Is this board dead?

[JimmyHat]

Looks like there was some lively debate this past year about the 1941 edition of AA50.  I wish I had played back then, but I’ve only had access to the game for the past few weeks.  Hopefully you all haven’t left and are just lurking, looking for some fresh topics to discuss…

Well, I haven’t got those!  As a longtime A&A player, I am finding this version to be fantastic.  The added squares add more tactical options, and the inclusion of Italy gives the Axis the 1-2 threat on the Eastern front once enjoyed by the allies.  In every game I have played the axis have won except for the game where Germ was reduced to 1 bmb and didn’t kill the UK bb and then Japan lost their fleet in a 83% battle off Australia.  I was hoping to turn to the people on this board for some advice on allied strategy.

First, is the IC on India wise provided US goes 90% pacific?

UK has been acting defensively on the continent and going fleet.  US commits 90% to one theatre or the other, not sure which is best.  The best US game had them split a bit more differently, US supplying 3 trn to Africa and UK defending their ships.  The rest of US production was spent in Pacific.  Russia builds 3-4 ftrs and fights as long as possible.  Usually losing the Caucusus to Italy and Kar to Germ.

Germany fights aggressively with limited forces against Russia and stacks France and Italy so that they cannot be attacked.  Japan takes out China and begins the March on Moscow early from the north.  The rest of the game they spend fighting in Spacific/INdian ocean theatre.  Italy either fights for its life from the beginning, suffering under bomber raids or makes enough money to make a mistake like build another trn or ftr. (have had much success with Italian bmb)

please advise?  Bear in mind profficency within my playing group, none of us make too large of mistakes.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Everyone has moved on to G40. That’s why the AA50 boards are dead.

[Rorschach]

@JimmyHat:

Looks like there was some lively debate this past year about the 1941 edition of AA50.  I wish I had played back then, but I’ve only had access to the game for the past few weeks.  Hopefully you all haven’t left and are just lurking, looking for some fresh topics to discuss…

Not everyone has left.  Yes, the newest of games (AAP/AAE/AAGlobal 1940) are getting the vast majority of the attention, but there are still those of us who love the Anniversary edition!

First, is the IC on India wise provided US goes 90% pacific?

In my personal opinion I will not purchase an IC for the UK in turn one.  I wait to see what happens with Japan and the US through a full turn before making that decision.  Often I will buy one for turn two however, assuming it can be defended.  I will typically send a Russian infantry into india, and 2 into china to help on that front as well.

UK has been acting defensively on the continent and going fleet.  US commits 90% to one theatre or the other, not sure which is best.  The best US game had them split a bit more differently, US supplying 3 trn to Africa and UK defending their ships.  The rest of US production was spent in Pacific.  Russia builds 3-4 ftrs and fights as long as possible.  Usually losing the Caucusus to Italy and Kar to Germ.

The UK will always have to build fleet at the start.  Unless the german player surprisingly does NOT decimate the starting fleet in G1.  Beyond that, I find Carrier/Fighter combos good to get the UK fleet back on it’s feet before even thinking about more transports.  And I always hope to hold Egypt and Gibralter.

For the US, I will typically buy a loaded AC and a loaded Transport each turn for the Pacific (Or, if I have enough transports in the pacific I’ll throw a bomber or some fleet into the Atlantic as well).  This keeps Japan in the pacific a little more as they absolutely have to protect the capital and keep the US off the islands as much as possible (big money!).  One very important thing with the US is having realiable transport logistics going.  This takes a few turns to get in place and if you mess it up by getting into the action too early, it takes so much longer to fix.

Russian Fighters?  Why … why why why waste Russias limited funds on fighters?  Infantry/Artillery combos with a couple tanks every now and again is a much wiser buy if you ask me.  I like 2 infantry/1 artillery/1 tank as a nice combo.  Strictly infantry to Karellia, infantry/artillery being built in Caucases and the rest in Moscow.  I like to send an infantry per turn east towards China and/or the Russian far east whenever possible as well to hold off Japan.

Germany fights aggressively with limited forces against Russia and stacks France and Italy so that they cannot be attacked.  Japan takes out China and begins the March on Moscow early from the north.  The rest of the game they spend fighting in Spacific/INdian ocean theatre.  Italy either fights for its life from the beginning, suffering under bomber raids or makes enough money to make a mistake like build another trn or ftr. (have had much success with Italian bmb)

please advise?  Bear in mind profficency within my playing group, none of us make too large of mistakes.

If France and Italy are being stacked, possibly consider coming at Germany from the east?  I’ve had limited sucess with the US and UK joining forces on the Russian front lines to put enormous pressure on Germany.

Sending Russian infantry into China, and if you have a UK India IC, UK infantry into China will help keep Japan out … try to keep them in the Pacific as much as possible.

In many of my games Italy is not really fighting for its life but is often the Axis savior!  Originally I thought Italy would be relegated to the whipping boy of Germany, but in fact I tend to find that it’s Germany that needs Italy’s help more often than not after round 2.

[axis_roll]

In my opinion, there have been TOO many A&A games released lately.  I am a fanatic but do not have the time nor energy to keep up with all the new rules sets.  Others probably will disagree with my sentiments.  I have yet to look at the global game.  Probably a mistake on my part as ‘allegedly’ I am not playing the latest and greatest A&A global game.  I can live with this for the time being.

---

After many years of A&A 2nd edition, Revised came along: a welcome and needed change to reinvigorate the global war.  However, it’s life was cut short due to AA50.  AA50 has all the makings of a great game.  Personally, I think too many people have fallen in love with the National Objectives (me included).  These only sway the game balance more to the already favored Axis side.  Tech is (still) a crap shoot, but in the out of the box rules, maybe the only chance for the allies against a capable Axis player.

Capable Axis players push their initial military advantage to gain such a lead that the allies can never recover.  IMHO, the allies need at least a $5 dollar bid in a typically played game of 1941:  National objectives, tech/no tech.  If this results in Germany not attacking Egypt, then the allies have a chance.  If the Axis take Egypt on G1, the the allies better pray for either dice or tech.  Both are a crap shoot.

There are ways to give the allies a more even chance like not playing with National Objectives or utilizing some other official optional rules like Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement.  See: http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf for FAQ and other key information not in the Game box.

Unless you make modifications like these, the allies will lose most of their games (without a bid).  Sure, as you pointed out, a very BAD axis start might lead to an allied victory.  But the odds of that happening are slim unless the axis player attempts many bad odds battles or fails to withdraw from a battle as needed.  Most Axis players realize the limits of their forces and conduct attacks that are reasonable.

I think a huge key to the game is Egypt round 1.  If the allies hold off a G1 attack or Germany decides not to attack, then the allies may have a chance.  This is why a bid of $5+ is needed.  There’s been many discussions on this board about the importance of that G1 battle, but I still maintain my position:  If the Axis take Egypt on G1, allies have only 20% of winning (assuming no other ridiculous Axis battles).

[Rorschach]

@axis_roll:

Unless you make modifications like these, the allies will lose most of their games (without a bid).  Sure, as you pointed out, a very BAD axis start might lead to an allied victory.  But the odds of that happening are slim unless the axis player attempts many bad odds battles or fails to withdraw from a battle as needed.  Most Axis players realize the limits of their forces and conduct attacks that are reasonable.

I’ve played many many games of AA50 '41 by now and I have never, ever, ever used a bid (Except in a couple of games I played against myself on TripleA).  The only thing I’ve ever changed from the OOB rules is no tech.

In any case, we seem to see a pretty even split for wins.  maybe 55/45 Axis advantage.  A G1 capture of Egypt is bad for the allies, yes … but far from unrecoverable!  It just means the allied player has to be that much smarter with his spending and movement.

And those couple games of TripleA that I included a bid … one was an Allied bid of 100 IPCs … and the Allies still lost. 
A 5 IPC bid does nothing IMO … the game is determined by your die rolls and, to a lesser extent, what you buy/where you move.

[calvinhobbesliker]

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Have you played against an equal opponent?

[Rorschach]

@calvinhobbesliker:

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

Sorry, you missed the part where I was playing against myself … not the AI.

The reason there was a win against a 100 IPC bid was because of bad dice … nothing more.  Dice will win/lose a game more than anything.

[Rorschach]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

Sorry, you missed the part where I was playing against myself … not the AI.

I see. Was it because the axis rolled better or because you are better with axis than allies? Or is it that, for fun, you played bad moves for the allies?

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

[Rorschach]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

Even games like Classic where, apparently, a 20-30 ipc bid was needed? Or in P40, where a J3 India crush always won the game?

[calvinhobbesliker]

Of course, keep in mind that I have never played AA50(except against the AI of TripleA). Thus, all I know is what I heard from other players on the AA50 threads.

[Rorschach]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

Even games like Classic where, apparently, a 20-30 ipc bid was needed? Or in P40, where a J3 India crush always won the game?

I never used a bid in classic (And I started playing it when it first came out) … hell I never even knew about bids back then, and had pretty even Axis/Allied wins then too.

I only played one game of P40, and I don’t even remember how it went now.  I think it was a Japan win, but it was a LOT longer than J3 (We didn’t read about the J3 India Crush at the time … the game had just come out)

[calvinhobbesliker]

Ah. Have you bought P40/E40?

[Rorschach]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Of course, keep in mind that I have never played AA50(except against the AI of TripleA). Thus, all I know is what I heard from other players on the AA50 threads.

The TripleA AI is absolutely not something to base the balance of the game off.  You might as well be playing against a 3 year old.

As for other AA50 threads, there are several who say Axis always wins, and others who insist Allies always win!  You can’t take everything people say as gospel.  Including me, as it’s all personal experience and opinion, right?  lol.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Ah. Have you bought P40/E40?

I have not but the group I play with has.  We’ve played one P40 and one Global 40 so far (never did finish Global).

[calvinhobbesliker]

I am aware of all of that. Thus, my opinion on AA50 is not that trustworthy.

[Zhukov44]

@JimmyHat:

I was hoping to turn to the people on this board for some advice on allied strategy.

AA50 is such a diverse game that it’s been out for 2 years and we aren’t close to figuring out what the optimal Allied strategy is.

There are a few schools of thought on how to play Allies.

If you look at Yoshi’s games on this board, you see a sophisticated version of a ‘global’ Allied strategy where USA spends primarily in the Pacific (mostly figs and acs for maximum control of space), and UK builds up its Atlantic fleet units.  IIC is a turn 2 option, depending on the board position.  USA comes forward in the Pacific, while UK builds up a transport fleet and contests Africa, forcing Germany to defend Western Europe territories.  The main virtue here is Allies are in a position to take advantage of all Axis errors or dicings and secure as much income as possible…all that is needed is to outspend the Axis and hold Moscow over the long haul.

I’m a skeptic on global strats because I think the map dynamics and national objectives favor Axis in the long game.  The alternative is KGF strategies, where all 3 Allies come after Germany, in a bid to kill or cripple Germany early in the game and hence turn the tables economically.  Germany stacking France is not an issue because Allies can also land en masse in Northwestern Europe.  With Russia coming from the east, Germany cannot guard everything.  There is ample time to wear down Germany/Italy before Japan can threaten Moscow.

You’ll want a bid of at least 6 to play Allies.

[axis_roll]

@Zhukov44:

@JimmyHat:

I was hoping to turn to the people on this board for some advice on allied strategy.

AA50 is such a diverse game that it’s been out for 2 years and we aren’t close to figuring out what the optimal Allied strategy is.

Playing 1941, National Objectives with no tech, I think there’s only so much the allies can do.  Alot depends on the axis first turn moves and rolls.  Non-agressive Axis or bad rolls may even the game, giving the allies a chance.  Look out for early pressure on Russia combined with fair dice, and the allies will struggle to stay in the game, let alone win it, which leads to something that you suggest:

@Zhukov44:

You’ll want a bid of at least 6 to play Allies.

@Zhukov44:

There are a few schools of thought on how to play Allies.

If you look at Yoshi’s games on this board, you see a sophisticated version of a ‘global’ Allied strategy where …all that is needed is to outspend the Axis and hold Moscow over the long haul.

I have realized that your assumption about economies in mid game is just not true.  Even IF the allies might be able to get close to economic parity due to some pacific pressure, those dollars/allied forces merely SLOW the japanese, but also strengthen the European Axis due to a lack of US forces there.  Everything is a trade off.

To me, the allies seem to be just barely one round behind.  However, that’s a significant time frame in the game.  The allies just can’t seem to make up the difference.

---

Let me add that the National Objective ARE optional rules.  Try some games with out them as they seem to help the Axis much more than help the allies, who seem to lose more than they ‘gain’ with NO’s in use.