Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

[Lucifer]

@tcnance:

of course the axis can win, im just saying i think i will win 65 to 70 percent of the time if i play allies

I don’t think you will win 65%-70% of your games against me, if you’re playing allies in 41 with NOs, no tech, no bid and LL.

I’m not sure how high bid is needed, the highest bid I won against is 7 ipc.

Could be possible to hold back Germany to get only 10 ipc of their NOs for a few rnds, with a 6 bid and higher?

I think we all agree that allies have advantage w/o NOs in 41, and probably in 42, but I didn’t play enough -42 games yet.

I have lost games with allies in 41 w/o NOs, but I have never lost with axis in 41 with NOs.

[tcnance]

@Cmdr:

Yea, but to be fair, TC, I screwed the pooch by waiting an extra two rounds to take E. USA with Japan.  Had I taken E. USA on time, the axis would have won that battle handily.

here lately, when i win it is only due to my opponent screwing the pooch at some point

[Jennifer]

@tcnance:

@Cmdr:

Yea, but to be fair, TC, I screwed the pooch by waiting an extra two rounds to take E. USA with Japan.  Had I taken E. USA on time, the axis would have won that battle handily.

here lately, when i win it is only due to my opponent screwing the pooch at some point

No, I didn’t say you would lose if I had attacked USA on time, just saying I screwed the pooch waiting an extra two turns to attack.  Had I not waited, USA would have fallen just before Germany and a whole round before Italy giving me two rounds to build up in SE Asia and put a navy in SZ 10.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

1942:
Allies - 8
Axis - 2

But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.

This is different than the after action reports. The stats are: 10 axis victories and 6 allies victories.
So it seems that the 42 scenario with NOs favors allies. The 41 numbers are mostly the same for games played but not recorded in the after action reports, as the stats recorded in the after action reports thread.

[Jennifer]

Dunno what to say Subotai.  I only know for sure the games I have recorded and could gather data on games played here.  But my data shows a very significant Allied position in 1942.

I should note, the two games where the Axis won they scored well in the first couple of rounds.  We know, from experience, that early successes can be compounded to better chances of victories near the end of the game and early losses (of significance) can cost you the game.

BTW, looks like my count may go from 8 Allies to 3 Axis if Botider surrenders.  But I had to do a lot of, what I consider, reckless attacks to even have a chance of victory.

[Blaarg]

Our gaming group has yet to see an Axis victory in 1941.

[gandhi]

Hi
This is my first post, but i have been a frequent reader of these forums for quite a while.
I play AA50 using tripleA aswell as a real life gaming group (consisting of 6 people). I/We always play with NO’s, LL and without tech.
My experience is that unless the axis player makes a mistake it seems close to impossible to win with the allies. I can see that alot of people have a similar view of the matchup, but those of you who do play with a bid for the allies, how high a bid is needed? and do you have any restrictions on where to put it? and in either case where do you put them?

I dont know if i am doing something wrong with the allies, but i have tried alot of different things in the past, including going all pacific or atlantic with the US. But what seems to work the best for me is going something like 70-80% pacific and 20-30% atlantic. What i am interested in is how those of you who have played with the above mentioned setup (with NO’s, LL, no tech) have won your games as allies? what kind of tactics do you use with UK/US. I know its different from game to game and have alot to do with what the axis player does. But if we for example imagine that he starts out by having
the bomber go to egypt,
2 fighters and a sub to seazone 12,
1 sub and 1 fighter against destroyer at seazone 6,
1 sub against 1 destroyer and 1 transport at seazone 9.
This have been a often used opening in our gaming group as germany (ofcourse taking the three eastern european states aswell). germany buys 10 inf first turn and 8 inf and 2 bombers second turn, and generally plays a bit defensive on the eastern front and prioritize inf and planes highest (ofcourse also investing in some armor from time to time). Our general feeling is that time is with the axis, since japan will put to much pressure on russia way before allies are able to get into europe or help significantly from the african way to persia. I hope someone higher up on the allied learning curve can give some guidance on how to for example crack open fortress europe. All help is greatly appreciated.

[Lucifer]

I strongly feel that I can improve my strats and tactics when I play allies in AA50. But my learning curve has been to acknowledge the need for bids. Allies need bid in 41 +NO and no tech. I can also improve my axis play, there’s a lot to learn in AA50 from Revised.

There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent. LL is close to average dice rolls, but luck is reduced, not removed. If it is true that axis is better of with LL than regular dice than you also assume that allies is more lucky than the axis side…  :roll: and that this is happening not only in one game, but several games, more than 50%…  :roll:

I have yet to find good allied strats if playing w/o bids, thats why I don’t  :wink:

Imo we could start with a 6 ipc bid to allies, or bid down from whatever amount is appropriate.

The main reason why there is an axis bias in 41 +NOs is that it’s much easier for Japan and Germany to get hold of 10-15 each of their NOs, while allies have a hard time getting the same income level as axis, because for allies it will be proportionally more difficult to get their NOs as it is easier for the axis side. You don’t have to be an expert player to know this, and quickly learn how to play axis so that you get your cash by grabbing NOs and TT’s which used to belong to allies. W/o bids you will not be able to deny Germany 15 ipc NOs from rnd 1-2 and rest of the game, if Germany wants to, and why shouldn’t the axis player try to get maximum amount of cash? Unless I make grave mistakes, you will not stop me from owning Karelia most of the game, thus I’m getting my 15 ipc for Germany, either by trading Karelia or by stacking it enough so that Russia or UK cannot take it back. This is why allies need a bid.

Same goes for Japan, although UK+US can possibly hold or trade India for some rnds, same goes for Australia. If allies makes it their goal they can stack Australia, but none of this helps allies win w/o a bid. I only need one landing in Bury J2, then the rest goes south to Frindo, and towards India. If India is stacked then i take Australia. I get my 15 ipc with Japan most of the game. This is why allies need a bid.

Seriously, I can’t see any point in discussing strats for either side in AA50 if the setup is 41 +NO, without mentioning where to place the bids, and what units should allies buy with their bid.

[KindWinds]

AA 50 is a fail imho revised is a better system for serious game play(most people agree that you place a bid to fix most problems and turn off tech).  I think that is possible that some one will be able to find a break through some where some day but this game system seems to be failing pretty good.  Most players seem to want to play with no NO’s.  NO’s were a huge part of the game system of AA 50 and now they have to be taken off to have fun game?  As whole AA 50 needs to go back to drawing table I think.  It really does not matter if you think the allies win too much or axis win too much.  To much game system has to be altered has to go on for AA 50 and in the end is it still AA 50 or something else that we play?  It is something else imho. 
*See the above post as well.  Everything is withing the axis’s reach very quickly and the allies for the most part cannot en devour to save it.  The main problem being the Pacific it is an epic fail.  For all the work they did with Germany and Italy it is a real shame to have a game ruined by something that was not play tested well the whole map needs changed to work.  I am not sure a bid can really save the game either.  Just coming from a prospective that there are 5 victory cities in or close to Japan.  There is 18 production for UK in the Pac counting India well I do not think I have to get into that I think by now people should be getting the point.

[Lucifer]

@ kindwinds, experienced players never use the VC system to decide who’s winning and who’s loosing the game. You concede, or even better, your opponent concedes  :-)

In the unstable TripleA lobby most people use the NOs.
Also here on this forum most players play with NOs on.

I’m not so sure if the bid needed is higher than Revised, I still didn’t get any 9 bids. I have seen a game with a 10 bid to allies. Imo the bid will be closer to AAR than Classic.

As for tech, NOs, Dardanelles closing and SBR interceptors, these are all optional rules so if you want to include them you have to turn them on, not off. They are off by default. That is what separates optional and original rules, if you change the original rules then you’re using house rules, else you’re playing whatever optional rules combination which is most enjoyable.

So far it seems that it’s more fun to play with NOs than w/o NOs. Using NOs = make money fa$t  :mrgreen:

[souL]

@Subotai:

I strongly feel that I can improve my strats and tactics when I play allies in AA50. But my learning curve has been to acknowledge the need for bids. Allies need bid in 41 +NO and no tech. I can also improve my axis play, there’s a lot to learn in AA50 from Revised.

Yep, there’s a lot to learn.  Including the fact that a well-oiled allied machine keeps at least an even-up record against the Axis.  I’ve been taking on all comers with the allies for over 60 games now and I’ve got over 40 wins.

There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent. LL is close to average dice rolls, but luck is reduced, not removed. If it is true that axis is better of with LL than regular dice than you also assume that allies is more lucky than the axis side…   :roll: and that this is happening not only in one game, but several games, more than 50%…   :roll:

I have yet to find good allied strats if playing w/o bids, thats why I don’t  :wink:

Low Luck, no luck, it doesn’t matter.  Bringing it is bringing it.  You just need friends who are better allies players.

Imo we could start with a 6 ipc bid to allies, or bid down from whatever amount is appropriate.

The main reason why there is an axis bias in 41 +NOs is that it’s much easier for Japan and Germany to get hold of 10-15 each of their NOs, while allies have a hard time getting the same income level as axis, because for allies it will be proportionally more difficult to get their NOs as it is easier for the axis side. You don’t have to be an expert player to know this, and quickly learn how to play axis so that you get your cash by grabbing NOs and TT’s which used to belong to allies. W/o bids you will not be able to deny Germany 15 ipc NOs from rnd 1-2 and rest of the game, if Germany wants to, and why shouldn’t the axis player try to get maximum amount of cash? Unless I make grave mistakes, you will not stop me from owning Karelia most of the game, thus I’m getting my 15 ipc for Germany, either by trading Karelia or by stacking it enough so that Russia or UK cannot take it back. This is why allies need a bid.

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Firstly and most importantly, how do you deal with sz 2, sz 12, and Egy?  When so much money is poured into Karelia, it leaves the Med VERY vulnerable.  If you leave sz 12 unattended and have never lost your Italian fleet before they got a turn, your friends just aren’t creative enough.  Say you hit sz 12 and don’t hit sz 2 or 9, you leave both British trn on the board.  If sz 2 and sz 9 are both in tact, the British can do the same thing to fra you just did to kar, and the bad news is there’s no AA gun to chew up their air units, their support shot is better, you’ve likely got less units there, and it’s worth more.  If Egy is in tact and you lose fra first turn then it’s pretty likely the British are going to collect over 50.  There’s just NO way people can go at Kar first turn without feeling some sort of AWFUL wrath from Britain because the Germans aren’t doing their part to neutralize them.

Same goes for Japan, although UK+US can possibly hold or trade India for some rnds, same goes for Australia. If allies makes it their goal they can stack Australia, but none of this helps allies win w/o a bid. I only need one landing in Bury J2, then the rest goes south to Frindo, and towards India. If India is stacked then i take Australia. I get my 15 ipc with Japan most of the game. This is why allies need a bid.

Slowing the Japanese down isn’t about stopping them from getting bonuses.  They’re so far away from anything, it’s about delaying them for enough turns to do what you want to Germany/Italy.  Before they go the Russians get to present the Japanese with too many threats to counter, and the allies react accordingly.

Seriously, I can’t see any point in discussing strats for either side in AA50 if the setup is 41 +NO, without mentioning where to place the bids, and what units should allies buy with their bid.

I can’t seriously see the point of continuing conversations with you if you’re not in the play boardgames forum putting your money where your mouth is.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

I can’t seriously see the point of continuing conversations with you if you’re not in the play boardgames forum putting your money where your mouth is.

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

I’m in the unstable lobby, putting my money where my mouth is…

I see bids being used already in the lobby, but not all players use bids though.

Ok, so you do not agree with me, and what many players think, 41 +NOs favors axis, you think its balanced, or maybe even favors the allies?

It’s not very unbalanced imo, but I do think that it will be hard to beat me w/o any bids for allies.

Download the unstable version, it’s not perfect yet, might have to use the editor a few times, but both of us knows the rules of AA50 so it’s not a problem.

Send a pm when you got time to play, remember the premise: AA50 41, no tech, low luck, NOs. No bids!
I’m playing axis.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Thats a tricky one, I’m not sure if Kalia G1 attack is more optimal then G2. Usually Germany can take and hold, or trade Kalia from rnd 2, but all of my (+NOs w/o bid) games regardless of which side I played, Germany was able to get 10-15 ipc from rnd 2 until the allied player concedes.

If you played 60 AA50 games then you’re more experienced than me, I’ve only played about 15-20 games.

[Lucifer]

@gandhi:

those of you who do play with a bid for the allies, how high a bid is needed? and do you have any restrictions on where to put it? and in either case where do you put them?

I would put one inf in Egy and maybe one in Kalia, but if the Kalia G1 attack is bad for Germans, let they do it.

As for now, I would bid 9 ipc for allies, one unit pr. TT. About bidding for a new game such as AA50, we must try and fail before we know where the most optimal bids are.

All of my perceptions of game balance is open for modifications, if the empirical data changes. When I start losing games when I play axis in 41 +NOs, no tech + low luck, then I will start bidding lower instead of playing axis against 6-8 bids.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Firstly and most importantly, how do you deal with sz 2, sz 12, and Egy?  When so much money is poured into Karelia, it leaves the Med VERY vulnerable.  If you leave sz 12 unattended and have never lost your Italian fleet before they got a turn, your friends just aren’t creative enough.  Say you hit sz 12 and don’t hit sz 2 or 9, you leave both British trn on the board.  If sz 2 and sz 9 are both in tact, the British can do the same thing to fra you just did to kar, and the bad news is there’s no AA gun to chew up their air units, their support shot is better, you’ve likely got less units there, and it’s worth more.  If Egy is in tact and you lose fra first turn then it’s pretty likely the British are going to collect over 50.  There’s just NO way people can go at Kar first turn without feeling some sort of AWFUL wrath from Britain because the Germans aren’t doing their part to neutralize them.

Even if I do the Kalia attack G1, and if it is suboptimal for Germany, I don’t think you will win against me if the premise for the game is 41, +NO, LL, NT. I’m axis and there is no bids.

In one or two of my games I started trading France from rnd 1, maybe not optimal, but it only prolonged the game…

Now I’m wondering if a UK sub bid in sz 12 might be a smart bid?

[gandhi]

First of all, thanks for the reply Subotai.
In regards to the sub in seazone 12, i dont think it would matter. In an german opening like the one i set out above you can just ignore the gamble part in seazone 9 and bring an additional sub to seazone 12. The end result wouldnt change much. I am pretty certain that Egypt is the key to changing the course of battle. But then again, i dont seem to be able to find the the proper way to grease the wheels of the allied machinery to have it run smoothly, so there might be something i miss completely. souL, can you give any tips on how you set it up?

[Mazer Rackham]

@Subotai:

There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent.

Hey Subo.

It’s not just the number of hits, it’s risk management for strafes and allocation of offensive power (particularly airpower).

1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing.  Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side?  In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU.  Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls.  This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin.  I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.

The Allies theoretically should have a similar advantage coming out of Moscow, but functionally the stacks are different and LL favors the Axis in regards to large strafes.

2. LL gives precision attacks allowing near-complete knowledge of force needed to take a territory.  For instance, both players know how much airpower to send in small battles to swap land.  This would theoretically be a wash, but since Germany has more airpower than Russia the Axis gain a slight advantage here as well.  You know if you send 1inf 2ftr at 1inf then you take the land 67% of the time and never lose a plane.

There are a few other risk dynamics that are negated by LL, but I’d say in general a LL bid will differ from a normal bid by several IPCs to reflect the leverage gained by more complete knowledge of the dice.  Note in AA5 I’m not saying yet which side benefits more from LL, I’m merely pointing out that LL should have a slightly different bid than normal rules.

Peace

[DarthMaximus]

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

[Jennifer]

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

As for the Pacific being “bad” I think it’s far superior to previous versions.  Previously there was no way to break your fleet up in the Pacific and make some land grabs because Japan could sit in Sea Zones 49 or 50 and hit just about everything in the Pacific that was a threat to Japanese income. (SZ 49 cannot hit SZ 53, but that’s not a big issue since your fighters and bombers can hit SZ 53 from SZ 49/Japan easily.)  The only safe spots were SZ 53, 55, 56, 62, 63 and 64 in Revised.

That’s different now.

If the Japanese fleet is in SZ 36 (one of three spots to find it, 62, 36 and 37 being the 3.)  America can be immune in SZ’s:

42, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, and 65 in Anniversary

So we went from 6 viable staging grounds for American fleets (viable as in out of range of enemy submarines/destroyers, etc) to 14 viable staging grounds for American fleets.

If anything, the Pacific was made a MORE viable campaign setting; not a ruined setting!

[Blaarg]

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

Interesting analysis.  I’ve never played with LL, but it sounds unappealing.