Amen Brother… Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.
Game imbalance - Look at the Unit IPC totals
-
@Subotai:
I guess most or all the playtesting for AA50 was done in multiplayer games, in 1vs1 the tactics and strategy is much more effective. It’s not impossible to win as allies in AA50 w/o a bid, but there are only two ways, either axis have very bad luck rnd 1, or the axis player is not even semi decent.
But due to the number of attacks on G1 and J1 you can’t call it bad luck when one attack fails.
If G has 8 attacks all at 95% to win that still means they only win all of them 67% of the time, and say J has 10 attacks at 95% that means they only win all of them 60% of the time. Now taking Ger and Japan’s fake turns here and 18 fake attacks each with 95% individual chance to win, then you are looking at winning all of them only 40% of the time. It is actually far more lucky to expect the Axis turns to go as planned. B/c Japan lost at Pearl or Ger gets slaughtered in Egy is not luck, its falling right in the middle of expected results. When you have 15 attacks some are going to fail and that is not luck. The key for the Allied player is to learn how to exploit the various weakeness that occur when say Pearl goes bad or Ger fails in Sz 2 or Egy. That takes time and games. Now there is no doubt, that if Ger and Japan win all their battles then yes, they have a big advantage. Afterall they just killed a bunch of allied hardware and lost few of their own in the process, but again that only happens in less than 40% of the games. -
Subotai, I doubt AA50 overall had much or any playtesting, multi or 1 to 1 (I don’t want repeat me with Asia and such). The only area where some playtesting was done was Europe (and a good testing at least at land). Anyway, testers duty is doing a proper playtesting both for multi and one to one, specially in a special edition. If WOTC doesn’t give them enough time for playtesting then is WOTC fault and not testers fault
DM, you have good points again. In particular when you say at least some income must be spent in Pacific to ensure Japan doesn’t abuse. Is possible the solution for this puzzle is a real KGF and not just a ignore Japan strat as almost everyone did in Revised. Also good measuring on axis round 1 chances. I’m esceptic still anyway
A thing maybe we are forgetting is: yes, allied gameplay improves with the time, but axis gameplay also improves. I’ve learned a couple of nasty tricks lately because I suffered them … in particular one of them is really hidden (1942 scenario). Maybe there is some room to explore for allies, but axis players discover a new trick here or there sometimes
-
Func is right.
We are the playtesters 8-)
It is so fun to play various A&A fans from all over the world, on this site. Every person plays a bit differently, and sometimes a new strat kicks my butt. :-P
As soon as you start getting set in your ways - that is, if you keep using the same strat - you will get whipped by somebody.
The in-game and between game adapting is a big part of the appeal. And about the time you get comfortable with a version of A&A, they come out with another one. 8-)
Ah, and tech helps make every game different, as well. A matter of taste, whether one likes tech or not. I play both ways, because both ways have their own appeal.
Just happy to be an A&A player 8-) :-D
Oh, and on the topic - I think game is balanced 50/50 with no bid or rule changes when players get 20-35 games under their belt, which is where I’m at. I am totally indifferent to which side I take. Both sides are fun, and both have a roughly equal chance to win, I think.
Axis dominates when you have played 10 games or less, I think. Like Darth said, the new transport rules take some SERIOUS getting used to. I used to lose my whole fleet with the Allies in the early games, way too often.
After several games of breaking yourself of Revised habits, you realize the Allies have time to sit back and build up, and then crush. No need to panic, no need to get excited.
DM, I don’t see much of this hard going after Russia that you describe. Axis often win by economic means, by holding 6-8 of their 8 NO’s for several turns. That wins games for the Axis. Rushing to Moscow is a deathtrap.
DM, you are so right about the European Axis fleets being critical. Axis should not just lie down and let them be destroyed. A destroyer or two protects the Italian fleet against air strikes. A carrier G1 is standard operating procedure for me. Germany cannot afford to concede Scandinavia. It’s cheesy how Russia gets 10 IPC’s even if she doesn’t hold any of those territories herself, but dem’s da rules. Plus, with Scandinavian territories being worth 5, I contest them and/or hold them with G as long as possible. Russian NO of 10 = death.
-
DM, I don’t see much of this hard going after Russia that you describe. Axis often win by economic means, by holding 6-8 of their 8 NO’s for several turns. That wins games for the Axis. Rushing to Moscow is a deathtrap.
Yeah, I don’t mean a tank dash or anything, but 2 of Germany’s NO’s directly relate to the Russian front. Take the 3 boarder spots for one and then Kar or Cauc for the other. Exception would be an Italian can opener for a direct shot on Mos. Germany/Ita don’t have to rush, but they do put presure on the Russians from the very start.
And yes again on if the Axis can get the economic lead for a long time they can simply prolong the game, but that is usually b/c the Allied player can see the inevitable fall of Moscow. Typically London and Washington are safe from immediate threat.It’s cheesy how Russia gets 10 IPC’s even if she doesn’t hold any of those territories herself, but dem’s da rules. Plus, with Scandinavian territories being worth 5, I contest them and/or hold them with G as long as possible. Russian NO of 10 = death.
The chessiness of the NO’s can go both ways though, since Ger/Ita can help each other in gaining theirs.
I will say, I haven’t played too many games with Germany adding to the Baltic fleet. I could see how it would present problems for the Allies, but I’d worry it might relieve some pressure on Russia. Then again if you hold Nor and Fin maybe it pays for itself after a few turns. I think I’d be afraid of a UK sub buy, meaning I’d probably have to now buy a DD for my Ger fleet too or see a bunch of subs attack with planes for support.
-
I will say, I haven’t played too many games with Germany adding to the Baltic fleet. I could see how it would present problems for the Allies, but I’d worry it might relieve some pressure on Russia. Then again if you hold Nor and Fin maybe it pays for itself after a few turns. I think I’d be afraid of a UK sub buy, meaning I’d probably have to now buy a DD for my Ger fleet too or see a bunch of subs attack with planes for support.
Right now, UK3 I have 4 SS, 3 DD, CA, 2 CV, 4 FTR in SZ7 off of France. And yes, that’s a GERMAN fleet. Building fleet with G is not for the faint of heart. The distance between Berlin and Moscow in territories works both ways, you know. This move may backfire, but I don’t think it will. The US has all 3 bombers in Australia. While the US is away, Hitler will play :-D
USSR has a big army, but so does G at this point. USSR army is not more than 1 TT from complexes. And Nwy and Fin are very Gray. :-)G carriers commit 14 to the sea, but the 2 fighters, of course, can always abandon ship if necessary.
I think a Baltic sea build is a valid G strategy. Just ask Func. -
:-o
-
I play alot of ll/nt games, so perhaps my concrete experience is vastly different. From what I can tell from play and observation on the TripleA live server, the more experienced the players are, the greater the Axis advantage. With the benefit of experience, its easier to manipulate NOs and favorable map dynamics to your favor and win without major risks. On TripleA, it looks like the average bid is ticking up from 6 two months ago to around 8 now. Myself and others don’t believe its a fair match at 8–it’s fun to be Allies and play the challenging role so people end up with Allies at less then they are worth.
To detractors of KGF in 41, the true test is not whether KGF can be stopped, but whether some other strategy works better. Like other Allied strategies, KGF will usually fail as long as the bids are inadequate. Rather than diss KGF, present evidence that something else works better. Otherwise the gripe may be with the map design.
The perception KGF is boring or un-fun may be unduly based on how KGF played in past versions. 41 KGF plays out way differently than Revised KGF. It’s a fast dynamic historical gaming experience…8 rounds of tense action. In the planning, precision, and team-work required to pull it off, 41 KGF more closely resembles Revised KJF than Revised KGF.
-
The problem is that Japan is overpowered. Japan starts with too many units, Japan has no major opposition in Asia or the Pacific (even if USA goes 100% Pacific its no real threat to an experienced Japan player), and Japan doesnt cap out on income until the mid 70s while everyone else caps out in the 50s.
To balance the game, Allies need a stronger presence in China, India, and the Pacific. China should have its fighter moved and gain 4 extra Infantry. UK should get a starting factory in India as well as 1 infantry on both Borneo and East Indies. And the US should start with a fighter and a submarine at Phillipines as well as the southern pacific carrier being moved up to protect west coast fleet. If Japan wants those islands or India it should have to FIGHT for them they shouldnt simply get them automatically by round2.
-
I pretty much agree with you, Khobai. All those mods might make it too easy for the Allies, though.
Of course, you can always play with those modifications if you find someone to agree to them.
I don’t play 1941 anymore. It’s the fantasy scenario. Of course I played it because it was new and different, but not anymore. I’d rather play AA42 Spring 1942 the $30 game than the AA50 '41 scenario.
9 fighters and 3 carriers? Give me a break. I know this scenario is before Midway, but jeez. USA needs a Midway in the 1941 scenario, that’s for sure.
-
Funny I find AA50-42 MUCH easier for the Axis, way much easier.
At the moment after playing AA50-41 for slightly over a year I think AA50-41 is balanced. I also think it takes quite some time for the Allies to work up workable strategies. I know for me it did. I still use an Axis strat that I came up with about this time last year. My best Allied strategy came together for me around November.
I agree with DM that playing with real dice and not LL is a huge balancing feature. The Axis “has” to make many attacks on round one and statistically something should go wrong for them. Also depending where and how that something goes wrong the Axis can have lost the game on the first round, it will not immediately be apparent but the damage will have been done. I still think too many people are trying to play the Allies in AA50-41 as they would in Revised, and that will not work.
Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.
-
Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.
Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Its purely a concern regarding game balance. Axis is favored to win most games because Japan is overpowered. Japan shouldnt be able to wipe out China completely on round1. Japan shouldnt be able to attack India with 10+ ground units and 6 fighters on round2. Japan shouldnt get all three of its NOs every single turn without even having to work for them. Thats just poor game balance straight up.
And if were looking at the game historically, then yes Japan should start out with a larger navy and airforce, however it should NOT be outproducing the USA on ANY turn of the game. Japan should eventually succumb to the USA’s economic might if the Axis doesnt knock Russia out of the picture by a certain turn. Afterall, Russia’s swift defeat to Germany was assumed when Japan entered the war in 1941. An undefeated Russia is what turned the tides.
I feel that Allies should set the pacing of the game rather than the Axis. The burden should be on Axis to win by a certain turn and not Allies. Japan shouldnt be the force that draws the game towards its conclusion but rather the USA should be. That would much more closely resemble the true dynamic of WW2 where USA was Godzilla and not Japan.
-
Agree in general with Khobai
At the moment after playing AA50-41 for slightly over a year I think AA50-41 is balanced. I also think it takes quite some time for the Allies to work up workable strategies. I know for me it did. I still use an Axis strat that I came up with about this time last year. My best Allied strategy came together for me around November
If you have a working, solid strat for allies, 1941, please make an article. I’m not being ironic, we really need something that works
I still think too many people are trying to play the Allies in AA50-41 as they would in Revised, and that will not work.
No, I don’t agree with this. In Revised, it was Ignore Japan strat all the way 120% of times and I never faced another strat in all my many PBEM games. Now people are using USA Pacific navy, Indian ICs (1942 scenario) and such, and at least that’s an improve. They also use german fleets by the way
Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.
This is wrong. Japan never overunned China (in 8 bloody years of war) and India, they had advantage in air and navy, but in land it was a stalemate. In a balanced game, Japan should have say a 50% chance of beating them round 4 to 6 or such, but in 1941 Japan toasts China J1 and India when they want, usually from round 2. This is a default of that scenario and China & India only hold with horrible Japan dices or when Japan doesn’t attack them
-
Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Its purely a concern regarding game balance. Axis is favored to win most games because Japan is overpowered. Japan shouldnt be able to wipe out China completely on round1. Japan shouldnt be able to attack India with 10+ ground units and 6 fighters on round2. Japan shouldnt get all three of its NOs every single turn without even having to work for them. Thats just poor game balance straight up.
And if were looking at the game historically, then yes Japan should start out with a larger navy and airforce, however it should NOT be outproducing the USA on ANY turn of the game. Japan should eventually succumb to the USA’s economic might if the Axis doesnt knock Russia out of the picture by a certain turn. Afterall, Russia’s swift defeat to Germany was assumed when Japan entered the war in 1941. An undefeated Russia is what turned the tides.
I feel that Allies should set the pacing of the game rather than the Axis. The burden should be on Axis to win by a certain turn and not Allies. Japan shouldnt be the force that draws the game towards its conclusion but rather the USA should be. That would much more closely resemble the true dynamic of WW2 where USA was Godzilla and not Japan.
I totally agree with you on this post, Khobai. Wow, this is like the gospel truth. :-)
Why don’t you customize the game to your liking? Create your own setup with ABattlemap, and post it here.
-
See I view the problem as being in Europe more than in Asia. The simple fact of the matter is the allies have too many places they have to fight. If they allow Italy to keep Africa for more than 2 turns making 20 IPCs europe will be a nut that is impossible to crack with the dozens of Italian infantry holding the beaches, not to mention there fleet can become very difficult to kill. Combine that with how defensive Russia is forced to play in the early rounds due to the can opener threat, and the inability of the UK to do much harm to the G/I machine on her own, and it is very difficult for the allies to win. Even a simple surge strat will dismantle Russia so fast it is not even funny, by that I mean G 1 buy 9 inf, 1 art, all following turns 10 tanks. Let Italy deal with France. And lastly, the bombers killing transports makes this even worse.
If the US does not devote a good amount of money to Europe, you will see Germany buying a bomber or two a turn. This means the UK has to constantly purchase more boats to cover her transports, boats she cannot afford if she wants to put men into Europe. Combine that with Germany’s income of 50 and Russia just cannot keep up, even with germany buying planes out the wazoo. Then add in the can opener threat, and Russia cannot defend Moscow and Caucasus after turn 4 or 5. And lastly, taking and holding france is nearly impossible for the allies, with the G/I factories right next door.
All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.
-
All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.
The imbalance is that USA doesnt get enough income to fight in both the atlantic and pacific at the same time. The game should be rebalanced around the idea that the Allies will inevitably win if the Axis doesnt kill Russia by Turn X. That was the only reason Japan agreed to join the Axis powers in 1941 and had a non-aggression pact with Russia because the swift defeat and assimilation of Russia by Germany was assumed.
-
Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.
China was somewhat of a sideshow for Japan. They wanted to conquer China or at least parts of it as a means of becoming an Imperial power and gaining respect from the West for being an Imperial power.
Their primary reasons for going to war were raw resources which Japan lacks. Primarily oil, tin, and rubber. The Japanese Army wanted to seize Russian oilfields in Siberia, even after its defeats by Russia, and the Japanese Navy wanted to seize the oilfields in the East Indies along with other resources there.
Unlike Hitler Japan wanted to carve out an Empire in the east and then sue for peace. As lopsided as it is I think the original Axis and Allies Pacific portrays this well with the Victory Points. The idea was to seize the resources in the Dutch East Indies and then build up a ring of outer defensive Islands. The Japanese knew they could not defeat the US and UK but hopped that they could make the cost of taking back what Japan had claimed too prohibitive for the Allies to undertake.
Also along historical notes I think China should be able to send units into Burma and FIC as they did do this in the Actual war.
I haven’t given any thought in Anniversary but I thought in Revised the Australian and New Zealand forces should have been US as they were under US command.
-
Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.
No it was more because Japan had its hands full with China and expanding southward and didnt want to deal with fighting the Russians too. It wasnt in Russia’s best interests to fight Japan either so they both just kind of agreed to leave eachother alone. Unfortunately China doesnt present much of an obstacle for Japan. China’s military strength along with the USA’s industrial/economic strength are completely lacking from the '41 scenario. Not only is it historically inaccurate but its not even balanced as a hypothetical scenario.
-
This thread is getting off topic. Any comments on my unit ipc total hypothesis?
-
In the Revised version, after the first Russian turn, the Allies would typically have a total unit value of 75 more than the Axis.
In 1941, at the start, the Allies have only 4 IPCs more of units.
I did a statistical study of the Revised version and found that each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9% (see http://www.campusactivism.org/blog/node/189). Territory held is also important, but I think the territory balance is similar in the two games (the Axis starts out with less). Typically if an Axis player’s units would equal the value of an Allied player’s then they would have won the game in Revised (I’d guess 95% chance against a player of equal skill).
You’re trying to compare apples and oranges.
AA50 has many changes compared to revised:
number of territories differ
play sequence differs
The European Axis forces are split into Germany/Italy
Unit costs and abilities have changed
Base dollars for countries has changed.Therefor, your revised research correlation of ipcs to winning most likely can not be the same in AA50
-
Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.
The power of statistical analysis is that you can something down into main causes. And I think Unit IPC value is a primary cause of the game outcome (whereas I think the changes you listed are less significant). I guess people don’t like talking about it because it is more fun to consider all the possible strategies.
Suggested Topics
