@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
How to achieve balance part 2-> bids
-
Then you want to change the game itself, not the side balance.
AA50 is the way it is designed. AA50 is supposed to have Europe balanced and Asia unbalanced, if that is your perception of AA50. What you’re really saying is that you don’t like the game, or only a part of it.
Also, AA50 is designed so that w/o NOs KGF is more efficent than KJF. If you don’t like it this way, you want another game, or an AA50 mode, like China mod. Then play the China mod if you don’t like AA50.
Subotai, I think you are in the wrong here. NOs were added in order to give Axis more of fighting chance (and of course the bidding for Axis in Revised contributed to this decision), and give the Pacific more of a role in the game. And it has succeeded, but not as good as it could have. Going for China inf bids is MORE in the line of how AA50 is designed, not less. Unlimited unit bids will be EGY inf bids and KAR art bids and Germany will be weaker -> back to AAR strategies. Do you want to turn AA50 into AAR? :?
-
@ Lynxes, I don’t think the AA50 play testers are noobs, not all of them.
And it will hurt allies to lose all Pacific NOs, even if KGIF is still stronger than KJF, also when using NOs.
I’m not assuming that the design team did wrong until I hear otherwise.
And AA50 is already kind of “advanced revised”.
-
It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games. Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3. This gives the UK an extra NO. Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet? A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.
What if Russia stacks Bury heavy? They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus? And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.
I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan. Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.
It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia. There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….
< Cue Functioneta >
But the vaste majority of Asia is 1 ipc Ter. Russia with Fin/Nor compensates for Bury, Sfe, Stc, Yak, Eve and puts Russia in position to get its 2nd NO as early as Rd 3 (via Bul, I think Bul counts). UK can invade Car Is with US back-up as early as rd 2.
I’m not saying it would be easy, but I’m not convinced it can’t be done. It is hard enough to work out the new logistics in the Atlantic with Ger going first and Italy being around, so the Pac will take an equal adjustment. And while Japan going before the UK changes some things it also give the Allies a nice 1-2 on Japan with UK going first and US reinforcing.
I’m contemplating bringing the Sz 9 DD/trn over to the Pac so I could have 2 trns, 2 dds and 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm but that would depend on how successful G was on G1. Still with 43 ipc, UK can still buy 1 ac, 1 trn, 2 dd with 7 more or 3 ca, 1 trn for the Atlantic.
They should only need 1 trn for Rd 2.On the US side of things they can almost immediately match the J fleet if they spend all 40 on the Pac in Rd 1. And there are a variety of possible buys from 2 BB to 2 ac, 1 ftr to 1 BB, 1 AC, 1 sub to 2 CAs, 1 dd, 1 trn to, 1 ac + dd/subs, etc.
Even a US fleet at HI can threaten several key islands and the US can easily do that by US 2. It may be a hollow threat but Japan must be aware of it and it could mean no attack on Aus or weakened assualt on Ind b/c otherwise Japan risks having some of its fleet waaaay out of position.
-
It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games. Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3. This gives the UK an extra NO. Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet? A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.
What if Russia stacks Bury heavy? They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus? And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.
I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan. Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.
It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia. There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….
< Cue Functioneta >
But the vaste majority of Asia is 1 ipc Ter. Russia with Fin/Nor compensates for Bury, Sfe, Stc, Yak, Eve and puts Russia in position to get its 2nd NO as early as Rd 3 (via Bul, I think Bul counts). UK can invade Car Is with US back-up as early as rd 2.
I’m contemplating bringing the Sz 9 DD/trn over to the Pac so I could have 2 trns, 2 dds and 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm but that would depend on how successful G was on G1. Still with 43 ipc, UK can still buy 1 ac, 1 trn, 2 dd with 7 more or 3 ca, 1 trn for the Atlantic.
They should only need 1 trn for Rd 2.So russia is going to stack buryatia AND get their second NO against Germany by round 3? Perhaps with help of an an even weakened UK navy that is sending DD’s to the pacific….
I’m not saying it would be easy, but I’m not convinced it can’t be done. It is hard enough to work out the new logistics in the Atlantic with Ger going first and Italy being around, so the Pac will take an equal adjustment. And while Japan going before the UK changes some things it also give the Allies a nice 1-2 on Japan with UK going first and US reinforcing.
On the US side of things they can almost immediately match the J fleet if they spend all 40 on the Pac in Rd 1. And there are a variety of possible buys from 2 BB to 2 ac, 1 ftr to 1 BB, 1 AC, 1 sub to 2 CAs, 1 dd, 1 trn to, 1 ac + dd/subs, etc.
Even a US fleet at HI can threaten several key islands and the US can easily do that by US 2. It may be a hollow threat but Japan must be aware of it and it could mean no attack on Aus or weakened assualt on Ind b/c otherwise Japan risks having some of its fleet waaaay out of position.
To what end does threatening a few islands really mean?
The US fleet could never venture close enough to Japan as early as US2.How long can US sacrifice transports for small island gains?
It will be many rounds of USA full income pacific spending before USA can go on the offensive against the IJN.
And what happens to the European theatre while US concentrates all their money in the Pacific? Germany and Italy will go largely unchecked.
Note that Tech is not in this discussion… a strong weapon is really the only way USA can break the stalemate between the US navy and the IJN
-
In my opinion the largest reason the pacific theater is so messed up is because of the atlantic theater being flawed. Without US aid G/I become to large to ignore and you yield economic advantage to the axis. Not to mention you go where the money is, and it is in Europe.
While Africa isn’t worth much to the allies, thats 10+ IPC to deny to the axis. Finland/Norway are easy to take in a KGF so there is another 5. There is also the beautiful 10 IPC Russian NO that is very possible to get by turn 3-5, as well as france, worth a whopping 16 to the allies just in trading! France is the single, most valuable territory to hold in this game. On top of this it is possible to deny germany it’s NOs when using a KGF approach, they should only get 3 nos maybe one turn, and should be down to 1 or none around turn 5. You cannot do that to Japan.
What can you get economically in the pacific in early game for allies, 1 UK NO? Maybe an island? And your going to prevent japan from all 3 of her NOs how exactly?
-
I got a word from the AA50 main game designer, hope thats worth something……
“I guess I would opt for the money bid… get the money and purchase what you think you need to balance the game.”
-
Japan makes 65 IPCs every turn at turn 3, America makes 48 IPCs every turn at turn 3. Nuff said.
-
In my opinion the largest reason the pacific theater is so messed up is because of the atlantic theater being flawed. Without US aid G/I become to large to ignore and you yield economic advantage to the axis. Not to mention you go where the money is, and it is in Europe.
While Africa isn’t worth much to the allies, thats 10+ IPC to deny to the axis. Finland/Norway are easy to take in a KGF so there is another 5. There is also the beautiful 10 IPC Russian NO that is very possible to get by turn 3-5, as well as france, worth a whopping 16 to the allies just in trading! France is the single, most valuable territory to hold in this game. On top of this it is possible to deny germany it’s NOs when using a KGF approach, they should only get 3 nos maybe one turn, and should be down to 1 or none around turn 5. You cannot do that to Japan.
What can you get economically in the pacific in early game for allies, 1 UK NO? Maybe an island? And your going to prevent japan from all 3 of her NOs how exactly?
Good points and
Well said. -
Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.
That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!
-
Japan makes 65 IPCs every turn at turn 3, America makes 48 IPCs every turn at turn 3. Nuff said.
That’s true in case of building Pacific navy as USA. Without it, and Japan going Polar Express, Japan can reach 70 and USA will be reduced to 40 (1 USA NO, Alaska, Hawaii and Wcan). Japan could split her income: 40 IPCs against USA and the other 30 against UK and soviets. I doubt euroallies can hold much alone against euroaxis + 30 japanese IPCs
-
Quick side point: why on earth does Japan make 60-65 / turn. It’s 50% more than the US. It’s absurd.
I realise that the game’s an abstraction, but I have trouble suspending disbelief on this one…
-
Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.
That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!
I largely agree with this. I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings. Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly. Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific). You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.
But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…
-
So russia is going to stack buryatia AND get their second NO against Germany by round 3? Perhaps with help of an an even weakened UK navy that is sending DD’s to the pacific….
I’m not necessarily saying you can do this all at once, but I was just throwing out options. I haven’t played that many games of AA50, but I can see myself trying a Bury stack in one game, or a UK move to Pac in another, etc. Unless other have tried them and the game is posted where I can read the moves it didn’t work.
As for the 2nd Russian NO, that can be independent of the other moves. I mean Russia always has the option to attack Fin in Rd 1, pending Ger moves Nor can then be taken by Rus or UK in Rd 2, meanwhile you probably have a decent stack of Inf 7-9, mabye 1 arm in Cauc at the end of R1, that can easily be moved to Ukr on R2 (since Ger tends to focus on Kar early and is lacking in Inf to start), and that makes Bul tradeable for your 2nd NO. A Bury stack is somewaht irrelevant since theose Inf can’t get to Mos for like 4-5 rds.
To what end does threatening a few islands really mean?
The US fleet could never venture close enough to Japan as early as US2.How long can US sacrifice transports for small island gains?
It will be many rounds of USA full income pacific spending before USA can go on the offensive against the IJN.
And what happens to the European theatre while US concentrates all their money in the Pacific? Germany and Italy will go largely unchecked.
It really depends on the overall Allied strat. I wouldn’t claim there is some automatic way where if you do this then you automatcally will win.
But the US does start with 4 ftrs, 2 bom, 1 ac, 1 dd, and Japan will typically buy an IC (or perhaps another trn) rarely have I seen Japan immediate go offensive navy on J1. So if the US buys something like 1 AC, 1 dd, 3 subs you immediately have 3 subs, 2 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs in Sz 56. Can this sink the J fleet? No. But will Japan make an effort to try and sink your fleet? I don’t know.
IMO one of the key things about navies is you don’t have to sink them, and trying to sink them can be a huge pain. BUT you can manuever them and use blocker ships etc. If you can force the IJN back to its home island sz early enough it is equivalent to sinking it. From there the burden is on them to sink your fleet since you can now claim all the islands at your leisure. Also depending on timing you can afford to lose Mos to Ger if it means you’ll eventually get Japan.
I do agree though, that it is slightly worse off for the US b/c they cannot gain credit for Bor or EI. In AA50 you essentially have to gun for Phil, which is fine and doable but it would be a bit better to be able to go from Sol to EI, to Bor, then to Phil.
I’m still more of a KGF player since Germany is main threat in AA50 but I also like to try new stuff from time to time. Eventually I’ll get around to testing more things in the Pac.
-
on paper, it sounds very doable for USA
In reality, it is much harder. The ROI is very low for USA.
The only thing (as you pointed out) is keeping Japan tied up… but how much that slow them up, really? It is proportionally a lot less that how much that same US investment in Europe/Africa slows down the axis.
Japan can just ignore the US fleet and continue to push hard on Russia since they have 3 loaded carriers already, adding a few support ships when US comes closer.
Or with 3 carriers and already 7-9 ftrs, a small investment in a few more ftrs can allow 12 ftrs to rain down on the US fleet if they are silly enough to venture close enough.
There’s really no big prize for US (again, as you pointed out) that is not within 2 SZs of Japan.
-
I largely agree with this. I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings. Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly. Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific). You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.
But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…
The actual involvement you want to have with the US in Europe depends on how you play UK. If you buy a Saf IC, for example, you might need to use US bombers+1CV+2DDs or something like that to sink Italy navy while UK navy is tied up around Karelia. Or if you don’t build a Saf IC, early invasions into Algeria with tanks + sinking of Italian navy is paramount. What you describe sounds like a too weak US Europe involvement, unless Germany got really unlucky on G1.
But back to the main question: what kind of bid? How would China inf bids change the game? Guessing, without having tried it, I would think the other Allies would be tempted to play more offensively vs. Japan, esp. Russia on the mainland and USA off West coast, so that Japan won’t just be able to build up for the kill vs. China at leisure. UK has a hard time reaching Japan, probably having to go the long way through Africa. Or maybe an India IC would be worth the commitment? Maybe we’re reaching the point where we need to test it out… Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
-
on paper, it sounds very doable for USA
In reality, it is much harder. The ROI is very low for USA.
The only thing (as you pointed out) is keeping Japan tied up… but how much that slow them up, really? It is proportionally a lot less that how much that same US investment in Europe/Africa slows down the axis.
Japan can just ignore the US fleet and continue to push hard on Russia since they have 3 loaded carriers already, adding a few support ships when US comes closer.
Or with 3 carriers and already 7-9 ftrs, a small investment in a few more ftrs can allow 12 ftrs to rain down on the US fleet if they are silly enough to venture close enough.
There’s really no big prize for US (again, as you pointed out) that is not within 2 SZs of Japan.
I agree which is why I play more KGF. Worst Case US can shuck from Ecan to Mos in 3 turns if Japan is a threat. Plus I think you can cripple Germany long before Japan is ever a threat, but I still don’t mind looking for some type of Allied Pacific threat.
But back to the main question: what kind of bid? How would China inf bids change the game? Guessing, without having tried it, I would think the other Allies would be tempted to play more offensively vs. Japan, esp. Russia on the mainland and USA off West coast, so that Japan won’t just be able to build up for the kill vs. China at leisure. UK has a hard time reaching Japan, probably having to go the long way through Africa. Or maybe an India IC would be worth the commitment? Maybe we’re reaching the point where we need to test it out… Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
I don’t think it would have much of an effect or achieve the desired result. Germany is still the early game threat. Perhaps this helps in the mid game (slightly delaying Japan) but if Ger is Kar in rd 2 or 3 or they can threaten the Ita/Ger can opener in rd 3 or 4, I don’t think the Allies are going to be as concerned about as Asia as they are about trying to slow down Germany. If anything I think this helps with a KGF.
-
Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
I’m willing to do. Sadly, we have to wait until mid June, after my exams end. I only can play one game at the same time until that date, and I have one now against JWW
-
I don’t think it would have much of an effect or achieve the desired result. Germany is still the early game threat. Perhaps this helps in the mid game (slightly delaying Japan) but if Ger is Kar in rd 2 or 3 or they can threaten the Ita/Ger can opener in rd 3 or 4, I don’t think the Allies are going to be as concerned about as Asia as they are about trying to slow down Germany. If anything I think this helps with a KGF.
It cannot help a KGF. Even for that strat, it’s better having a stronger China than 1 inf at end of China 1
However, if you are saying that a stronger China could make some people get even more decided to do KGF, I must I agree. I would not do, but it’s obvious that there are many people that will make KGF, no matter what setup/rules we have in Asia, and many can think that the added time will aid KGF more than KJF or balanced strats. That in the first games of course. Time will force the people to shift to Pacific strats or keep the old ignore Japan thinking :-)
Anyway, a unlimited bid will enforce KGF without doubt, because many will bid to Egypt or Soviet Union. I think that zones are well balanced and it would be a pity if we “balance” the non-broken zones and keep the setup were the problem is -> Asia
Another idea is limited bid to China and India. I wonder if it would be possible a India IC with that type of bid …
-
However, if you are saying that a stronger China could make some people get even more decided to do KGF, I must I agree.
Yes, this. The theory behind KGF is simply to cripple Germany before Japan can hold Novo/Kaz or Cauc in large numbers. In AA50, it takes Japan like 6-8 turns to get a significant army to Moscow (usually via Ind-Per). So IF you do play KGF you are gambling that you can cripple Germany in 6 rds, at which point you turn all three Allies against Japan (if Berlin is too hard to immediately crack). Now placing a few more inf in China now tells a player, hey the Allies now have an extra turn or two before Japan can get to Mos. Do I build ships with the US and try and tackle the J navy (a difficult proposition), or do I use the China inf as an extra road block and try and really shut down Ger with the extra time? I think more people will choose going after Germany.
I think if the goal is to have more fighting in Asia or the Pac then you need game modifications (ie China mod, reallocation of Pac IPCs, house rules) not bids. There has to be some benefit for spending all those IPCs in the Pac. There just isn’t much Allied benefit. Much of Asia is China or Russia (US or UK can’t gain IPCs) and the US can’t place an IC anywhere other than maybe Phil. Your asking the Allies to make a major commitment to theatre where there is little financial gain.
Perhaps if you consider China as some type of territory where once it is conquered by Japan that if it gets liberated the liberating power gets credit for the IPC then maybe you can do something, but as it is the only benefit to keeping China is to prevent the IPC from going to Japan but all that encourages is a player to play just enough defense.
-
You are making a valid point, DM: a bid will enforce KGF (if you are a KGF supporter, the most of gaming community), and it doesn’t matter if we limite or not the bid to China. All assuming that Japan choose JTDTM
So, the important question here is if Polar Express is enough powerfull this time to prevent KGF strats. Obviously, if Japan can make a invassion enough strong to hold all or almost all USA’s income in defense of mainland America while sending some forces to Africa, then euroallies will have no chance of surviving
I guess that if Polar Express is tried many times and starts to win most of them, only then people will shift to balanced/KJF strats. I think it worst the try, at least Alaska is nearer from Tokyo than Moscow. The same is valid maybe for JTDTM, I guess that if JTDTM shows as too easy, people will try KJF
Suggested Topics
