The Axis Advantage is Bigger Than You Think.


  • The premise of this post is the idea that the Axis have such an advantage, you need to play with a bid for the Allies. In games I have been challenged too, everyone talks as though it is obvious the Allies have to get a bid. I have said before that regardless of what side has a net advantage, I believe that overall strategy, skill, and tactic matter so much more it dwarfs whatever net advantage either side begins with. The global game is so big, it truly is like chess, where no matter what strategy you employ, you can’t see everything, you can get caught off guard, and taking the right calculated risks time and time again is what wins the game.

    But for the sake of this post, I grant that the Axis have the advantage, but I point out it is because of the 6 VC rule Japan which is where the unrealistic advantage comes from. Japan just has to take Hawaii, and the whole game is won forcing the US to fight an inefficient war.

    This rule was to force action in the Pacific. The reason it had to be forced was because Navy;s were so expensive, the cost in resources did not justify what could be gained, as suppose to using those resources in Asia, for Japan and Europe for the US. So why not dramatically lower their cost. Then you don’t need the foolish 6 VC rule for Japan.

    So in previous posts on different topics, I have posted the price structure for navy’s I have played for years in all versions, including the game World at War. It is as follows

    Transports $4 (they are defensless)
    Sub $5
    Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
    Cruisers $8
    Carriers $8
    Battleships $13
    And while we are at it
    Fighters $8
    Tac bombers $10 (this of course was a new development with the newer versions)

    I have recently pushed for an even more dramatic cost reduction but I admit I have not tested this.

    Here, 1 carrier, 2 planes, and 1 destroyer costs $31 you can buy 6 subs for that price. Subs that are attacking have the equivalent initial fire power as the defensive force, but have one more casualty and would not doubt win the battle. But with the subs defending, because you would need to keep the destroyer in the battle, it is somewhat of an even battle, so how can you complain that aircraft carriers need to be more expensive relative to subs. They are way to expensive now.

    In terms of land warfare, the reason they started out Germany with so many more planes is that no one bought enough of them. Air forces have never been bought in sufficient numbers because they were always to expensive. It fighters at $8 would cause you to stop buying tanks, then you would lose badly.

    So that is my take and I hope more people support a dramatically lower Naval costs in any 3rd edition that comes.


  • @Gamerman01:

    @eddiem4145:

    First, remember we are dealing with the fact that the Axis have the unrealistic advantage

    Whoa.  The Axis may have a slight advantage, if any at all.  It’s not unrealistic - the game is supposed to be close to 50/50 chance for either side, and it is actually quite close to even.  Inexperienced players have a lot of trouble winning with Allies, but the experienced players have no trouble at all.

    In league play this year, I am 18-3 with the Allies, and all 3 losses came against the #1 rated player for the year.  And I got diced horribly in the main Russian/German battle of the game in 1, or I would have won - my opponent would agree.

    More than 50 players in the league, and 531 games played.  I have a lot of data.  :-)

    This is more in response to the original post than your radical naval pricing structure, eddie

    I’m not even sure there is much of an “axis advantage”, unless one of the players does not have a lot of experience.

    Maybe not everyone knows how to play the axis well then.


  • @ghr2:

    Maybe not everyone knows how to play the axis well then.

    Please enlighten us :-)

    I for one, am looking for an axis strategy that has a better chance of winning than anything I ever tried before because once our group gained in experience I only seen the Axis win if the allies made a mistake.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Playing as the allied side is harder than playing as the axis side.  If they can hold key points past round 7 or so (Moscow, Egypt, India, Hawaii) the allies may have the advantage from then on, but in the meantime they have to do a balancing act and time everything just right or else the axis may get out of hand on one side or the other.  The axis doesn’t have to worry about that balance; they can just push as hard as they can on both sides.  So an axis player can handle it as if playing two separate games at the same time, Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940, but the allies can only play 1 game, Global 1940, and its a lot easier to fight a pair of one-front wars than it is to fight a single war on two-fronts.  I find USA is especially easy to screw up.

    I’m not talking here about people who do weird things with the axis in order to unbalance one side of the world while giving up on the other side (e.g. Japan concedes the Pacific and sends all its planes to Europe; Germany concedes Russia and builds a big fleet to send over to the Pacific, etc.)  Those kind of strategies usually only work maybe once against a particular opponent then they get old kind of fast.  They can be fun though.

  • '17

    I agree with variance 100%


  • Variance makes good posts about grand strategy


  • Agreed that the allies are harder to play.
    However, I feel the tides turn against the Axis once the allied players have learned how to defend the mentioned key points past round 7-ish. Poor dicing or an allied mistake aside, ofc…

    I would even go as far as saying that the only thing the allies need to do is defending Moscow and either India OR Honolulu (depending on what Japan is doing -it cannot take both at the same time). Not talking about Sydney here because if Japan can take both Honolulu and Sydney while India is still alive then the Allies are making major mistakes >.<

    I have seen the Axis take Moscow G6 and not being able to win the game because it was a pyrrhus victory and, again bad dicing aside, the allies can always guarantee this, at least.
    I even suspect it is mathematically impossible to take Moscow from the correct allied defense and that this is one of the reasons we still have to roll dice in a combat system where they can screw a player big time.

    As for Japan: taking its 5th VC is ‘easy’ (assuming the Philipines and Hong Kong as ‘given’). The allies can make this an expensive battle but that aside. Taking its 6th VC AND defending all the others is something that I also suspect to be - mathematically- impossible.
    Too often I saw Japan take its 6th VC only too loose 1 or more VC the same turn (Calcutta to a strong UK comeback, or Philipines and Hong Kong to a superior USA fleet). Usually the battle for its 6th VC cripples Japan beyond repair so the Allies must be ready to abuse that knowledge.

    Again… bad dicing aside ;-)


  • Yes, I agree, if the Allies are played well they should usually win


  • @Gamerman01:

    Yes, I agree, if the Allies are played well they should usually win

    With a fair bid of course  :wink:


  • The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.


  • @Gamerman01:

    The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

    I heard the magic word: dice!
    Agree with Gamerman. If you can win the game as the allies with a bid of 6-12 you can also win it without that bid. Bad dicing is going to screw you anyway ;-).

    I still find that if playing with LL and the correct allied play, the axis cannot win anyway. The dice however can save the day for the Axis.
    And I think there are two other things: coordination between the Axis and fake maneuvers can push the allies into making a mistake.

    Coop example: If Germany and Japan both attack Russia, reducing it to just 3-4 russian controlled areas J6/J7, an allied mistake is easily made. Maybe only India can save Russia (producing extra RAF-units for airpower in Moscow) but not all allies know this.
      Maneuver example: if the USA positioned ALL its ships at Panama with a Naval Base, faking an India-crush with Japan can win the Axis the game because the USA can easily be triggered to go all in in Europe (a big mistake if Japan can  still reach Australia J3). Likewise, this Panama-position from the USA can be a trap as well, tho most USA players who position themselves at Panama are very eager to go all in against Germany…

    While I am at it, another coop-example is Sea Lion. Possibly always a bad idea, unless the UK makes a big mistake and Russia doesnt look prepared either.
    Virtually any J2 DOW is a bad idea if Germany is trying to do a Sea Lion, but it is especially painful when the USA already has a big investment ready for war at the east coast.


  • @Gamerman01:

    The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

    It still seems to be enough to make a diff in a few key turn 1 battles.


  • @ghr2:

    @Gamerman01:

    The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

    It still seems to be enough to make a diff in a few key turn 1 battles.

    Yeah I hate those turn 1 battles too…

    But those battles can destroy the hopes of winning the game for both sides alike. In my experience at least.


  • The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.� Â

    First time I actualy disagree with you Gamerman. Two extra subs in the med is a real Italy killer. 3extra Chinese inf in Yunnan +2 Soviet planes from Moscow makes life hard for Japan. These bid’s will impact the game like a big fist impact on a small face :)


  • Well, you are playing under the assumption that you can put multiple bid units in the same territory/zone
    How about if you can’t?


  • Bid one sub in the Egypt fleet and one sub outside gibraltar  :wink:


  • @ErwinRommel:

    Bid one sub in the Egypt fleet and one sub outside gibraltar  :wink:

    I said 6-12 and you are assuming 12  :-)

    What zone outside Gibraltar?  92?  That’s normally against bid rules because there’s no units there


  • Also, UK can normally annihilate 97 without any bid subs

    In the grand scope of the game, even 2 extra subs in the Med is over-rated


  • @Gamerman01:

    Also, UK can normally annihilate 97 without any bid subs

    In the grand scope of the game, even 2 extra subs in the Med is over-rated

    Having an extra sub in 97 can help UK to come out of the battle with more planes or surface ships intact.  Which does matter.  An extra sub in 91 can help defend the cruiser, counter the german fleet off canada or along the coast, or it can be used to hit 96.

    More planes left after 97, more blockers against italy, clearing out pesky german subs off canada, or killing the german bb are actually quite big events in the grand scope of the game.

    A 12 bid does wonders as it helps the UK to stabilize easier and cheaper after almost any kind of G1.


  • I know.  :-)

    I win 90% of my games, and have gone 18-3 with the Allies this year.

    I didn’t say a 6-12 bid is worthless or has no effect.  I said it’s over-rated.  Because people rate it very, very highly.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

104

Online

17.5k

Users

40.0k

Topics

1.7m

Posts