly broken. However, I don’t like the strategy because it is ahistorical and threatens to either lead to a quick (but cheesy) Axis victory or a long drawn out game. As a fan of the five hour game, those are not good options. If it were me, I would try to use the National Objectives to limit the Japanese Fighter Gambit. In my eyes, these objectives reward strategic play that aligns with political factors. It would not have been politically viable for either Germany or Japan if the entire Japanese air force was moved to Germany. Therefore, I would favor some changes to the Axis National Objectives, perhaps adding language like that which already exists for Russia, that would penalize and hopefully deter players from using the Japanese Fighter Gambit. What exactly that language would look like, I haven’t come up with yet.
Thanks to Michael Tan for posting his strategy (on BGG). I have found learned much from exploring it and attempting to counter it.
The only problem with it is his “experience” with it was two loses at my hands and a third, where i suggested that i land my fighters in Caucasus because he would lose it to the Soviets. I knew him personally and some of those statements don’t resonate from his actual results.
He took my idea and posted it on BGG. The actual idea perfected is posted on the 1941 or 1942 strategy map thread.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yrnntzloydw
here is 42, what i played in my game with him are outlined in it. What mike should have played are also outlined.
Noting this was posted 12/22 originally, I don’t think Japan can afford to send 6 fighters to East Ukraine. How do they deal with China, let alone America? Or are you turtling Japan and hoping Germany can crush Russia like a cheap pop can?
Also, I find East Poland to be the key territory, not East Ukraine. Granted, from Burma you can get fighters to East Ukraine (or Ukraine for that matter) but not East Poland, but odds are, you’re going to be standing in East Poland. Also, what do those fighters do? They can defend, but they don’t help you advance and they cannot be lifted out if you decide to move your forces in.
I think their main point is to hold it one round then you can land german fighters + maybe move in reinforcements. After that perhaps they can fly back to japan.
Perhaps, but I don’t see East Ukraine as being as valuable as the strategy contends.
East Poland is better, IMHO, and from there, moving to Karelia. Splits Russia in twain since they now have Japan coming from the SE and Germany from the NW.
@Imperious:
The only problem with it is his “experience” with it was two loses at my hands and a third, where i suggested that i land my fighters in Caucasus because he would lose it to the Soviets. I knew him personally and some of those statements don’t resonate from his actual results.
He took my idea and posted it on BGG. The actual idea perfected is posted on the 1941 or 1942 strategy map thread.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yrnntzloydw
here is 42, what i played in my game with him are outlined in it. What mike should have played are also outlined.
Would you be willing to link to said strategy map or strategy map thread?
sure can but you already done that.
I had a similar strategy than what the OP listed in Revised Edition.
It was not unstoppable but very much near it. It involved exactly that, flying japan fighters to secure the same territory: Ukraine. This made the german stack almost imposible to overcome by russians on G3 if G1 was full 8 tank gambit.
Then all there was to do is move the whole thing to menace both moscow and caucasus, leaving no choice to Russia to abandon the IC to germany. By then it was normally over a few turn laters as Russia was forced to turtle in moscow.
It was counterable as long you knew it was coming but I won so many games with it that I I had to litterrally give the counter away to my friends so they still want to play.
In this version, it looks way easier to do with Italy and territories layout. And frankly, I am unsure if I can find a counter to it. Admitedly, did only play one game so far so I did not experience it yet ( was playing allies )
Well the strategy of landing Japanese fighter on Caucasus is primarily the idea of buying mostly tanks and centralizing them so the Soviets cant protect both north and south. Latter after when Caucasus is the target you land the fighters, but thats been done since the MB days and its not a new idea. In fact the idea is the same exact idea from AAE extrapolated for AA50.
Its not even unstoppable given some of the postings on this site and the guy who posted them on BGG was on the losing end of that strategy. I played him in 3 games defeating him twice as Russia ( he was Japan once and Germany in game two) and told him id bring my fighters over on the third game when i was playing Japan. it barely worked anyway.
Then i made my maps after more reflection and he posted his “unstoppable” idea latter, but tried to take credit for everything.
If the Axis did the strategy posted on the first page I think the Allies would probably win more often than not. Even if Moscow falls I guarantee that one of the other capitals is near check-mate herself and the loss could be mutual unless Germany and Italy are knocked out almost together. This game has proven, in my opinion, that neither side can ignore one whole front to the game and expect to succeed cause it didn’t happen that way in the real war. US needs to push both Pacific and Atlantic while Russia of course handles mostly the west front against Germany and coordinates with UK and China for a stonewall against Japan. England needs to monitor worldly assests and I think put extreme pressure on Norway, Finland, Baltic, France, and Med. fleet. If Axis ignore Africa, namely Egypt, its game over for Axis.
The problem my with the group I play AAE with is that the Allies haven’t won in our 3-4 games so far mainly because are doing very little if anything to contain Japan other than the random fleet skirmishes. If the Allies go for Germany and Italy first you need to give Japan multiple targets to attack to spread herself thin for counterattacks.
I think the Allies have the leg up in this setup and that leg up is bombers. You strat bomb the Axis nonstop like its going out of style fast!!! If Russia is starting to go downhill, then put some fighters over there and hopefully you have an invasion fleet ready to rock and roll that can do the 2 to 1 pound on France.(UK, Italy, US)
If Axis go for the gusto on turn 3-4 then make them pay that same round, plain and simple.
I play AAE
The correct term for Anniversary is: AA50
AAE: is Axis and Allies Europe.
My apologies, I sometimes call it AAAE but AA50 makes more sense, i just forgot the extra A. Thanks for pointing that out. :roll:
i have tried this, with great results. G1, germans took karelia. G2, they took caucasus. G3 they took moscow. all with the help of those 6 Jap fighters that were not afraid to die. the US player saw this and came straight to japan, which i stacked full of inf. by the time US had enough to try to invade japan, africa belonged to italy and UK was being shelled by germany, and germany was toying with the idea of invading Washington. allied player gave up. sausages for everyone.
I already do this strategy and I usually win games but I lose sometimes too.
If we’re playing without NOs yeah it’s a pretty even game slightly favors the allies.
Play with NOs yeah the allies need 1d6+3 to start with. Just got to hold on to Caucasus and Moscow till usa takes balkans (bam russia +10 ipc) .
in revised the strategy sucked because of AA guns, but now it’s pretty legit because the figs go where they like.
The best part is after you get your stuff in position they can sink some naval with LRA.
just a sec
if i get it right, japanese get to fly through 2 flaks?(india and caucasus)
lol, gl with that
@Frontovik:
just a sec
if i get it right, japanese get to fly through 2 flaks?(india and caucasus)
lol, gl with that
aa is no longer ‘always active’. so you can fly over any enemy aa, on your way to another destination, without getting fired upon
This unstoppable strat, is this NOs off, and no tech?
How high bid should allies get, to have a fair chance of winning?
Anyone who seriously believes in this unstoppable strat?
I find the attention it gets ridiculous because its simply stopped by lots of infantry buys and British fighters in Caucasus and landings at Karelia basically every turn.
The guy who so called “invented it” was beaten twice by me and then posted his strategy within a week of playing. Usually you go on a winning streak against credible players before you make such bravado, but to call it unstoppable is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.
The other idea of landing fighters in Caucasus goes way back from the MB days as the only other way to support a drive to take Moscow. I was playing Mike as Japan and suggested landing my FIC fighters to support his crash of Italian and German forces in Caucasus. It BARELY HELD and eventually led to the Soviet defeat. IN the two games i played him i just didn’t allow him to take Caucasus and his plan backfired twice because of the nature of his “all tanks or bust strategy” I was the Soviets twice in those games.
I also propose the tank idea in my strategy map for 41 and 42, but also acknowledge that its reckless to just buy tanks.
His idea was never tested with NO’s or Tech. He is a friend of mine and i can say he claims he hates the game anyway and does not own the game himself, but borrowed another friends copy of the game. Im quite sure he has not played since those 3 games. So all this gossip really is predicated about a guy who posted on BGG and played 3 games and lost 2 of them. nice.
I think its fine if you want to be funny. Heck id be laughing at the amount of posts dealing with this.
Am I crazy or have I noticed that no one’s brought up the fact that those 7 or 8 planes from Japan have to go through India, then Caucus, both of which have AA guns? That’s 14 some odd rolls - I’m willing to bet at least 3 of those planes go down.