The Japan Playbook

[Alsch91]

@questioneer:

tanks gives you the ability to counterattack…there a big difference between rolling a 3 (tank) vs. a 2 (artillery).

2 2s (artillery) are roughly equal to a 1 and a 3 (tank), when you have dozens of 1s in front of them.
So even though tanks can catch up faster and threaten way more territory, artillery are much more cost-effective on offense - and therefore superior.
Russia always wants to have lots of artillery if they want to be threatening counter attacks.  And since Russia’s supply lines are much shorter, artillery are usually a better buy.
Again, only usually.

[Zhukov44]

@questioneer:

Most noobs here won’t challenge the claim that Axis have the advantage. Instead they just take the easy route and take a bid.� Honestly we should all be working on how to counter Axis strategies since most have trouble with it.� Bids shouldn’t even be talked about for a few months yet.� Especially since this version has only been out a short time.� I think we may find out that Allies have the advantage or the game is actually even.

Disagree.  We heard the same reasoning alot about aa50, and as a result noobs were often taken advantage of because they didn’t realize Allies needed a larger bid in that setup.  In my case, since almost everyone on these forums refused to make an adequate bid for Allies, I was only able to practice my Allies on TripleA live or TripleA warclub, where I would get the 9 bid (which is the bare minimum imho) I felt I needed for my strategy.

Global has been out long enough for some people to feel Axis has the advantage in a no-bid situation.  There’s a good chance that perception is wrong.  But that is not a reason not to use bids.  The goal of bidding is simply to allow both sides to feel the sides were chosen fairly and that the game was started on even terms.

You also need to keep in mind that the learning curve for Global is VERY steep, and the strategies are far from solidified.  It goes without saying that a more experienced player–playing Allies with no bid–can easily defeat a less experienced player.  You will only get to the point where you can make conclusions about bids when the strats are more solidified and there is a larger pool of experts.  Right now the pool of players is small and some are obviously much more advanced than others.

So in the meantime, it’s only natural that some players feel more comfortable with the less complicated Axis.  Bidding ensures that both sides feel the game is fair and consequently the game is more fun.  If both sides feel the game is being played under fair conditions, then both sides will learn more, instead of blaming losses on the inherent disadvantage of one side or the other.

[Axisplaya]

@Zhukov44:

You also need to keep in mind that the learning curve for Global is VERY steep, and the strategies are far from solidified.

I totally agree with this.

[Cow]

Disagree.  We heard the same reasoning alot about aa50, and as a result noobs were often taken advantage of because they didn’t realize Allies needed a larger bid in that setup.  In my case, since almost everyone on these forums refused to make an adequate bid for Allies, I was only able to practice my Allies on TripleA live or TripleA warclub, where I would get the 9 bid (which is the bare minimum imho) I felt I needed for my strategy.

Global has been out long enough for some people to feel Axis has the advantage in a no-bid situation.  There’s a good chance that perception is wrong.  But that is not a reason not to use bids.  The goal of bidding is simply to allow both sides to feel the sides were chosen fairly and that the game was started on even terms.

On these forums they do not do 1 per territory limit, so 2 units in a key spot rather than 2 or 3 bigger units spread out is very different. My personal preference is 1 per territory limit, because it does not take away from the action, the axis can still hit egypt should they choose to on germany 1, but at 50% odds instead of slightly favored. It does not eliminate any axis strategies that way, but rather gives allies a possible counter or some stall.
~
Also yeah, when aa50 first came out, it did not take the regular lobby aa50 people long to figure out allies get the short end of the stick. In all fairness tripA regulars play live games so we get games in and done at a much faster rate than by forum / typing out moves. Most forum games take 2-3 weeks maybe a month to finish, on average?
~
Yes the whole point of a bid is for two parties to agree on what is fair for an even playing field, if you are against the bid, than by all means take allies @ 0.

Honestly I don’t care about this issue right now. I tried to make the point shortly after aa50 was released, especially for 1942… where it is just so easy for things to go so wrong so fast for russia, the 42 players were quicker to agree, because yeah russia R1 is too tight and needs some leeway… you only needed to just roll various russia 1 attacks. In the 41 setup, that took longer to get people around to. I mean most of us started with just 3 or 6 bid, inf in egypt or kar or belo. Over time the dice bids went to 9.

The reason triple a does 1 unit per territory has to do with the nature of playing a live game, which attracts more aggressive players and game balance can be achieved without taking away from attacks.

In global, I believe only powers that start at war should be able to receive a bid for allies. That means UK Europe only. SZ 96 + 97 / Taranto attacks are practically a mandatory battles for uk, just as France is a mandatory battle for germany, they need a sub to throw at sz 97, because 1/5 of the games get ruined by 97 defending and I have yet to see allies recover from that (barring axis getting diced hard in g1 or Japan having a total blunder).

[Cow]

Also some good games came out recently.

A little off topic, but a bid for uk only, just smooths out what should happen for uk. sub to kill sz 97. or inf or artillery to hit tobruk.

things like an artillery in amur and korea round 1 hit, is a little too cheap… not the same as a bid any where else.

[Axisplaya]

@Cow:

In global, I believe only powers that start at war should be able to receive a bid for allies.

Why ?

[Cow]

I play tested some games and the korea hit turn 1 from russia, is brutal, it actually screws up japan from doing normal island play, which is the whole point of global (Larry Harris made global to make japan more historical). Not the same as someone getting a sub as insurance for a successful sz 97 sink. Not the same as an extra guy to hit tobruk.

I feel people just need some confidence to be aggressive with uk1 and an extra piece ought to do the trick.

[Axisplaya]

@Cow:

things like an artillery in amur and korea round 1 hit, is a little too cheap… not the same as a bid any where else.

You know what i think is cheap ?
Pretending that the Axis have an edge, then advocating for an allies bid, and then putting some totally arbitrary rules to limit this bid…

if you think the game is slightly imbalanced in favor of Axis, and that Allies need a small bid, then let the allies have the bid they want and live with the consequences of your decisions instead of asking for rules limiting creativity just so you can feel more confident about the outcome of that bid.

[Cow]

Well in aa50 you can’t place your bid in china, not that anyone would want to, but still.

I am not pretending anything, do not accuse me of that. I honestly do believe axis have the advantage and many others do as well, this is not the proper thread for it. It does screw up the J1 opener pretty good for a low cost, but it is a dicey battle… I think 30% with just an art, two art in amur gives you favorable odds though.

The point I am trying to make is, if someone wants to play axis, he may be less inclined to give a higher bid say 7 or 8, because of this, unless restrictions were placed on the bid.

How people come to agree on what is fair, is totally up to the community at large as far as the league games go (or the moderator who posts the rules). The actual amount that people get is up to individual players.

I would not be mad at someone asking for an allies bid, I’d just simply bid lower or take the allies. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility over the issue.

[ghr2]

Hey cow, what if USA goes europe for the first 2-3 rounds for its buys, then goes pacific after to prevent honolulu and sydney from going under?  What would you do differently as japan (or the axis in general) to combat this?  The this is with the Uk not scambling G1, goes 97, and ethe crush with india tranny (builds carriers /trannys in 106 with figs in england).  I was basically in a debate with my friend where he thinks this is the best way to handle J1 DoW, basically saying that right after the J4 india crush, US can quickly make up for lost ground in the pac to stonewall japan for a long time untill germ/italy have been sufficiently neutered so that russia and UK europe can help wear down japan.  They say J1 DoW breaks the game and makes europe rediculously easy for the allies.

[ghr2]

Basically, in a 3v2, I employed a J1 attack but i never took calcutta, US was 100% pacific untill like round 5 or 6, even then, he was maybe 70% pacific and rest atlantic.  We had some rough spots with dice against the UK fleet and with italy (italy tried africa play after a 97/ethe super crush) while germany focues hard on russia with inf/mech and a butt load of tanks (we had like over 30 in range of moscow by game’s end).  Germany’s air  based in sita and wger kept the Uk fleet at bay in gib/red sea/109/106 untill UK got at least 3 carrier loads of planes.

They never tried to bring their fleet into the med, but the did a good job at holding the mid east and africa to cut down italy’s NO’s.

With the constant threat of a giant counter attack ( kept liek 70% if my navy in phil and adaquate air in japan/kwangsi airbase), I forced the US to sit in hawaii untill his 4th turn, where he moved to caroline, sat for a turn, then sent his entire fleet to 36 (I missed calc and did not bock), I got horrid dice, but the US decided to retreat to phil, but he made the grave mistake of damaging his carriers which cause liek 6 of his planes to crash.  I managed to counter phil with my surviving air and naval which then lead to the allies giving up cause germany wa sstacked in bryansk at this time and I was walking all over russia with japan (i took cauc to help my bud).

Russia ended up stacking with in manch with 17 guys and 2 aa so i went for that instead of india, but apparantly he manages to beat 16 planes and 10 ground units with 2 inf surviving and i lose all of mine along with 4 planes.  I never killed china, he fell back than up becuase i was sending all my ground south to keep UK from stacking burma.

Basically, my friends and I are now playtesting to see what the allies can do to fight this.  It feels like once india falls, there is no threat to japans mainland territories, so he cant be pecked off at the sides while he pushes for the final VC.

[Cow]

If usa is going atlantic, you should have an easy time blowing up.

[ghr2]

I know that, just would the US be able to come in later and stop u from the VC win?

[Cow]

Depends on a number of things.

Allies do not have a total unit value advantage, most of it is airbase/naval/ics. Catching up in income with axis is not hard, but you do drop when Italy gets convoyed out of the game. As long as axis take advantage of their position, they should win.

The biggest problem allies have is USA is 2-3 turns from doing anything in europe or pacific, so when you buy, you are buying because of what you hope things look like 2-3 turns from now. Since the allies are forced more or less into a containment strategy (where you prevent the axis from winning rather than rushing a capital), it is hard to stop an axis win from either side.

I applaud Larry Harris for making people do pacific in a global game, but it is hard to balance the concept.

The J1 DOW gives the illusion of a rich USA that can do whatever he wants, but in reality nothing changes except japan took islands sooner than later at the expense of taking ground forces off of Asia. That is it.

[Zhukov44]

Perhaps its easier for USA to first neutralize Japan and then later go Atlantic to stop Germany from getting the Europe win at the last moment (Germany can take all 3 Soviet VCs and still come up short if Allies can nab one in Western Europe).  With Japan stopped and neutralized, Allies can lose Moscow and still eventually defeat Germany.

That said, every game is different.  Given the tremendous variation it’s difficult to form principles or give out opinions on questions like this.

[Cow]

yeah most people do what you said zhukov. Egypt is out of position for germany. so you got to go KJF hard early on then turn around and save europe.

It helps to convoy italy out of the game, because it forces germany into mech/tank push for egypt or late game sea lion.

[ghr2]

But KJF can be tricky for US since japan can get an almost equal income very quickly while also being able to play defensively with its navy. (threatening to counter attack if US tries to move to certain places).

[Cow]

Exactly my point, usa has to go full pacific to stop the pacific win, he is best off going full pac sooner than later. europe in the later phases is much more effective.

provide subs to convoy southern france and normandy. some naval to assist uk in convoying sz 97 if necessary. As far as a full fledged fleet with drops on europe early on… dream on.

Honestly I think the pacific half of the map is fine in global. Europe half is just messed up. Easy fix, give russia a bomber (I am going to campaign for this, because russia is a snooze fest).

[Paksos]

I can definitely see the advantage of a J1 DoW in the Pacific but what is the alternative if your German ally feels that he needs to keep the USA out of Europe for the maximum three turns?

Just push into China and try to hit Russia from behind? Or tell Berlin to suck it up and DoW anyway?

:-D

[Cow]

germany should dow on g2, and stack up in front on nov.