Amen Brother… Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.
An Allied strategy
-
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?
I am by no means a 1941 “No” NO’s expert
I do know that in europe, since most territories are only worth $1 IPC (no motivation to stretch for the $5 NO), there are not so many little battles and more slow advances.
Italy is pretty handcuffed with so little IPCs
I am not so sure about the pacific. With Japan’s navy much more powerful initially, I would think it will take a while for USA to compete, even though Japan’s initial income is so low, it still will ramp up quickly (but not to crazy 70+ IPC levels)
-
I don’t play No’s or tech I think it takes away from the game.let the game be what it is.An allied strategy….there is none on the they hope for a bad dice roll from the axis first round.That’s why this game isn’t as popular as say chess.It’s all about the dice (for the most part)on G1.If G1 you get the worst roll the game is over .sorry.I meaN YOU LIMIT THE DAMAGE BY LETTING The canadian tranny live but to bad you can’t base a gamwe on dice rolls.I hope this game does become popular though.It needs more time chess has a history of thousands of years (maybe not that much)and this game they change every couple of years
-
LL (and no tech) helps A&A become more like chess, which is a good thing, imo.
-
bigdog, I understand the contain Japan aspect, but what in this strategy is putting pressure on Germany? And have you encountered a G1 naval build in this scenario?
If Germany buys a carrier and cruiser, you’re facing a loaded carrier, 2 cruisers, sub and transport, supported buy planes and bombers in France and Norway. The UK will start with 1 tranny and a cruiser, possibly another destroyer. If Russia moves units into China, that helps out Germany. I don’t see how it would be possible to buy 2+ transports in the first two turns and still be able to counter that German navy.
Germany will get one NO, and the UK will lose 8 production to Japan in the first round, so the incomes of Germany and the UK will flip flop. It will be difficult for the UK to put any kind of pressure on Germany in the near future, giving Germany time to press into Russia.
-
Gamerman I find it funny that you think '42 is less of a “fantasy” scenario than '41. It is much easier to win as the Axis in '42 it is not even funny. Germany can build a navy from the get go and use it to freeze the UK and put some very heavy pressure on Russia. So far I have sen only one Allied win in a '42 game and that was a fluke.
It is not so much the pressure put on Germany in this strategy but the presence of 5 UK transports that can hit NW. Europe, France, or Italy at will that forces Germany to hold back troops for defense. As far as a G1 naval build I have yet to see that in a '41 game. If I did I would obviously use a different approach.
-
Gamerman I find it funny that you think '42 is less of a “fantasy” scenario than '41. It is much easier to win as the Axis in '42 it is not even funny.
All I can say is what I’ve experienced in playing a variety of opponents in the 1942 scenario.
And I think you meant “It is so much easier to win as the Axis in '42 that it is not even funny.” And I totally disagree.
I always play with NO’s, by the way.1942 -
VS Boldfresh, I was Allies - he quit in round 4
VS Boldfresh, I am Axis - close game in round 14 (not over yet)
VS CdnRanger, I was Axis - we called a draw in round 11
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won in round 4
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 5J
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 8G
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 7G
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 1R
VS Funcioneta, I was Allies - lost on G5 (I think I was winning, but I left UK with not enough defense and he attacked with all air and 2 ground units against my 8 ground units and he got perfect rolls. Al AA missed, and he hit with almost everything in the first round, and i scored 2 hits)
VS Hobo, I was Axis - lost in round 7 (Hobo is a tournament champion, went KGF which I have not seen much of, and my AA ALWAYS missed his American bombers)
VS Katfishkris, I was Allies - won in round 10
VS Katfishkris, I was Axis - won in round 7
VS Mojo, I was Axis - won in round 8
VS Mojo, I was Allies - won in R4
VS Omega, I was Allies - won on G1 (he was exasperated with dice, including attack on Z2 that went South)
VS Plumsmugler, I was Axis - won on 6G
VS Plumsmugler, I was Allies - won on round 8
VS Plumsmugler, I was Allies - won on round 6
VS Spiral Architect, I was Axis - won on round 11 (but probably got lucky on this one - busted it open with a sneaky Italian can opener on Moscow for Japan to burst through before Germany or Italy fell)
VS Yoshi, I was Allies - lost on 7J
VS Yoshi, I was Axis - lost on round 11Both games against Yoshi, he got really great techs before I did. On the one where I was Allies, he had long range, heavy bombing paratroopers with Japan. When he got the long range in round 7, I had had enough. Russia had no chance against that.
OK, this is kind of a small sample size (I don’t have records of which side I was on in some games, so don’t know which side won) but I totally disagree that the Allies have no chance in '42. For crying out loud, I had opponents giving up in the first round sometimes, as Axis. You don’t do that if you think you have a big advantage.
OK, so in the above mentioned games, the Allies are 8-11. In most games, there weren’t bids. Various optional rules were in play on different games. Sometimes Dard open, sometimes closed. And often, I limit island production, which probably hampers Axis a bit. But with 8 wins out of 21 games (and 2 draws) (again, this is a small sample size and just my playing experience) I am in disbelief that you’ve only seen the Allies win one game in 1942.
-
Much the same results as the Gamerman from me as well (though all live plays).
-
Gamer, it seems to me that the most telling stat in your post is that you only lost one game as Axis.
Especially in dice/tech settings, Allies are going to win sometimes. So all the more surprising that Allies only won once against you. Either you are an Axis master, or Axis has a significant edge, or more likely… both.
I think it’s too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win 42 than 41. On TripleA the average bid is approximately the same for both scenarios. It definitely seems hard for Allies in 42, but strats are still developing–the bid might end up being lower.
-
Gamer, it seems to me that the most telling stat in your post is that you only lost one game as Axis.
Especially in dice/tech settings, Allies are going to win sometimes. So all the more surprising that Allies only won once against you. Either you are an Axis master, or Axis has a significant edge, or more likely… both.
I think it’s too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win 42 than 41. On TripleA the average bid is approximately the same for both scenarios. It definitely seems hard for Allies in 42, but strats are still developing–the bid might end up being lower.
Yeah, I hear ya Zhukov. Yes, overall I do win 75% of my games, and that was a fairly small sample size. However, the Allies did win 8 games and pushed on a couple, so I think that proved my point that the Axis don’t win a “vast majority” of '42 games. But thanks for pointing that out - it’s a good point.
-
My two cents:
I agree that it’s still too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win in 42 than 41. My own test grouping is way too small to tell, and even beyond that - time makes the difference.
-
My two cents:
I agree that it’s still too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win in 42 than 41. My own test grouping is way too small to tell, and even beyond that - time makes the difference.
Yeah. I would just say too, that when I start a game of '42 with someone, there’s no argument about who takes what side. If we both want the same side, we bid, and the bids have always been less than 10. So if everyone I’ve played with, including myself, feel we’ve got a pretty much equal shot at winning with either side, and our decision has more to do with which side we feel like playing than whether we will win at all, then I think that’s more evidence that a huge advantage does not exist.
Like I said, I don’t play much '41 (I know this is under the '41 thread - sorry) but when I did play one recently, I noticed how much more difficult it is for Russia. It’s so much easier in '42 when Russia goes right before Germany, and UK and US go after Germany. The big NO is much, much easier to get in 1942. Also, in '42 the Germans create can openers for the Italians. In '41 the Italians and Japs create them for the Germans. Big difference. Very big difference.
-
Hi, all!
Thanks to BigDog for great thinking outside of the box.
I had what was propably the best game so far yesterday. I wanted to apply this strategy, and did so with the US. Unfortunately, my co-player (UK & Russia) wanted to go a little more extreme into India, buying a factory and later 2 Battleships and 1Carrier. Ferrying the 2Fighters from London via Moscow to land on the Carrier. The Japanese player did not se this coming… He did manage the usual and occupy the entire Pacific, but being too spread out caught between the UK and US fleet he had to retreat towards the mainland for naval reinforcements. Japan did not contribute towards capturing Moscow. The UK fleet was destroyed, with India being captured. But this allowed the US to retake all of the Islands and capture all Jap islands as well. Japan mainland was taken, and the fleet utterly destroyed when racing back to liberate Japan. The best naval battle ever!! :mrgreen:
Unfortunately this led to Italy and Germany sharing Africa and the Russian territories after Italy had an income of 44 on its peak (34+2 nat obj) and Germany scoring around 60 - objectives included.
This led to a combined effort on London, I believe we held out 4 assaults before Germany finally succeded in occupying London.So in retrospect i believe that this was a bit too much of an “all out” in the Pacific. Containing Japan led to Italy reaching new heights, and I believe that it is much better for the Allies to secure Africa and contain Italy. Also leaving a strong fleet in the Atlantic to be able to support Russia if need be. Either directly on Russian soil, or maintaining a possibillity to invade France/Italy. The US was not able to liberate Australia, Borneo and East Indies before Africa was totally occupied, leaving UK with a few rounds of very little income. Holding Africa with the intent of liberating India later on seems to me like a stronger option.
Finding the right moment to strike at Japan still eludes me, and I am very much looking forward to the next game where I will certainly try something else than a KGF.
Suggested Topics
