How to achieve balance

[Crossover]

Our way to balance the game:

UK gets a factory from the beginning (and may build units in Round 1 there) in India, while NOs are used without any changes. We had very interesting games with that so far.

[npolo]

So far in my group we’ve just closed the Dardelles and things have balanced out pretty well.  It takes off some pressure on Russia and they can help out some other fronts.  Didn’t like the bomber optional rule.  AA getting to fire at the fighters doesn’t make sense.  Only played 5 games though, but enjoyed them all.
We play with NOs and Tech, and luck has definitely played a part, but we like it like that.

[axis_roll]

@npolo:

So far in my group we’ve just closed the Dardelles and things have balanced out pretty well.  It takes off some pressure on Russia and they can help out some other fronts.  Didn’t like the bomber optional rule.  AA getting to fire at the fighters doesn’t make sense.  Only played 5 games though, but enjoyed them all.
We play with NOs and Tech, and luck has definitely played a part, but we like it like that.

You are almost all the way to game play changes we’ve tried / use.

Regarding the SBRs and escort rules, we use them but modify them so there’s no AA shots at the ftrs.

We tweak the tech a bit to be less random, and we have our own China mods as well to slow godzilla.

[Flying Tiger]

@Crossover:

Our way to balance the game:

UK gets a factory from the beginning (and may build units in Round 1 there) in India, while NOs are used without any changes. We had very interesting games with that so far.

I like it. There’s got to be a way to get a pacific war going.

For me KGF in A&A terms means all US and UK IPCs vs. Europe. In real terms in the war, the “Europe first” strategy still involved substantial construction and involvement in the Pacific war.

There just isn’t enough money for America to go to both theatres. I think you have to give America a large incentive to go into the pacific. Something that would put America economically above Japan.

I still like changing NOs

For America
-gain 15 ipcs if you own Alaska and Hawaii. (If you ignore Japan they will take one of these territories leaving you with 38 ipcs. If you fight in the pacific you secure Alaska and Hawaii AND you still have a bit of money to send something to Europe. The US fought on 2 fronts in the real war, beleive it or not…… This NO would get USA to a realistic economy.
-get rid of the homeland NO(gain 5 ipcs if you own west, central and eastern US)
-get rid of Hawaii, Midway, Soloman islands NO

[Flying Tiger]

I was thinking about this again today.

Things we know
1. Axis has the advantage.
2. Japan is a monster.
3. KGIF seems to be the best way of winning the war as the Allies. This equates to not much of a pacific campaign because there is not enough $$ for the Americans to go east and west.

If the American NOs were changed to
-Collect 15 ipcs if the allies control 3 of the 4 territories…Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island and Midway.
-Homeland NO is deleted (east, west, central USA for 5 ipcs)

What would this do?

• America would have a large value NO close enough to reasonably defend. This would put American ships in the pacific for sure. This would lead to a pacific campaign, even if limited.
• This would also get America closer economically to the Japanese.
• There would be enough $$ to go east and west. 53ipcs to America each turn as long as they have this NO.
• Since axis have advantage OOB this will put the allies on an even level with the axis powers.

Don’t just dismiss this idea, think about it.

[Telamon]

@Flying:

What would this do?

• This would also get America closer economically to the Japanese.

And help stop the ridiculous situation of Japan’s income being 50% higher than America’s…

Don’t know about the exact solution you propose, but I like the way you’re heading.  NOs were a brilliant addition to the game, but some of the current NOs themselves are a bit whacky (and in some cases redundant).  The american homeland one is a bit silly, as it is never in contention - it should have included alaska IMHO.  And the philippines one is too hard to get; if you have the philippines, japan is clearly on the run.  And that crazy UK one about taking japanese islands!?!  :?

[Lucifer]

@Lynxes:

Since AA50 did many things to avoid the KGF as the single game-winning strat, a bid system going further in that direction is logical.

I don’t think that is true, it seems like the playtesters and designers wanted KGIF to be the most effective strat. Unless you are accusing the playtesters of being totally n00bs…  :-)  b/c that would be the only logical conclusion from your statement.
It’s not different from me playing AA50 with LL, and claiming axis bias, but the game was not playtested with LL, and in AA50 as opposed to Revised, LL or dice makes a difference in side balance. Probably not very much, but it’s notable. Point is, if axis don’t do the right first rnd moves, and/or bad dice, allies will usually win with experienced players on both sides.

Since AA50 seems as balanced as Revised, or better, there’s no reason to believe that the playtesters and designers didn’t know what they did regarding balance and such in AA50. Correct me if I’m wrong…

It also possible to win a KJF, or a balanced strat both in Revised and AA50, but KGIF is definately the most effective strat, other strats are only winnable when the allied player is better than the axis player, or very bad dice for axis rnd1.

We may like it or not, but it seems like AA50 is played out the way it was meant to. It seems like you want another game then AA50, and that is fine, I just think I should mention that (imo) it seems like you want to fix it, when it’s not broken, but you wanted a different game, you make an impression of trying to “finish” the design that you wish AA50 was supposed to be.

[Lynxes]

/Subotai

Read Larry Harris’ introduction to the rulebook: “One important aspect of the game was to adress the ahistorical tendency for the Japanese to attack Russia”. I wouldn’t mind having a bid system that goes in the direction of his intentions. ALL bid system are house rules, you can’t argue around that. I think we should be playing with Larry Harris’ optional rules and then use China inf bids along with them, I’ll argue for that and I’m sure you’ll argue for your view and we’ll see what other people think.

[Lucifer]

Ok, I stand corrected on the JTDTM issue, I didn’t read the rule book  :oops:

Then the playtesters and game designers missed one aspect of the intentions of AA50, but they managed to get the balance as good as Revised, and for me this more important. But I agree that it would be better if the most effective strat was not to have Japan take most of Russia to win the game. As for the KGIF, this is according to history, but the JTDTM is not, so that means AA50 didn’t succeed with the pacific theater balance, but it’s still a better game than Revised.

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

It also possible to win a KJF, or a balanced strat both in Revised and AA50…

Not sure I agree that KJF is doable in AA50.
Perhaps with Tech…

[Lucifer]

@axis_roll:

@Subotai:

It also possible to win a KJF, or a balanced strat both in Revised and AA50…

Not sure I agree that KJF is doable in AA50.
Perhaps with Tech…

Maybe w/o NOs, and no bid? I haven’t tried, I always use the most effective strat to win.

Edit: Assuming the premise for this thread, +NOs, I think maybe KJF is only doable in the same way as sealion is doable in Revised, it happens, but only with an experienced player against someone who don’t know what they’re doing  :-D

[Imperious Leader]

This poll is flawed. It needs a baseline choice of NO Balance needed as a choice. Its already assuming a problem exists so its slanted.

[Lucifer]

For a number of games, axis will win most games if both players are experienced, b/c axis will not be slammed by bad dice more than 50%, as for Egy, it’s about 60% with 1 German tank left.
Now, assuming both players are experienced, axis should not win all games, but that is b/c of bad dice for axis rnd1, and mistakes, which also happens. As for bad dice, I hate it as much as I hate ADS, but ADS is part of the game, even if I prefer LL, the number of axis attacks in the first rnd is part of the equation, a part of AA50, for good and bad. Still better than Revised, even with some new flaws.

The balance of AA50 is not written in stone like Revised, and if allies can’t win, then it’s b/c the allied player is not experienced, but axis are favored pretty sure, even if there is small possibility for this to change.

[Zhukov44]

Coming back to the balance debate…has anyone tried this?  UK gets a bid of one industrial complex, to be placed in India.  Then play game as normal…

Does this IC have any chance of holding (I’m assuming, of course, that the Russians will push at least 3-4 inf on Persia immediately to help out)?  Or will the strain of taking it slow Japan down enough to win the game for the Allies?

[Funcioneta]

Japan can take the IC pretty soon and easy, probably round 3 as much. I think it’s more a advantage for axis than for allies

However, a free IC at saf could work. Another option is simply giving UK improved industry for free

[Zhukov44]

I guess this is one of the problems with giving Japan 7 fighters (sigh).

I wonder, has any strategy besides KGF proven effective in this game?  I mean, against a good Japan player, is there any point in doing stuff in the Pacific?  Frankly, unless Japan makes mistakes, it’s hard for me to see how USA has a chance of competing in this theater.  I suppose if USA goes full-on, then Japan will at least be forced into a naval build-up and won’t be able to threaten Moscow with much besides a token force.  So if Germany/Italy don’t take Russia, then Russia could perhaps keep building enough inf until Moscow is untakable….  The problem is it doesn’t seem like Uk and Russia should be able to hold off Germany/Italy without some help from USA…but maybe with the Egypt/Karelia bid this strategy has some hope.

[Funcioneta]

@Zhukov44:

I wonder, has any strategy besides KGF proven effective in this game?

That’s a very good question. I think KGF is not viable anymore mainly because boosted axis economics and swarm of starting trannies making Polar Express pretty easy. However, many think the opposite. Time will say who has the reason

@Zhukov44:

I mean, against a good Japan player, is there any point in doing stuff in the Pacific?  Frankly, unless Japan makes mistakes, it’s hard for me to see how USA has a chance of competing in this theater.  I suppose if USA goes full-on, then Japan will at least be forced into a naval build-up and won’t be able to threaten Moscow with much besides a token force.

In my FTF group, whe build USA’s Pacific fleet 100% of times (saving the only time I tried KGF in Revised just for sake of triyng, and that was an exception). Even with USA going Pacific 100%, Japan has enough income to send more than a token force. Usually 4-6 land units can be sent against USSR from Tokyo or asian ICs, hardly a token force (it’s more than italians can send)

However, if Japan makes a catastrophic error with fleet and loses badly (or suffers dice hate), there is a chance of USA arriving at time. The chances are so slim that we decided shift to 1942 scenario

@Zhukov44:

So if Germany/Italy don’t take Russia, then Russia could perhaps keep building enough inf until Moscow is untakable….  The problem is it doesn’t seem like Uk and Russia should be able to hold off Germany/Italy without some help from USA…but maybe with the Egypt/Karelia bid this strategy has some hope.

USSR and UK can hold against western axis alone. They have enough income (and building saf IC is pretty handy). The problem is when those 4-6 japanese units arrive at Moscow’s backdoor. Axis has a easy strat in case of KJF: hold Europe with west axis, hold Pacific with Japan and use those 4-6 additional japanese land units to break the balance against USSR

Conclusion: KJF is not a viable strat in AA50, 1941 scenario (opposite to Revised). If Polar Express or even JTDTM prove too powerful, there’s no way for allies for winning the game unless crappy dices or crappy axis play. Again, I don’t think allies can hold even against JTDTM: axis has more income, southern path (India) is not much longer than in previous versions, and you can simply SBR USSR and London (with jap bombers) until the Stone Age if you feel you need extra speed

[DarthMaximus]

I think a KJF is viable, although IMO it is not necessarily a true KJF since it is very hard for Russia to commit much.  Infact it is usually pretty hard for the UK to lend an extensive hand but they can help out.

But I do think the US can go toe to toe with Japan and keep them in check.  It really isn’t that hard to get an early massive US fleet to HI or Sol, the key is what can you do after that.  You’ll often need blocker DDs to help you pick off some islands and the UK trn/DD with 1 inf, 1 rt can also create trouble.

You can actually trade or retake Aus or take Car and reinforce with the US or use the US to block J fleet movements.  The thing about Car is once you take it with the UK (or US) in order for Japan to retake they’ll likely have to move a large portion of their fleet into range of a ton of US subs and US fleet.  The US can still commit 2-4 units to Afr or Europe while spending the reamaining 36-42 ipc on the Pac.

Ideally you can force Japan into having to protect 2 fleets b/c early on they are often so spread out b/c they need to expand so much in rd 1 and 2 and this limits there overall counters in the first few rds to US fleet moves.  So an early large scale investment by the US followed by a rd 2 or 3 move to Sol can cause some problems.  At the very least you can prevent any Japan involvement in Africa and even can retake India via your starting UK units and maybe a spare Russian troop or 2.

You can also get the US earning well into the 50’s pretty easy depending on how you want to play it out, but the US has the potential to take any one of these in the first 2-3 rds: Alg/Lib/Nor/Fin.  Usually it works out to where the UK can take one set and the US can take the other.  And if Russia happens to take both Fin and Nor, then great they’ll be able to aid in Per with the added income.

Regardless of KGF or KJF you want to take Fin/Nor in Rd 1 and 2 so you can immediately focus on getting Russia her big NO.

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

You can actually trade or retake Aus or take Car and reinforce with the US or use the US to block J fleet movements

Retake and hold is OK, but trade is a really bad idea: supply lines are way longer for allies than for Japan (in fact, virtually non existant in case of UK) and if you “trade” with USA (saving phi and 1 IPC jap islands), allies will get no money because Japan will retake them before UK can collect money for them

Some players build Eind IC with Japan. That makes a nightmare trading or taking Pacific Islands and also it’s a great spot to build ships there in case you need defense

[DarthMaximus]

True.  But it really depends on circumstances.  It is really only a 1 time trade b/c you’re right, Aus is far away, but sometimes that one time trade is worth it, if you are potentially playing a delaying game with Japan.

As the Allies it may be worth it to see Japan have to go back to Aus for a second time instead of sending the units to Asia.  It really depends on your overall strategy, but coupled with a US Pac strat you might be able to make an opening for yourself.

Perhaps in Japan’s attempt to retake they need to move part of their fleet to the Coast of Aus, maybe this moves some capital ships or ftrs out of range of your US fleet that can move somewhere in the Northern Pac.  Or Maybe J’s counter of Aus would put their ships in range of US subs/air.

That 's one thing about the Pac, there are so many sea zones it is very hard to plan for every contigency particularly when you really need to look 2-3 turns ahead.  Too much can happen in the mean time that makes long term planning (other than I want to move to Sol by Rd X) very hard.

I’ve seen the EInd IC work both for and against Japan.  Yes you can get ships in the water, and easily get to Aus, but if the US does use a more northernly apporach, you run the risk of having a divided fleet.

I do agree that trading with Japan in the Pac is really hard but what isn’t as hard is amassing a fleet and making an initial move with your UK units (initially from Aus) and then backing them up with 2-4 US units and the US fleet.  Depending on how the US builds their fleet (better Def numbers with lots of ACs and ftrs and a few DDs) it may be to their adv to invite a J attack.  Typically the attacking fleet, if it survives is open to a counter so it comes down to the question of, is Japan willing to lose its BBs/AC/Ftrs/CAs for the US fleet of AC/Ftrs/DDs and its counter.  A good example would be the US fleet at Sol.  Maybe US has some subs/DD/AC/Ftrs at Sol and buys 5-6 subs and has its 2 boms in Wus.  Does Japan really want to attack the US fleet at Sol?  Can it even attack?
If it does can it survive the counter, and who ultimately benefits from the mutual destruction?
If it can’t attack then the Allies have a pretty good position to be really annoying and will probably end up holding Aus for good within a turn or two and may be able to push on Car where more reinfocements from Sz 56 can arrive.