Fortunately, Germany and Italy are relatively weak, so it’s not hopeless for Allies. So….I think the map dynamics favor teaming up on Western Axis and destroying them before Japan destroys the Allies.
The problem with ganging up on Germany/Italy is that Japan is left completely unchecked and gets out of control very quickly. If the Allies dont kill Germany by Round6 the game basically defaults to an axis win because by then half the territories on the board are owned by Japan which is making 70+ IPCs a turn. I really dont like the idea of Japan being an unstoppable force on the mainland that steamrolls everything in its path. I think the whole intent of China was to somewhat impede Japan’s progress on the mainland. Unfortunately China was implemented very poorly and tends to get completely devastated on round1. This is another imbalance created by the turn order as China should also go before Japan.
Khobai, again, what you’re saying makes a lot of sense, and there is a large consensus on these boards that has been saying exactly the same thing you just did.
My playing experience has sometimes been exactly what you described, but sometimes not. Once I played Japan in a multiplayer game in '41. The USA player built 100% in the Pacific for the entire game. Maybe it was because I was surprised, or because I underestimated it, but I got absolutely dismantled after not too many turns. It was a no tech game, also. I am a good player. I am currently about 20-4 in 1v1 games on these forums, playing a wide variety of players. I usually go after Japan 100% with USA (although I usually play the '42 scenario) with great success. There is a lot of money in the Pacific for the Allies, and you don’t have to get to the big money islands to be rewarded, with NO’s. UK and USSR have always been powerful enough for me to handle Germany and Italy. But on more than one occassion, for various reasons, (one was LRA for USA in turn 1, which destroyed all my transports) I have been absolutely dismantled as Japan in the early going on at least 3 different occassions. I know that makes me sound incompetent, but I really don’t think that’s the reason.
So what I’m saying is, keep playing, and don’t think you’ve got it all figured out yet. I have never played with changing up turn orders and I never throw China bones to start with, unless my opponent insists. I have found this game to be balanced - that is - I don’t care if I have Axis or Allies and I don’t do any bids or rule changes that benefits one side more than the other.
Just thought I’d share my experiences.
My 2 cents:
I don’t play on the forums, but I have been playing A&A since the Nova edition against a wide variety of opponents from all over the world. Totally agree with you gamerman01. We don’t even use bids - and closing the straits is for wimps, eh eh eh. The 41 scenario with NO’s is harder for the allies, true, but still very viable as per the setup straight from the rulebook. Admittedly, we have played some games using modified NA’s which boost China (Conscription! China goes first), and it levels it out nicely from the start, it makes the game a little longer but it is not a necessity (though it does provide a little more ‘historical accuracy’ - if one can apply the word to A&A, and it makes it more interesting). I like that you put your money where your mouth is gamerman, nothing better than an old-fashioned throw-down to prove a point.
OK, no one disagrees that it’s crazy the Japan starts with 9 fighter planes, 3 carriers, and a battleship and a cruiser. But you shouldn’t say “can’t” loosely, when every battle is decided by a dice roll. I have lost 4 out of 5 planes as Japan to AA fire when trying to take India. Australia also has an AA gun. In the first round, when annihilating fleets and such, fighters are often lost. I don’t take a person seriously who says something “can’t be done” in Axis and Allies, where every battle is decided by dice. I have attacked 3 tanks with 13 tanks before, where I didn’t get a single hit in round 1, and the defender hit all 3 tanks in round 1. With dice, my friend, all things are possible. So be careful with that word “can’t”.
Luck isnt really a quantifiable advantage. Luck is unbiased though and Japan has just as much of a chance of getting good dice rolls as USA does. However when it comes to quantifiable advantages Japan has a MAJOR advantage over the USA in Pacific when it comes to starting forces, economy, and fleet reinforcements. This is not mere conjecture but rather plain fact. If allies have to rely on “getting lucky” to beat Japan in Pacific then something is very wrong with the way the game is balanced.
In any event, my criticism of the game is more related to China and UK than the USA. I do not believe China succeeds at all in its intended goal of slowing Japan down (it fails quite miserably in fact). I also dont think UK is able to exert enough force in the pacific to adequately help USA contain Japan. It almost seems like the game was designed with UK building an India factory in mind yet the amount of force Japan was able to exert on India starting round2 was somehow completely overlooked during playtesting.
Luck isnt really a quantifiable advantage. Luck is unbiased though and Japan has just as much of a chance of getting good dice rolls as USA does. However when it comes to quantifiable advantages Japan has a MAJOR advantage over the USA in Pacific when it comes to starting forces, economy, and fleet reinforcements. This is not mere conjecture but rather plain fact. If USA has to rely on “getting lucky” to beat Japan in Pacific then something is very wrong with the way the game is balanced.
Well said, Khobai.
I knew that was coming.
I totally agree.
I was only making the annoying little point that you shouldn’t say “can’t” (or any other absolute) when a lot of dice are being rolled.
Back to topic - when USA builds 100% in Pacific, it’s not to go toe to toe with the IJN. It’s about finding cracks and crevices, and taking NO islands. Possibly even trading them. It’s far more effective than it sounds on paper.
I was just trying to give my input from my experiences, that the Axis aren’t necessarily as dominant and overpowering as they first appear.
Play a variety of opponents. Then see if your opinions on Axis vs. Allies chances have changed any. I’m not trying to tell you what to think. I’m just giving you a different perspective to think about, and pointing out that maybe you haven’t exhausted all possibilities.
I like your posts. I thought the same things, especially in my first 10 plays or so.
Personally, I find it distasteful that Japan is usually the most powerful nation in '41 and '42. It has everything to do with geography and starting pieces, and not to mention the money islands being worth 4 now. (By the way, I think they were adjusted up to 4 in Revised, which was a good change, but in AA50 with NO’s and more territories and everything, they should have been bumped down again - at least to 3) I also am tempted to nerf Jap tanks, because in Revised when they could get to Russia so fast and attack at 3 and defend at 3 and only cost 5…. I mean, have you ever seen a Jap tank that could stand up to a Tiger, Panther, T-34, Sherman, etc? NO! Interestingly, in AAP40, tanks cost 6! But I digress. The extra territories in China and Russia have helped immensely to reduce the nonsense of Japan knocking on Moscows door from 2-3 different directions by turn 3.
Have to agree w/ Gamer on this one. I’ve played about 20 game on this forum and have only lost once as allies due to a bonehead russia move on my part, not because of any Godzilla. I’ve seen more axis defeats because while Japan expands they rarely can save Germany in time so I’m not sold on a KJF. While there is more skill needed to play 41 allies effectively I do not suscribe to a bid theory in either scenario.
The US can go after Japan in the Pac, I’m not sure if it is better than a KGF or a game where you split resources but it can work.
Back to topic - when USA builds 100% in Pacific, it’s not to go toe to toe with the IJN. It’s about finding cracks and crevices, and taking NO islands. Possibly even trading them. It’s far more effective than it sounds on paper.
This is correct.
The US doesn’t have to engage the Japanese fleet, just sort of out manuever it. It depends on how you build your US fleet and what did J buy to counter. It isn’t that hard to get a US fleet to the Sol, which from here can threaten a lot of places. There is potentially a lot of dancing around you must do to either get in attacking range or get away from attacking range, but if J is buying DDs and Subs that means less for troops to Afr or Mos. And gamerman is right, somtimes even trading a low value island is worth it b/c Japan typically can’t ignore it, b/c the samll value islands are really close to the high value islands or stategic islands and to counter Japan needs enough to sink any little fleet you sent in, plus it must pull off the Amphib assualt. It can get real annoying at times.
People I find, also lack the understanding on how to make gains in Europe.
They double attack France with UK/US, which is ok I guess, but rather, they could double defend NWE. Forcing Germany to attack your 16+ Defedning units in NWE is far superior then spreading them out and trying to attack the Germans.
Worse, if they don’t take it they LOSE the 7 NO, and are BADLY exposed to a FRA/GER Counter.
Allied players these days are too busy building Aircraft and destroyers it seems, then men and transports that win the game.
People I find, also lack the understanding on how to make gains in Europe.
They double attack France with UK/US, which is ok I guess, but rather, they could double defend NWE. Forcing Germany to attack your 16+ Defedning units in NWE is far superior then spreading them out and trying to attack the Germans.
Worse, if they don’t take it they LOSE the 7 NO, and are BADLY exposed to a FRA/GER Counter.
Allied players these days are too busy building Aircraft and destroyers it seems, then men and transports that win the game.
The addition of NWE greatly changes the game, and for the better. I admit that I still don’t think I know the best way to deal with NWE as the Allies.
I really like the addition of NWE, because Axis can’t get fighters from France to Karelia and back in one movement, Allies can’t attack France from SZ5, and Germans have to have it for the NO.
What can I say, I love AA50. It could be even better, but what a huge improvement on Revised.
I prefer unopposed landings as well as they do provide a good springboard for a main assault if allowed to survive. Besides it is better to have the inf defend on 2 than attack on 1. Multinational occupation of Nwe is good for subsequent can openers. Besides, it is costly to build a fleet of cruisers or BBs for bombardment. That fleet serves little use if Germany falls because it almost never gets to be used against Japan.
no NO’s and VC’s
like it was ment ;)
@Frontovik:
no NO’s and VC’s
like it was ment ;)
Wham! Hardcore. I like the NO’s - but some of my crew have a similar outlook, it’s good stuff as well.
I have no problem with Axis getting stuff to balance the game out. The problem is that the other Allies (UK and Russia) have no effective means of aiding the USA to combat Japan in the Pacific.
Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific. Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways
In the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)
What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territory
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territory
There are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
I also doubt there are any TripleA players who don’t use bids, in NO games. $6-$9 is most common.
@Subotai:
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territoryThere are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
I also doubt there are any TripleA players who don’t use bids, in NO games. $6-$9 is most common.
does the bid have to be placed or lost?
For example, if I bid 4, can I place an inf and give $1 to Russia?
For example, if I bid 4, can I place an inf and give $1 to Russia?
Yes, this is how it is usually done in the TripleA lobby.
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
:lol: Great post, packrat. I like it. Sub in SZ35 is very intriguing. We’re talking '42, right?
+1 to you! :lol: :lol:
I haven’t played as many 42 games as 41, but I guess the bid level to balance the game is about the same.
And in the TripleA lobby it is common to use LL, although, many players also use regular dice. This doesn’t seem to influence the bid level.
Personally, when playing 42 as allies, it is a nightmare to decide the R1 attacks in regular dice setting. I would rather play axis with a higher allied bid just for the difficult decisions regarding the opening rnd for Russia.
For both 41 and 42 scenarios with experienced players, unless axis got very unlucky dice rolls rnd1, a bid is needed or axis will win almost all games.
Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific. Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways
- can pump some inf, etc to china quickly
- can establish flexible zones of control with air
- can stack the Cauc/ Per easy with inf. more importantly, tanks stacked in the Cau create a presence without actually commiting to Japan.
The UK
-can unite her fleet with the US at SZ 12 and send all that gear towards Persia/India
-Send fighters to a US carrier and use them in conjunction with the aussie tranny
-Send the bomber to Asia to bomb IC’s/ harrass Jap shipping/use in conjunction with Aussie fleetIn the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little
The problem is that allies cant direct all their energy towards stopping Japan’s outrageous expansion of the mainland. UK and Russia dont have enough options for fighting a second front against Japan. Yes they have some very limited options but not enough to stop Japan from turning into Godzilla.
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
UK sub in 35 is something Ive seen a few times on TripleA. It slows down japan a little since it stops them from taking east indies first turn (which also means japs dont get that NO). However without the bid in Egypt you can almost certainly expect Germany to pulverize Egypt and Japan move into the mediterranean by Round3. Axis control of the suez with an east indies factory is a very tough situation for allies to beat. I dont think id do the sub bid unless you can also put 1 infantry in Egypt (for a total bid of 9). Bid9 is a pretty big bid but I feel allies are at enough of a disadvantage that they need at least a Bid of 8-9 to balance the game.
There are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
There are official bid rules for ladder matches. Its one unit per TT and you can only place units in a TT that has existing units belonging to your country.
