Revised objectives and Victory Cities chart to correct error spotted by beaudoin996:
Hopefully no more corrections will be required…
Cred
Those US pacific builds- really a NO thing?
-
We’ve heard all about why National Objectives where added, it was to give the Pacific theater extra weight and force the Allies to pay attention to Japan rather than try to knock out Germany ASAP. And now we’re indeed seeing most players spending a significant portion of US money in the Pacific theater. So, at last we seem to have confirmed the success of the National objectives! Or have we?
Consider the following comparisons:
Distance from Manchuria or French Indo-China to Moscow in AAR/AA50:
Siberian route: 4/6
China route: 4/5
India route: 4/5Number of at-start Japanese aircraft (AAR/AA50-41):
7/9Typical surviving US Pacific navy after Japanese first turn:
Revised: 1 battleship, 1 transport
AA50-41: 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 destroyerCompare this to the IPC ratio Japan vs. USA with NOs:
Revised at-start:
Japan 30, USA 42: ratio 1,4 in US favour.
'41 after one turn w. 2 Jap NOs, Burma and three Chinese territories:
Japan: 43, USA: 48+6 IPC worth of China inf: ratio 1,26 in US favour.
Revised after expansion to China, three Siberian terr., India, Australia:
Japan 42 IPCs, USA 38 IPCs, ratio 1,11 in Japanese favour
'41 after three turn expansion 3 NOs, India, six Chinese terr., three Siberian terr., Australia:
Japan 59 IPCs, USA 48 IPCs, ratio 1,23 in Japanese favourSo we see there’s a slightly better Japanese ratio of IPC expansion, and especially if they negate the US NO for Pacific islands which I haven’t factored in here. But in AAR, too, Japan became very strong economically by expanding unhindered. And in AA50 the first Japanese turn production at 17 IPCs is very weak, so USA has some head start the first turn to build a navy.
My impression is that the first three changes really makes the more difference to the game, in the following ways:
*The bigger Asian continent slows down the Japanese advance, giving more time for the Allies to improve their situation in Europe without immediate 100% US involvement. It also means keeping Japanese air force at sea on carriers really helps more now, since it’s more difficult to switch forces. For example a Japanese fighter on a carrier off the Carolines can’t even attack Mosow the turn AFTER it’s redeployed towards the mainland, unlike in AAR.
*The larger number of Japanese aircraft, together with the cheaper bombers, makes Japanese air a very decisive factor in the game. If all at-start fighters are deployed on the mainland, it’s a whopping attack force with 27 in attacking value.
*The surviving carrier means USA can quickly get a Pacific fleet together that can both survive attack and keep significant Japanese forces on guard against it. This avoids the difficulty of building a fleet from scratch which you often were forced to do in AAR, you can build a fleet a little at a time by adding to a core of your carrier and then you don’t need to sacrifice your whole production but can still build bombers, transports and invasion forces against Germany. In AAR, you often had to choose either/or between Europe and Pacific and of course most chose Europe since it’s there you’ll win the final victory in most games. -
I agree that the bigger (more spaces) map makes the theatre must hard to share units. As you pointed out, ftrs on carriers at sea are not easy to bring inland to help the advance on Russia.
However, I also found that the turn sequence has hurt the allies in a KJF move.
First chance to attack Japan is UK… usually very weak in the pacific and limited in their SE asia forces.Then USA goes. In the past, UK could help reinforce a US attack, no longer the case.
Russia goes right BEFORE japan, so there’s no chance to support any russian ground thrusts / counter attacks on advancing Japanese army units with UK ftrs. That was one of the best allied tricks in the book. Well… throw that book out.
So Japan, IMHO, is even HARDER to Kill first, especially if played properly.
-
Perhaps not a Kill Japan first strategy. But certainly, using some money in Pacific can definitely slow down the Japanese. And if Japanese is slowed down, Allies in Europe don’t have to worry too much about Japanese.
I personally think, even if India won’t hold, that an IC on India can buy UK some times. If Japan is to be ignored completely (which is a bad idea), SAF is the best place for an IC for the UK
Robert
-
Most KGF fanboys continue assuming two things:
- USA can ignore Japan and sail all Pacific boats to Atlantic
- Allies will have the economic advantage in mid game, so a quick push on Moscow is needed for axis to win
Both are false (I’ll assume we’re talking about 1941 scenario with NOs)
First, the ignore Japan strat. Japan starts with 5 trannies, and probably will buy 2 more round 1. This makes a total of 7. If USA surrrenders the Pacific, Japan, after taking all valuable Pacific islands and Australia (probably round 2), can stack, say, 5 trannies and 10 inf at Hawaii with 2 AC and 4 figs, round 3. Japan can now attack 3 vital territories: Alaska, Wcan and Wusa, and there is no way for USA of defending the 3. USA will can defend heavy WUSA and left empty (or with 1 guy) the others, but the Japan simply lands 2 guys at Wcan and the others in Alaska: with any other forces than Japan could rally from west next round, a pipeline to Alaska is formed (game over, axis wins). Or USA can defend heavy WuSA and semi-heavy Wcan: this time, Japan lands 2 guys at Alaska and kill the canadian defenders with her big stack -> pipeline of USA’s forces to Europe disrupted, and probably Japan will have a chance of making the pipeline to Alaska anyway (the Polar Express). A Polar Express in AA50 means USA only colects 40 IPCs a round -> if and when USA finally manages repel the invasion, it will be too late to save soviets or maybe even Africa
Now, the economic advantage. It will be axis who will have it. For a KJF strat, the probable incomes mid game are:
Germany 40-42 (assuming they don’t take Karelia or Africa)
Italy 9-12 (assuming not taking Africa)
Japan 60-65- Total axis 110-120
USSR 25-30 (assuming they receive aid from UK in soviet land)
UK 25-30 (all east of Persia lost, Africa recovered)
USA 48 (Hawai survives, Pacific NO also)
China 0 (killed round 1)- Total allies 100-110, and I’m being generous for allies totals
The most probable scenario here is a economic advantage for axis of 10-15 IPCs. It’s allies who have haste. Germany can wait japs rescue, soviets cannot wait
KGF is even worst if Japan goes Polar Express
Japan 65-70
Italy 9-12
Germany 40-42- Axis 115-120
USSR 25-30
UK 26-28 (no chance of nzel or Carolines saved)
USA 40 (Hawaii, Alaska and Pacific NO lost)
China 0 (killed round 1)- Allies 90-100, and worst if they lost Egypt, and Trj, possible withot USA reinforcing Africa
The best scenario for allies is collecting 15 IPCs less than axis, the probable is 25 less and can get worse
Conclusion: against a competent axis strat and moves, allies have no chance. They will fall sooner if they try the ignore Japan-KGF route (and probably even wacky rolls will not save them), but a KJF will not save the day for them unless wacky rolls
The simpler and best solution is doing something about China to prevent early Godzilla Japan: mod China to playable power with non-crazy setup, bid chinese infs, play China with 1942 setup, moving the fighter to safe place, letting USA lend-leasing figs to them, letting them exit from China or popping 1 inf for 1 territory, not 1 for 2 as now … something!
-
We’ve heard all about why National Objectives where added, it was to give the Pacific theater extra weight and force the Allies to pay attention to Japan rather than try to knock out Germany ASAP.
That’s not the main reason why the NOs were added. The other changes you mention, as well as the addition of more Victory Cities, were made specifically for this reason, though.
The NOs were mainly added to give the game more historical flavor. They were designed to do such historical things as discourage Soviet-Western cooperation and promote a Pacific-centric strategy for Japan. While they do tend to reinforce the other changes in giving the Pacific Theatre more weight, that wasn’t their primary purpose.
-
USA is my favotire country to play and I have to disagree about ignoring Japan. I usually completely ignore Japan as US, spending money in the pacific is generally wasted money that won;t ever actually achieve anything. Japan is perfectly free to ignore any little US force you build and continue all out for India, and India is the key to all of Japan’s efforts. So as long as you can keep the Japs out of India until late in the game then there was never any reason to have any US force in the pacific to begin with.
When US goes KGF it is a race against time to take down Germany before Japan arrives. Japan arriving means Japan taking India. So as long as you can hold India, any US money spent in the Pacific is a waste. The only thing I do in Pac with US going KGF is send 2 fighters to Austrailia on turn 1, and then on to Inida on turn 2. Russia also sends 2 - 4 inf that arrives in India on turn 2. That keeps India for the Allies until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, which was all you are trying to accomplish with US in Pac anyway, keeping Japs out of India by distracting them in the islands. If you can keep India anyway, and you can, then all those expensive ships and planes in Pac were just a huge waste of money that extends Germany’s life.
America’s primary target on the map is the 6 production IC in italy. All of their efforts should be focused on taking and holding Italy. The faster they take Italy, the faster the Allies win. The game is over the moment the US hold Italy. The US can win the game for the Allies in the Atlantic, all they can do in the Pacific is meander around aimlessly not actually accomplishing much.
The only truly effective and impactful thing I know of that the US can do in the Pacific is to pin the IJN at Tokyo and force Japan into a naval arms race to defend the island. If you do it right you can force the entire Japanese navy to japan and keep them there for the rest of the game with both the US and Japan just building as many ships as they can each turn in the battle for the island of Japan. This essetentially takes both the the US and Japan out of the game and leaves Germany to face Russia and England alone… a fight they should be able to win with Japan effectively taken out of the game.
So, in my opinion, you either go all out to take the Island of Japan and completely ignore the Atlantic, or you go all out to take out Italy and completely ignore the Pacific. The “two front” war thing just results in US being a minor harrassment to both Axis players without ever acutally having a big impact anywhere. The US is free to do whatever they want, I perosnally think they should put all of their effort into a game winning plan instead of just being a game long annoyance.
-
I actually like Kavik post
Although purely theoretical, I can see how it works
I’ll give it a try tomorrow (not personally, but since i’ll probably play Allies, I’ll tell my partners to do that)
Robert
-
While NO’s weigh in my decisions somewhat to doing things they do not control my actions. I still prefer going for more strategic locations than ways to get me more money. That being said, the US in many games HAS to do at least something in the Pacific just to stay alive or maybe even prevent Japan from becoming uncoquerable, even in a 3 V 1 scenario.
-
I’m sorry but the US has no chance in the pacific against any semi decent axis player, and the polar express is easily countered.
US can do many things but there is one thing it should, imho, do. Buy 2 bombers a round. This means at the end of US1 there are 4 US figs, and 4 US bombers. These bombers will do many things, like pin the Italian Navy, burn German IPCs with SBRs, and protect against polar express, unless Japan is willing to buy boats to defend her fleet. This also makes it easier to up the ante on germany in unit count to defend berlin, rome, or france.
Also, starting your shuck from WUS helps, but with heavy SBRs in berlin, russia can usually push back G without much help. Also key to any KGF strat is to get russia’s 2nd NO, not easy but very doable around R3-5, when Japan gets in the game. Then if Japan decides to polar express, awesome, russia has more money than germany and doesnt have to worry about japan.
-
/Kavik Kang
Most players I’ve heard of are wary about building an IC in India in the '41 scenario. Japan can easily set-up an attack of 6-7 land units and 5 fighters on turn 2 before UK even gets to build in their IC. I’ve myself toyed with idea of deploying fighters or tanks from Russia but that’s very risky since Russia usually gets very involved with stopping Germany from holding one of its ICs. I’ve never heard of flying fighters via Australia to India, nice idea, but in many games India won’t be there to land in after Japan’s second turn!
Most players try to stop Japan on the mainland in Russia and in the Middle East, in the latter case with constant landings in Algeria and an IC in South Africa or Egypt, forming a chain of units that meet Japan around Persia. In that case keeping the Japanese navy on guard against USA is necessary, otherwise your Allied land offensive in Africa and Middle East will be blown away by superior Japanese air and navy. I suspect the same even if you do hold India early on, I can’t see how can you hold vs. all Japanese air force AND shore bombardment AND infantry and tanks from ICs and transports. Japan has to be split into two fronts just as Germany!
-
I’m sorry but the US has no chance in the pacific against any semi decent axis player, and the polar express is easily countered.
The first is true, the second not. The trick with Polar Express is delaying USA reinforcements to Europe. If you have success making a landing at Alaska and trading wcan, better, but having USA’s army halted in WUSA is enough: you cannot defend ala, wcan and wusa against a full japanese attack (they start with 5 trannies :-o). Even if USA finally manages defeat the invasion forces, it will need at least 2-3 turns, probably more, and UK+soviets cannot defend alone against the triple of ger+ita+jap (yes, Japan will have enough income to send some reinforcements to west and annoy soviets and Africa while doing Polar Express). Also, now UK will not recieve income for wcan (they play after japs and before USA). Each IPC counts, and allies don’t need more economic handicap
Of course, USA cannot beat japaneses in the Pacific in normal conditions due no real defenses in mainland Asia, longer distances from Moscow (you cannot send rogue soviet tanks to annoy as in Revised) and crappy China stuff, but allies will have more income defending their valuable Pacific IPCs (ala, wcan, haw, aus, nzel, USA NO -> 12 IPCs) and probably they will lose a bit later than trying ignore Japan and having to fight them anyway in America instead of Pacific Ocean. They will lose anyway building Pacific navy, because 1941 scenario is utterly broken and gives monster advantage to axis, but at least they will live more time
-
I’m sorry but the US has no chance in the pacific against any semi decent axis player, and the polar express is easily countered.
US can do many things but there is one thing it should, imho, do. Buy 2 bombers a round. This means at the end of US1 there are 4 US figs, and 4 US bombers. These bombers will do many things, like pin the Italian Navy, burn German IPCs with SBRs, and protect against polar express, unless Japan is willing to buy boats to defend her fleet. This also makes it easier to up the ante on germany in unit count to defend berlin, rome, or france.
Also, starting your shuck from WUS helps, but with heavy SBRs in berlin, russia can usually push back G without much help. Also key to any KGF strat is to get russia’s 2nd NO, not easy but very doable around R3-5, when Japan gets in the game. Then if Japan decides to polar express, awesome, russia has more money than germany and doesnt have to worry about japan.
If you like strat bombing with the US, like I do, try this opening sometime. Turn 1 buy 3 Heavy Bombers and save 4 dollars. I actually do this with a few different US openings wether KGF or KJF. Turn 1 send both bombers to England. Turn 2 bomb Italy with both bombers and fly all three new bombers to England. It’s fine even if you lose both of the original bombers over Italy, you’ll still get the big score on turn 3, but I have never lost both bombers on turn 2. On turn 3 hit the Italian Navy with 4-5 bombers, easily wiping it out. Where you land depends on where the navy is, but you usually have to land in Caucusus and cost Russia 5 IPC. But that’s OK because the guarenteed destrcution of the Italian navy on turn 3 is easily worth the 5 IPC to Russia. Your surviving bombers can hit Italy on the way back to England next turn so you only lose one turn of SBR to kill the navy. If you go KGF and have your carrier in the Atlantic the fighters can help. You can also, as I often do, only buy 2 bombers on turn 1, but 3 is almost an absolute guarentee (even if you lose one on turn 2) if only the bombers will be able to hit. After the Italian navy is dead, you can resume the SBR campaign.
As for the US having no chance in the Pacific… if they go all out they can focus Japan’s attention only on them. No further units other than, maybe a couple infantry here and there, will move west. The US can pin the IJN at Japan and force them into a naval arms race for the rest of the game. It takes everything the US has to do it, but they can do it. Since I brought it up, I’ll explain.
Turn 1 Build: 3 subs, 1 bomber, 1 transport, 1 infantry. 40 IPC
Turn 1 Moves: Move east coast inf, art, trans, destroyer to east canada and the ships to the sea zone that reaches Norway, France, and Morroco. They will wait here for an opportinity where they can make a real difference instead of just suiciding on turn 1, the Atl will get nothing other than this force from us all game so we’ll make sure it does something truly useful for them when the time is right. Well, that and shutting down Japan starting at the end of turn 3:-) Move the central inf west. You can either leave the US carrier to protect the Brititsh ships on turn 1, or move it to panama to make it look like you might be going KGF. Bring the two fighters and bombers to west US.
Turn 2 Build: 1 carrier, 3 destroyers, 1 cruiser 50 IPC (replace DD with sub if less than 50, buy an extra ship if you held Phillipines… it’s all about numbers from now on).
Turn 2 Moves: Move the the original carrier and it’s 2 fighters, the destroyer, 3 subs, and 3 bombers to Midway. This force (3 subs, 2 fighters, 3 bombers) is within reach of Japan’s sea zone, if the IJN hasn’t been there, it will move there during their next turn… unless it makes the fatal mistake of thinking the US can’t take the island without the fleet defending it and ignores the buildup and abandonds the home islands and goes south. If the IJN goes south it can never return and Tokyo will fall. The 3 subs and bombers are covering the sea zone so nothing can leave the island without the IJN there to protect the transports. The US force is large enough to require eveything except the lone southern carrier to defend against. If the IJN attacks this force they will win, but they will lose enough in the effort that the US builds will still be enough to make the turn 3 move. Even if things go really badly and you have to delay a turn, you are still achieving your goal of forcing Japan to buy all navy. If they aren’t they will lose this race, if they do they will never lose the race… but never do anything else, either.
Turn 3 Build: 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 destroyer, 1x transport.
Turn 3 Move: Move the subs forward from Midway to Iwo Jima, leave the bombers on Midway. Move the entire US fleet to Iwo Jima, including the original transport we bought with 2 of the 4 inf that are there by now (central and alaska). Take Iwo Jima with the 2 inf and your airforce. Assuming the Japanese player is good his fleet will still be alive and too strong to attack (only if he built navy on turn 2). If he did not build navy on turn 2 suicide every thing but the carriers and the destroyer into the IJN this turn (using only 1 fighter to take Iwo Jima). You would have just sent in 3 subs, 1 fighter (1 is taking iwo), and 2 bombers. He has very tuff choices to make on what to kill, and with our turn 2 builds arriving at iwo jima this turn we can afford to lose all of this if it will kill just 3 japanese naval or air units… and they should kill more than that.
Turn 4 Build: 1 carrier, 2 fighters. From this point forward you build a full carrier every turn, and whatever the best combination of subs, destroyers, and cruisers are. Don’t build a battleship, cruiser and destroyer are better for our purposes. We need all the numbers we can get and a battleship is the same on defense, but one less die roll on attack than a cruiser and destroyer. Also, only build a cruiser when you have 12+ left over after buying as many subs and destroyers that you could afford. Destroyers are a better deal than cruisers, but we want the most powerful navy we can build each turn in this situation so it is better to build the cruiser than to save the money for a destroyer on the next turn.
Turn 4 and future moves: The situation you have created is a naval arms race. The position in Iwo Jima is useful for two reasons, but you can fall back to Midway if it every becomes necessary (for example if he bases all his extra fighters on Japan, they reach the Iwo sea zone but not Midway so you have to fall back to Midway. They usually do this, because you use those transports you build to take back Philipines and other islands. You usually loes the one you send to phillipines but leave 2 inf defending and as long as you are in iwo any navy he sends to philliines will die you your air and subs. When the second transport is finished taking all the useful islands it can suicide into taking borneo or pull back to respond to anything the japanese manage to do in the pacific, which won’t be much since US subs, bombers, and fighters cover most of it.
While it is true that the US can never catch up, and never win this naval arms race, that is only true if Japan does the same thing the US is doing… buy nothing but ships for the rest of the game. Even if the US has to fall back for a turn, the Japanese still have to build all ships or the US will pass them buy. Japan can afford an infantry or 2 per turn if they really want too, but are better off building that extra sub if they can. Whatever force Japan had outside of Japan itself is pretty much all it will have to work with for the rest of the game. If Japan slips up just once, the IJN will die Tokyo will fall soon after. But even if Tokyo survives, it doesn’t really matter. Both the US and Japan have essentially been taken out of the game, Japan won’t do anything all game long other than build navy. Even in the best case scenario for Japan, where the US slips up and they kill enough US navy to end the arms race… what turn does that happen on? How’s Germany doing? How about all those British and Chinese partying down together off of your coast watching all those pretty Japanese ships sit at Tokyo? How long will it take for Japan’s to arrive now, starting froms scratch on what turn… 5, 6, 7?
So, I guess I agree that if played correctly the US cannot defeat Japan. But they can stalemate them, effectively taking them out of the game… which is the next best thing to defeating them. The US is completely tied down and can’t help in the Atlantic at all… but Russia and England don’t need their help if Japan isn’t ever coming to save Germany. The Allies can afford for the US to do nothing for them against Germany if it means that Japan will never come from behind. The Axis can’t afford to have Japan just pinning the US in the Pacific, it’s doesn’t work both ways.
This is not a game breaking, game winning strategy or anything and I wasn’t saying it was. It is one option that the US has available too them. The US gets to pick how the war will play out based on what they do, they really do. Most players just want to harrass both Germany and Japan without ever accomplishing much of great siginifigance. I think that is a mistake, and that the job of the US is much the same as Japan’s job with the Axis… to be a ticking clock that says “the game won’t go past this turn, because on this turn the US finally be strong enough to…”. In the Pacific that means pinning the IJN at Japan for as long as possible, destroying it and taking Tokyo if you can. It the Atlantic it means taking Italy. Building up to do it as quickly as possible and not wasting the forces you build on silly things like suicide attacks on France.
Sorry for the long post, but the US is not completely outmatched by the IJN, they are only slightly behind and Japan needs to build nothing but navy if they want to maintain their slight naval superiority.
-
… 1941 scenario is utterly broken and gives monster advantage to axis, but at least they will live more time
So how high bid would you to allies in an ADS game? I’m assuming one unit pr. territory limit.
-
The US’s main contribution in my KGF games is the SBRing, figs, the recovering of Africa, and threatening of Rome and a double drop in France. This is achieved by turn 4 at the absolute latest, the pieces in play by turn 3. There is no ‘shuck’ anymore, where do you shuck to? Africa? Why, the axis have 1 trannie down there typically its easy to overrun. France? Hell if i’m trading france i gots the cash to come after you in the pacific. And yes, once turn 3-4 comes around Germany will fall to russia and the UK alone in later turns if played properly, as russia is usually strait up out-producing them and the UK even is after SBRs are taken into account.
Almost every game Japan comes after the US I will win, as those are units russia does not have to worry about allowing her to push even harder vs Germany, or even just pulling back for a turn to overrun Japanesse ICs in India, etc.
-
@Subotai:
So how high bid would you to allies in an ADS game? I’m assuming one unit pr. territory limit.
OK, with one unit for territory limit, 19 is the minimun. You need
1 fig to chi (yunnan will be killed with this limit)
1 inf to sik
1 inf to nin
1 inf to yun or maybe ind (not to egy, that would be doom of UK bb)But probably it would need more. Japs can still kill the other 4 territories leaving chineses with 3 inf, 1 fig at end of round 1: patetic. I’d say 27 (one inf to the other chinese territories)
But I think that it’s better simply bid chinese infs with without territory limit. It would prevent gamey bids to Europe or Africa (I think those theaters are balanced, it’s Asia the broken one)
And of course ignore that stupid rule of infinite high walls on chinese frontiers visible only for chineses but invisible for all the others. In vanilla rules, China acts as Willie E. Coyote and Japan as the Road Runner: the axis Road Runner will pass the walls, but chinese Coyote will smash against them :-D
-
With a bid that high crazy stuff happens, like Russian Armor in Stan and an art in Bury, or a UK DD in SZ 8, or a UK sub in SZ 35, or even a US sub in SZ 50. These arent even the best i can come up with.
I’m sorry but if allies get an inf in egypt and an art in Kar the game is balanced. The only thing that will change the KGF being so powerful will be a change in axis turn 1 moves. Unless you mean the entire bid should only go to china, which still leaves brokenness as I have successfully played Japan while ignoring china for the most part in the past, even with the US gunning for me a tad.
If you want to show me your polar express I’ll be on TripleA most of Saturday/Sunday, i welcome it. Just give me a 7 bid and LL =) (much lower than the proposed 19, and LL favors axis or so I hear).
-
There’s nothing so far that points to the theories that AA50 is very unbalanced, more so than AAR. People seem to forget playing skills… :roll:
I’m pretty sure that I would win most games if I get much more than a 10 ipc bid to either side, i.e. $15 or more, one unit pr.TT.
-
Unless you mean the entire bid should only go to china, which still leaves brokenness as I have successfully played Japan while ignoring china for the most part in the past, even with the US gunning for me a tad
I don’t know how could you win a game ignoring China, but if it works, and for that very reason, we shold start bidding units only for China AND alowing chineses exit from China (not only attacking axis, but also in NC moves)
As for the challenge: time and technical reasons will not allow me play TripleA (my wifi is not stable) :|. And I don’t play with LL
-
@Subotai:
People seem to forget playing skills… :roll:
I take that into account. As time passes, people will polish their axis gameply and axis will become unbeatable. I cannot trust in axis having bad luck or playing bad all games. I have played various games where axis made some bad moves, allies played better and still axis won by big margin. I did a really bad starting in one, buying a german IC for Egypt, going north Barbarossa, buying too much trannies for japs (I got confused because I thought allies would go KGF so I started setting up Polar Express) while allies had only lesser errors and made some bright moves and STILL I won by resigning when I (axis) had a economic advantage of more than 20
Many say that they don’t want win because of dices. Other say they don’t want win because good tech rolls. I don’t want win as axis only because they have such big advantage
-
@ Func,
you have many good ideas, and it’s obvious that since there are so many unhistorical issues in A&A, at least China should be allowed out of China. But China is not a full playing power in AA50, and so China becomes a minor “detail” in the AA50 game. And if we’re gonna change anything more than already changed by “players evolution” like in AAR, then it’s house rules. I know many use house rules, but I don’t use them myself and I don’t like house rules. I see A&A like a variant of a modern chess game. Bids are not official rules approved by Larry Harris, but I think he will understand that they are needed. Also tech has been badly broken since Classic, so many players decided to play w/o tech in AAR. In AA50 tech is an optional rule, if not AA50 OOB would be broken like AAR OOB, which needed some small modifications to fix the bugs in the finish part of the game design process. If someone makes a change to AA50 more than using bids, then it’s house rules. I personally don’t like to make changes to a game, so I prefer bids, which is a necessary evil.As for the challenges I made to all those who claim that either side should have more than $10 in a starting bid, my statement applies both for ADS and LL games. With all respect Func, I would totally crush any opponent with a starting bid @ $20 or more for allies, assuming 1 unit pr. TT. no tech and NOs and ADS. I also feel confident with a $15 bid for allies with the same premises.
Suggested Topics
