An Allied strategy

[Lucifer]

Telamon had a good explanation of the balance issue in AA50, but also the fact that AA50, is much much more dice dependent b/c of all the first rnd attacks the axis must do. Germany and/or Italy will have Africa for several rnds in 75% of all games.

In most cases, the axis attacks will not fail, meaning, dice rolls will be near average outcome, and then the axis will have the economic advantage from rnd 3 until it’s game over for allies. UK+Russia is not enough to stop Germany+Italy, generally. And the Italian can opener makes it even worse than in the 42 setup, even if the 42 scenario possibly(?) demands an even higher allied bid to balance the game.

[Zhukov44]

@a44bigdog:

I could be wrong on this but I may have figured out why the TrippleA players have a different take on the balance. I have noticed that some of the people here that say AA50-41 is balanced are fighting in the Pacific. The TrippleA players seem to all be in agreement that KGF is the way to go. Just something to think about.

I will say something in regards to the Pacific that I think is true for the US and Japan. And that is that it takes time to learn what works and what does not. I don’t think it is something that will be acquired after just a few games either.

@ Zhukov True it is easy enough for Japan to sit in its home waters and defend its fleet. If that is the case the US is doing the wrong thing in the Pacific. The US needs to be taking islands and FORCING Japan to respond. This is when it gets far less easy for Japan.

AA44, true some of the TripleA players who post here like KGF but we are a skewed sample.  My best playing partner via TripleA is a Pac-Wars enthusiast…neither of us score many Allied wins…  From what I can tell the “global” strat (ie USA goes Pacific) is more popular on TripleA than KGF.  You see more of USA going all-out in the Pac then you see USA going all-out in the Atlantic…

Why the different opinions on balance?  For one thing, playing dice/tech (more popular here) means more Allied wins because of the greater variability, while in a ll/nt game, it’s less likely for Axis to lose their advantage and Allies can’t win on account of a lucky tech in the opening rounds.  Plus, good players will be able to win with either Axis or Allies.  This was the case in Revised w/o a bid…as it is in AA50…this doesn’t mean the game is balanced per se.  Also, there is a greater pool of players on TripleA…players find each other and conclude that in ll/nt Allies need a big bid.  Finally, a number of dicey players on this forum also seem convinced of the need for a bid.

Re. Pacific…AA44 I think you have a good buying strat (ACs, trannies, figs, gear, etc.)…this is the strat that seems to make the most progress.  AC-based air is key because it forces Japan to defend SZ62 and other naval production zones.  And as you suggest, not buying enough transports/gear is indeed the most common mistake in USA Pac offensives.  However, in my experience even the deadliest USA strat will not make enough of an impression in time…  Japan has an overwhelming tactical advantage in the Pacific in that it 1) has more money and 2) has factories close to the islands and the mainland and USA does not…  Nothing stops Japan from continuing to buy transports and contesting every territory.  When it comes to money islands, Jap air will have superior positioning which means the trades will cost USA more than Japan.  Optimal Japan play would include buying transports, gear, air, destroyers, etc. and actively fighting back and contesting every NO.

Victory in AA50 depends alot on effective air/naval tactics in the Pacific…i think some of us are more skilled than others here because we had practice playing KJF (and against KJF) in Revised.  I think part of the draw of USA Pacific is that many Axis opponents do not have experience fighting Pac-wars and make mistakes.  In Revised, if Japan played smart conservative defense it was difficult to make enough progress in time (see for example Uffish’s article on the subject)…this problem is amplified several times over in AA50, where Allies have no viable way of stopping Japanese mainland expansion, and cannot use E. Indies/Borneo as USA production centers.

Axis_Roll, I wouldn’t rule out a Pac offensive in some circumstances.  Say if Axis goes overboard on new factories and is buying tons and tons of inf…in that case Allies should probably contest those Pac NOs to grind out an economic advantage.  The problem specific to 41 is that J1 is extremely hard to mess up, so the cases where an immediate Pacific offensive is advisable seem pretty rare.  Mid-game is another story.

[axis_roll]

Good post Zhukov about the US lack of return on investment and Japans upper hand.

@Zhukov44:

Axis_Roll, I wouldn’t rule out a Pac offensive in some circumstances.  Say if Axis goes overboard on new factories and is buying tons and tons of inf….in that case Allies should probably contest those Pac NOs to grind out an economic advantage.  The problem specific to 41 is that J1 is extremely hard to mess up, so the cases where an immediate Pacific offensive is advisable seem pretty rare.  Mid-game is another story.

No truer words have been typed/spoken.  Key here is to recognize when it MIGHT be a good opportunity to jump on Japan early.  IMHO, that doesn’t happen too often as she has alot of power and mobility with her carriers and ftrs and transports.  Her early expansion is almost unstoppable.

I agree that Mid-game is generally the best time for that to happen as well.  By that time US Atlantic investment needs are more supportive:  keeping the units moving to either africa or a more northerly route.  Now a pacific fleet buy is almost necessary to keep japan from plucking easy NOs / islands.

[Yoshi]

@Zhukov44:

Why the different opinions on balance?  For one thing, playing dice/tech (more popular here) means more Allied wins because of the greater variability, while in a ll/nt game, it’s less likely for Axis to lose their advantage and Allies can’t win on account of a lucky tech in the opening rounds.

That’s a main point. A dice game and a low luck one is definitely not the same game. I believe that low luck definitely gives a big advantage to axis, because it gives advantage to the attacker, and that the first round includes plenty of attacks.

To give an example, I will consider 5 of the main (and quite common and important) attacks for axis rd 1 : Egypt, Yunnan, sz35, sz 56 and sz Z3 (I consider a no tech game here, and percentages come from tripleA calculator).

Egypt with all that can reach : 75% with dices, 95% with low luck.
Yunnan with 3inf, 1fgt : 82% with dices vs 98% with low luck.
sz35 and sz 56 with 2fgt : 95% with dices vs 100% with low luck.
sz 53 with 1DD, 2fgt : 90% with dices vs 100% with low luck.

All these attack combined : 50% with dices vs 93% with low luck.

So of course, you can go in Yunnan with one more fighter, but as you can see, in low luck, you do not really need that, and can use the extra fighter again another chinese territory fo instance. This is just an example, I am not claiming that this is the correct opening for all of these battles. But I think that several people manage these battle like that.

The conclusion to my mind : in low luck, axis is stronger. So speaking of balance must take into account what you are playing with. It is possible (even if I have no idea if this is the case) that Allies need a bid in low luck, but that the game is balanced with dices…

[Battlingmaxo]

I agree with you Yoshi.  Bids are needed in low luck to give the allies a chance to hold Egypt or other territories.  Using the calculator for dice can be misleading
because you need enough units to survive a bad first round of rolls. Once I attacked yun with the requisite 3 inf and 2 fighters and still  lost  whiffing on rd 1 , 1 hit on rd 2  whit China hit on all 4.  So 80 % attacks are not really 80 % if you fail and it leaves you in a poor position.

[Zhukov44]

@Yoshi:

The conclusion to my mind : in low luck, axis is stronger. So speaking of balance must take into account what you are playing with. It is possible (even if I have no idea if this is the case) that Allies need a bid in low luck, but that the game is balanced with dices…

The TripleA calc can be a bit misleading because the percentages it gives are percentages to win.  Strictly speaking, the mean outcome for each battle should be identical in dice or ll.  In Egypt, ll means it’s less likely for Axis to fail, but it also means it’s less likely that Germany will achieve some wild success and take Egypt with two or more units.

LL shouldn’t effect balance, at least not substantially…if that were the case you would see different bids in ll for Classic/Revised…I’m not aware of anyone bidding more or less in a ll game than they would for a dice game.  Theoretically, once the bid is sufficient, low luck will not favor either side.

If low luck favors a side, it’s the side that has the starting advantage.  For example, I’ve noticed that in a format where low luck is popular (TripleA), the average bid for Axis in Revised is around 9, while in a format where dice is popular (GTO), it’s more like 7.

My point was that dice/tech creates the sort of variability that can produce Allied wins.  If both sides were equally skilled and pursued optimal strategies, Allies would only win no-bid games occasionally in dice, and virtually never in ll.

All that said, it’s a good point that Japan and Germany have alot of attacks round 1 and ll helps Axis accomplish many objectives safely.  While I don’t think dice or low luck should make any difference in what G1 attacks one makes, it does seem more likely that Germany will accomplish its G1 objectives in a ll game.

[Lucifer]

I don’t think the balance issue is tied up to the LL or regular dice difference, b/c I’m talking generally. That means much more than one game, maybe 20-30 games, but usually it is enough with 10 games to come to a conclusion, b/c it is very unlikely that one side has bad luck in more than a few games, and more games means dice averages even more.

So even if it is true that in a single (or several) LL game, the axis attacks rnd 1 will not fail much, while it happens more often in regular dice, but even with regular dice, it does not happen in the long run!

The Egy G1 being 95% in LL and 75% in reg.dice is a difference, but it does not change the fact that 75% is way more than 50%!

Kalia G1 is about 95% in reg.dice, and usually Germany would have one land unit left, but then there is a higher risk of losing several aircraft as opposed to LL where Germany may lose only one aircraft. But in the long run, this attack (kalia G1) is the same as in LL, the only difference is that we might have to play 10-15 games in reg.dice to get the same average result as in a single game in LL.

[Gharen]

Well my opinion is somewhat skewed on this strategy.  I have only played it out twice, by myself on tripleA with no low luck, just normal dice.  And the outcome was still pretty similiar with Russian being able to hold out for 5 rounds or so, successfully countering Germany attacks and with her NO, netting around 30 IPCs a turn.  With the UK I did the fleet build up and pipelined me through Algeria to the middle east to halt the Japanese southern thrust.  I stacked the Russian infantry in Bury and keep some Japan units tied down for a few turns but I took them out later on after Japan had all but crushed China and had taken India.  With the devastated UK fleet having to recover, I never actually took out the Italian fleet in the 6 rounds I played because from the Italian players perspective, I bought as many land units I could buy each turn and kept invading/bombarding anywhere and everywhere in the Med. while keeping troops in France for defense and tanks rolling east to back up Germany.  The US I went probably 80-90% strength there and kinda regret not doing 100%.  I decided after a turn or 2 to start moving a transport and 2 land units to Europe each turn and the rest in the Pacific.  I even played this round with Turkey being an inpassable seaway and yet still Italy took Persia, Eukraine, East Eukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia.  They basically had attacks set up to clear some road blocks for a German thrust to Moscow which was retaken by Russia then lost for good, barely, to Japan.  With Japan getting so much money extremely fast playing with the NOs, I just don’t see a way around stopping them from getting to Moscow.  I feel I played pretty sensible on both sides, basically doing my normal strong axis buys while doing this new allied strat.  Each turn with Germany I was producing a plane of some sort then a host of tanks and infantry.  Even with no navy, the stacks of infantry and a few fighters would be more than enough to ward off the UK from having an effective landing.  This is a solid strategy but I just personally feel that NOs unbalance the game.

[Gharen]

Sorry about not spacing that last post and for not including this in there as well.  I really think a KIF could be the most viable way to go for the Allies.  Strat bomb Germany and Italy and just bet the bank on UK assisted by US forces on taking Rome and holding it.  You could contest Rome faster than Japan could contest Moscow.

[panzer666]

I think the best thing the allies can do is for the brittish to build a factory in south africa.Why? it prevents africa from falling into axis hands and or ties up axis resources  into a war they can’t afford to wage.It also closes the suez so Japan can’t send in there AC’s and Battleships.should the axis contest the factory???Japan can get an early strike but it will cost them to take it.should Italy send in ground forces too?In any event the UK factory in SA will benefit the allies.Even if the tanks don’t see any action it’s better you are collecting 10 bucks in income per turn from africa and buying 2 tanks with it.Not allowing the axis to get 10 bucks per turn.I’m going with the KGF strat……this may force the japs to send there navy through panama.

[panzer666]

ok this game is way to favored to the axis look what japan has all those planes transports no match to the chinesse military.china should of had more.also I think india should have the british infantry there but the country itself dived into 3 territories.why because india had 2 million regular army inlisted. Japan would of never taken india so simply.

the uk factory in sa is not a good idea.why?because it has to be defended against attacks before it itself can be attack.sorry about that.

[gamerman01]

@panzer666:

ok this game is way to favored to the axis look what japan has all those planes transports no match to the chinesse military.china should of had more.also I think india should have the british infantry there but the country itself dived into 3 territories.why because india had 2 million regular army inlisted. Japan would of never taken india so simply.

the uk factory in sa is not a good idea.why?because it has to be defended against attacks before it itself can be attack.

Good post, panzer.  Slowly, these A&A games are getting better.  Classic and Revised were absolutely ridiculous how fast Japan could get to Russia.  There are reasons Japan didn’t take over India and all of China.  It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.  Here’s the world if Japan had unlimited men and money and no logistical problems, and Midway never happened.  Pure fantasy.  Oh, and if Jap tanks could attack and defend right there with the Tigers, Panthers, Shermans, T-34’s, etc.  Yeah, right.

[axis_roll]

@gamerman01:

It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.

Have you ever played the 1941 scenario without NO’s?
Recall that National Objectives are an optional rule.

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

[gamerman01]

@axis_roll:

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

Great point, axis.  Yes, that’s sure to make a very, very different game.  I do really like the NO concept, so I’ll have to be in a certain mood to try this…  :-)

[DarthMaximus]

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

[axis_roll]

@DarthMaximus:

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

Good tweaks / addiitons

[gamerman01]

@DarthMaximus:

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

Yeah, good thoughts, Darth.  I used to think about tweaking NO’s, but I don’t anymore.  One idea I had was that Japan had to hold 2 or 3 of those territories to get that NO.

But for awhile, when I was pretty new to the game, I did:
Germans get NO as long as they can hold all but 1 of those European territories
  (to make up for)
UK gets NO as long as they hold at least 5 of the 7 (I added India to the mix)
This way, even if you leave it that Japan gets NO for any one of the 3, taking Australia doesn’t automatically ruin UK’s.
Darth, my humble opinion is that if you give Russia another NO, you might reduce the big one to 5.

But my preferred solution has become - never play the '41 scenario  :lol:

[Zhukov44]

@axis_roll:

@gamerman01:

It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.

Have you ever played the 1941 scenario without NO’s?
Recall that National Objectives are an optional rule.

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

Having played very few games w/o NOs, I’m wondering how it plays out.  Obviously, Axis needs a bid.  But what kind of bid?  Does playing without NOs make Pacific strategies more viable?

[DarthMaximus]

@gamerman01:

Darth, my humble opinion is that if you give Russia another NO, you might reduce the big one to 5.

It would be interesting if you added the 3rd Russian NO (Japan non-agresssion), but made that one the big one.  Maybe really deter Japan, by giving Russia 10 ipcs or even 15.  Now Japan really needs to decide if/when it is worth it.

Changes aside, I like the challenge of '41.  Its the first time since I started playing A&A where I actually want to be the Allies.  I’m used to the 24+ bids from Classic and the challenge of being the Axis so even the 8-10 bids in Revised was a welcome sight, now a bid 3-9 for the Allies (or whatever it will be) is a nice change.

I really don’t think balance is as much of the issue with '41 as it is with people not liking a 70 ipc Japan.  Or the game playing out too similar to both Classic and Revised.

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

Having played very few games w/o NOs, I’m wondering how it plays out.  Obviously, Axis needs a bid.  But what kind of bid?  Does playing without NOs make Pacific strategies more viable?

Yeah, I don’t think there are many players who have played many AA50 games without NO’s.  It sure would change the game a lot…  That’s why I don’t do it.  I would get screwed up flipping back and forth because there would be two totally different mindsets, and sets of goals.  I guess when I get bored with NO’s and want something different…

Would seem that Axis would be the ones needing the bid, yes, if there were no NO’s.
I used to play with 1/2 NO’s.  1 NO = 2 IPC’s, 2 NO’s = 5, 3 NO’s = 7.  But when I started getting more used to AA50, I just got used to playing OOB (but with both official optional rules on!) and I haven’t looked back.  (But I don’t play '41 much anymore, either!  :lol:)