UK Submarine in SZ 98?

[barney]

Yea I don’t like the unit preplacement either.

Just give all those Pacific islands a buck and give it a try.
Give the med some dough too.

I’m on my 5th test game now and don’t know what to think.
It’s fun finding out :)

[ghr2]

@Black_Elk:

I think a bid to income is better for overall game balance than a bid for preplacement units. In my experience if you award a higher amount of extra cash to the underdog but restrict it to normal purchasing, you take the emphasis off the first round battles which seems to work well for both sides being more satisfied.

Or just go with some set bid that doesn’t bust the opening round. In most of the older boards you could usually fix things by giving Russia an extra fighter at Moscow. That was my preference in AA50, even if there were “better bids” for Allies, that one usually was enough to keep players happy without being overly distorting.

Another way is to just give the underdog side a +15 ipc bonus to starting income, and let them choose how to split it up between the individual powers on their team.

The reason I don’t like preplacement bids for units is because players invariably use them in the breaker battles, to swing the TUV where it can have the most impact. And for whatever reason that always seems to mean a busted Med/Egypt game in every version of A&A ever haha!

If you keep it to income only then you don’t have to muddle through those, and it also gives a better sense of what is really necessary for ipcs to bid a balanced game. Usually this amount is higher than but most boards can be brought into balance somewhere in the 15-20 ipcs range on income.

But yeah, otherwise UK sub, since it gives you a much better chance on a heavy TUV swing, and UK is the first allied power that can make an attack.

I just feel that UK being able to cripple the italians round 1 is very necessary for the Allies to win.

[ghr2]

@ShadowHAwk:

@ghr2:

I just feel that UK being able to cripple the italians round 1 is very necessary for the Allies to win.

You can still do that without the sub, it just means you have to make a choice. The sub makes it so you can do it without even thinking about it.

But you are likely to lose more in ipcs without it.

[cyanight]

The only time I ever even play with bids is in league and tournament games.  It seems when we get together and play as a group there are so many ideas flying around the game doesn’t always follow the standard path.  We also play with tech and do NOT discard the tokens after purchasing them. Our games seem very balanced when we play as group with tech.

[Nippon-koku]

@ItIsILeClerc:

Care to elaborate on those 3 clean allied wins in a row, Nippon? Maybe a save-file or a link to an online played game? If the allies won focussing on Germany and Italy first, the axis surely must have made a mistake or got diced. If the allies won going after Japan First, I can understand.
Sadly enough, I must admit I have not played the game since I recognized this narrow street the allies are forced to walk through but I still have small hopes some1 can show a ‘Europe First’ is still viable for the allies. If nothing else, even a ‘Japan First’ playthrough would be of certain value (to me), since I’ve not been doing this a lot (I don’t like it).

As for why people place bids against Italy:
I think ghr said it before, but Egypt is not safe from the axis if playing OOB. If the axis seriously try to get it while also making sure they do not loose the ability to birdcage Russia, the UK will loose it. If the UK goes all-in on the defense of Africa this is only briefly. So, it is NOT an axis all-in against Caïro but the allies have to go very near all-in to defend it anyway, to prevent disaster spreading out from a lost Egypt. Placing a few more bid units in North Africa helps to establish an early allied superiority in Africa AND the ability to produce elsewhere sooner.
On a sidenote: I consider loosing Egypt for a prolonged number of turns (say 4 or more turns), absolutely game-loosing for the allies. That is why I would place bids there, to make sure the loss of Egypt is not happening or at worst only temporarily.

Last but not least, from discussions with my ‘game brothers’ I really think the allies cannot win without a bid. Again, going ‘GIF’ that is. Maybe they can do it without a bid by going ‘JF’ but I have too little experience with that to say anything with certainty about it. Again, because I simply don’t like ‘JF’. Even more so when I have the feeling the allies forced to do so.

All of the games were in person so unfortunately I have no screen shots to post.

Without trying to rehash all three games I’ll say this: other than one game where I felt Germany left it’s backside way too exposed the Axis played fine.  The Allied victories were simply good teamwork and effective planning.

Two of the games were KGF and America had the same US1 buy: (I detailed how I like to do the US buys in a KGF game here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35174.0)

UK grouped its surviving fleet by Canada, bought 2 fighters first round then set up shop in SZ 109 on turn two by utilizing both airbases and building a carrier, fighter and DD to go along with the DD, C and transport that survived round 1.  Now they had a loaded CV, 2 DD and a Cruiser to go along with 6 planes to scramble.

Germany marched towards Moscow but had to respond to the pressure from the backside.  Moscow bought 10 units a turn (heavy on artillery) and maneuvered.  One game they set up shop in Belarus and Germany went for an attack; Germany had slight odds but nothing overwhelming.  A good first round of rolling for Russia and the battle tipped in their favor, forcing a German retreat (and before we say this was simply bad rolling for the Axis, let’s be honest: most of the games come down to one or two rounds of dice rolling).  Germany attacked the force in Belarus because Russia forced their hand and they had to move quick due to the EUS and UK rush on their backside.

The other game was a KJF.  Heavy buying in the Pacific and setting up shop in Java early on.  Japan never became dominant.  Germany marched towards Russia but India and Anzac, knowing America was going heavy in the Pacific, sent fighters up to Moscow.  Heavy unit buying, bringing back the Far East men and an extra 6-planes from their allies, juust enough credible threat from UK and EUS and Russia was just fine.

I rarely worry about Italy when I play the allies.  I once played a game where UK1 went so poorly that Italy took Egypt round 1 and the Axis still lost.  Not counting the first few play through’s, I’ve never seen Italy be a major factor in the game.

I dunno, I don’t see the heavy Axis advantage everyone talks about.  I say this with love of course, but I’ll gladly bring a couple of players from my group anywhere, play as the Allies and, at the very least, give you a competitive game  :-)

[madscientist]

I’m with Nippon. The axis have only won 2 out of 8 games my group has played. Of course, we are still using version 3.9 where planes can only scramble from islands so the UK can’t defend its ships as much in turn 1.

The axis have no recourse but to attack to gain more territory, and defending is easier than attacking (allies just need to build mostly inf).

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Nippon-koku:

(…)
I dunno, I don’t see the heavy Axis advantage everyone talks about.  I say this with love of course, but I’ll gladly bring a couple of players from my group anywhere, play as the Allies and, at the very least, give you a competitive game   :-)

Thanks Nippon, I enjoyed reading that.
Reading your 2 posts more closely I see you and me play the allies really the same way (first 4 turns anyway), as far as a European USA focus, that is. So I guess the difference must be with the axis play somewhere, since I cannot find a way into European soil with the allies anymore after the axis switched from trying to grab Moscow GE6-GE10 into building up against the Wallies prio 1 (but still birdcaging then defending against the Russians in Bryansk) early and mid game, patiently planning to attack Moscow somewhere between GE15-GE20.

You’re always welcome to play ofc, but you live in the USA right? That’s too far away from me ;-). And I’m not playing as much as I used to anyway. I find it too much time-consuming for too little reward for the allies. It’s starting to annoy me so I guess after a while I will pick up the sword again and this time try to find a Pacific-oriented answer. IF a pacific approach does the trick for the allies I call the game ‘balanced’ again but I’m afraid I won’t enjoy it much. I just don’t like a ‘JF’ approach so if this is the only way the allies can defeat the axis ploy I described above, my playing days are numbered  :-(.

[Nippon-koku]

Thanks Nippon, I enjoyed reading that.
Reading your 2 posts more closely I see you and me play the allies really the same way (first 4 turns anyway), as far as a European USA focus, that is. So I guess the difference must be with the axis play somewhere, since I cannot find a way into European soil with the allies anymore after the axis switched from trying to grab Moscow GE6-GE10 into building up against the Wallies prio 1 (but still birdcaging then defending against the Russians in Bryansk) early and mid game, patiently planning to attack Moscow somewhere between GE15-GE20.

You’re always welcome to play ofc, but you live in the USA right? That’s too far away from me ;-). And I’m not playing as much as I used to anyway. I find it too much time-consuming for too little reward for the allies. It’s starting to annoy me so I guess after a while I will pick up the sword again and this time try to find a Pacific-oriented answer. IF a pacific approach does the trick for the allies I call the game ‘balanced’ again but I’m afraid I won’t enjoy it much. I just don’t like a ‘JF’ approach so if this is the only way the allies can defeat the axis ploy I described above, my playing days are numbered  :-(.

This is where I strongly believe the Allies ability to recognize and adjust comes into play.  As the US, if I notice Germany playing a “Build a sea wall first” strategy I would adjust my efforts back to the pacific.  For Germany to build a wall that can successfully fend of 7 loaded US transports, along with support from London, they’d have to dedicate a couple of turns worth of buys.  In that case Russia is going to hold out for a long time.  I would take the US and UK force to the Med and set up shop in the Middle East (or maybe even Greece) to prevent Germany from rolling south and getting all those bonuses.  A complex or two in the Mid East and now Germany’s “Take Moscow on turn 12-15” plan isn’t all that easy.

Starting with US3 the majority of the buying would be in the Pacific.  Between that and the Middle East build up with the US and UK it would be very hard for Japan to get 6 VC’s.

Is this a foolproof plan?  Nothing is.  But it’s an example of how to adjust to what the Axis are doing.

Where do you live Cleric?

[ItIsILeClerc]

I’m a flying dutchman ;-).

[knp7765]

Hey ItIsILeClerc,
I understand your frustration with the Allies only seeming to be able to win with a Japan first strategy. In most of our Allied won games, that tends to be the prevalent strategy. Either the US totally takes Japan out (taking Tokyo) or neutralizes Japan by wiping out their navy then parking subs in SZ 6 for convoy raiding and bombers on Iwo Jima for SBRs. If China/India/Russia and possibly ANZAC can deal with the Japanese force on the mainland, Japan will be to a point where they can’t buy or repair anything because what little money they are making gets taken away by the US subs.
After either of those scenarios, then the US starts sending stuff in bulk to Europe.
Then it mainly depends on how long Moscow can hold out and how much resources Germany is putting into Russia.
If Moscow falls too early, then Germany will be strong enough to contest the US and UK and you might end up with a stalemate. However, it will still be really hard for Germany to defend Europe and Western Russia from the UK, the US, India and ANZAC. Germany will have a lot of area to try and cover and there will be a lot of spots for the Allies to possibly attack.
What has happened on at least a couple of occasions was Germany threw so much into Russia that they were desperately weak in Western Europe. So while Moscow ends up falling, so does Berlin and Germany has all their equipment way over in Russia.
Anyway, I don’t think I can remember a Germany first strategy that ended in an Allied win. At least not with more or less “regular” game play. There was one game where all 3 Axis tried to take out the US and it failed miserably.
The plan was for Germany to feign a round 3 Sealion then on round 3 move to Gibraltar. Italy gets control of Gibraltar Round 2 and on round 3 sends what’s left of it’s navy out to clear any American blockers in Sea Zones 89 and or 102. Then on round 4, Germany pounces on the US east coast. Meanwhile, Japan simultaneously attacks the US west coast. If the plan works right, Germany controls the US capital with a lot of money to spend in Europe, Japan controls the Western US, the US navy is sunk and the Americans have nothing to try and liberate their capital with. Then Germany and Japan, while experiencing some setbacks, will easily be able to go back and deal with the more “minor” Allies.

However, this game started bad. First, Germany failed to take Paris round 1, resulting in less money for transport buy round 2. So instead of attacking the Eastern US with 11 transports, they only had 6 or 7 and the invasion failed. Japan did manage to take the Western US, but the US simply put up a wall of men in Central US and booted the Japanese out next round.

This game was technically a “Germany First” game since Berlin actually fell first before Tokyo or even Rome. However, it was really the Russians that finished off Germany as they steamrolled into Eastern Europe round 4. With Germany’s miserable failures first in France then the US, they really didn’t leave much left to actually defend Europe with. The UK went after Rome and Liberated Paris. The US didn’t really have any presence in Europe and weren’t really needed there. They concentrated on rebuilding a navy and going after Japan.

However, I know what you really mean is with a more or less “standard” opening move on the part of the Axis and the US sending more into Europe while simply holding off the Japanese to keep them from winning. I don’t think I have seen a successful Allied win with that strategy yet.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Thanks for the understanding, knp :-).

I enjoyed the description of that exotic game!

@knp7765:

(…)
However, I know what you really mean is with a more or less “standard” opening move on the part of the Axis and the US sending more into Europe while simply holding off the Japanese to keep them from winning. I don’t think I have seen a successful Allied win with that strategy yet.

For what it’s worth: it is possible, but only if the axis don’t know how to deal with it. By experience only, because there is no way any1 can calculate things like this while playing. This can only be known by trial (and perhaps an error or two) or a Lucky hit. Or, perhaps a genius strategist being able to see through 15 turns of gameplay ;-).
With a Germany First strategy, the mistake on the axis part would be that Germany keeps focussing on Moscow GE6-GE10. If they do that, the allies should win if they have a large enough, protected, transport fleet in the Atlantic. If Germany however adjusts to ‘thwarting the Wallies + taking Bryansk and birdcage Russia’, then no indeed I don’t see an allied way to win it either.
On a sidenote, if Germany sees a ‘JF’, then no adjustment is needed and Russia will face the full axis focus… I like Nippon’s way of thinking to prepare for Germany anyway, force them to adjust into thwarting the allies and then sailing all the stuff into the ME (which also threatens Japan). In fact I was already thinking to try this out next time.

As for the UK submarine, I don’t place it. I prefer a FTR instead of that sub + inf somewhere else because the FTR can initially be used against the italian fleet and then ‘replace’ the role that other inf would have had on land. Plus, it has more flexibility to be relocated when needed.

[Young Grasshopper]

Sorry, but I dropped out of this topic shortly after I created it, thank you to those in spirited conversation, please use this thread as you wish.

[theROCmonster]

Great convo guys. I agree with a lot of things said here. I really agree with ItIsIlClerc that a Europe first strat can’t work because US has no where to land that is very efficient. Sure he can take Norway on Turn 4 but to hold it he would have to send all his ground to Norway, and all of his fleet +UK fleet to 112 to defend the transports. In essence you are putting 150 worth of TUV into the Atlantic just to take Norway? While at the same time you are letting Japan run wild. Building just a couple sea units in the pacific for the first 3 turns isn’t enough to stop Japan from keeping the allies out of SZ 54 and SZ 33. Also after taking Norway what are you plans then with US? Do you run your fleet/transports to the pacific to stop a Japan victory? I think you’d have to, but then what exactly did you accomplish against the axis in Europe? You did deny Germany 10 dollars (3 for norway, 2 for finland, and 5 for the NO), but you greatly helped Japan become monstrous to the point that they still might be able to win even if you did pull your fleet back to the pacific. Also Norway doesn’t stop an axis TUV win, so Germany could just ignore Norway and still go for the win.

The US strat of going to the Med first is interesting at first glance, but when you see that the same situation with Japan being incredibly powerful still arises, as well as the fact that Japan can just block the US from Merging their fleets by no allowing the allies to stage in SZ 54.

I’m with ItIsIleCerc on this one. The only viable strat is JF and that is sad, as well as really hard for the allies to win still :(. This is why I think the sub in 98 should be a must. Because even with the British sub bid in 98 it is still very hard to win against the axis. Japan can stall forever, and Germany can just hold off on taking Russia until they have a shoe in and then make a shit ton of money.

I really think the reason you guys have had so many allied wins in non bid games is because Japan played poorly. I think people overlook how Japan is probably the most important player on the board, and by far the hardest to play as. You have to be able to look 5 turns ahead on your buys and moves or you have just cost the axis a win.

[Nippon-koku]

I have to say I don’t agree with the majority thought on this board.  The consensus seems to be the KGF is a guaranteed failure, the Allies always lose and if they don’t it’s because the Axis players didn’t know what they were doing.  I’m left to conclude, respectfully, that many on the board just never figured out how to best play the Allies.

There are nine regular players in my group and between us we’ve logged 1,000+ games of Global 1940.  We know how to effectively play the Axis and we’re still at a 50/50 split.  Aggressive early buying in EUS, combined with solid UK play, can absolutely spell victory for the Allies in a KGF game.

[theROCmonster]

@Nippon-koku:

I have to say I don’t agree with the majority thought on this board.  The consensus seems to be the KGF is a guaranteed failure, the Allies always lose and if they don’t it’s because the Axis players didn’t know what they were doing.  I’m left to conclude, respectfully, that many on the board just never figured out how to best play the Allies.

There are nine regular players in my group and between us we’ve logged 1,000+ games of Global 1940.  We know how to effectively play the Axis and we’re still at a 50/50 split.  Aggressive early buying in EUS, combined with solid UK play, can absolutely spell victory for the Allies in a KGF game.

My question is when do you move your US navy from the Atlantic back to the Pacific? And where are you landing with your transports that is making such a big difference?

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Nippon:
I think there’s perhaps a little confusion.

First let me say that I think you’re a strong enough allied player, judging by the allied ploys you previously wrote. Can’t say I saw any allied games of yours but it’s an impression. I take it you play bidless because I think that any1 playing with bids, admits unbalance to begin with (why place bids otherwise).

Anyway, you said that when Germany + Italy turtle up to prevent any landings in Western Europe while all axis gang up to reduce Russia to having ~10IPCs/turn (if playing economically well), you’d sail the Atlantic fleet into the ME to set up shop there. While I think this is a good move I also think that it still achieves nothing meaningful if used to aim for Europe.
I must admit that I have not tested this to the fullest, because I only recently also got the idea (it will be my next try ;-)), but I reckon the allies won’t enjoy any foothold in the Balkans for long so this leaves maximizing aid to Russia from the ME. With Russia @10, the UK @40 and the USA (+ ANZAC) @full investing in the Pac, the allies can get a maximum of 50IPCs per turn into Russia, whereas Germany + Italy recieve ~75 + ~5 = ~80IPCs per turn that they can throw East. Germany also has large forces of ‘reserves’ both in Scandinavia and Berlin -initially deployed to thwart allied landings- that no longer are required to remain there (will move eastwards as well). Let’s presume that Germany leaves their very large reserve forces in Western Germany and Paris where they are, but if the allies move their invasion Forces deep into Russia those German reserves can do so as well.
I think all that’s a loosing proposition for the allies, even more so because Japan can keep the USA investing 100% in the Pacific indefinately in this course of events.

So, what (do I think) the allies can do best with their Atlantic fleet in the ME?
Sadly enough, I think both the invasion- and the war fleets should be aimed at the Pacific map as well (loosing Moscow), joining with the Pacific forces to once and for all close the deal on Japan. When Japan is contained, Germany should give up unless they have a serious shot at taking and keeping London for a turn (or Caïro, but that’s not very likely as this is now the main allied base of operations). After all, with Japan contained, the USA can now focus on Germany as well and with UK + USA + ANZAC on 160IPCs against Germany + Italy + Japan on ~100IPCs per turn, I think we can both agree on an allied win ;-).

So, what has started as a KGF turned into a KJF. Again. If you think otherwise, please say so with some overhauling strategy outlines like I just did.

[barney]

So a solution to the KJF only allied way to win would be ?
Seems like Japan would have to be weakened and possibly the US as well?

[ItIsILeClerc]

Can be anything from adjusting the victory conditions to adjusting military/economic (National Objectives) strength for both sides, or incorporate a bid system in the OOB rules.

Whatever is done, it should A) remove the US’ forced focus on the Pacific but B) not reinstate their ability to ignore it completely. Maybe they need more income, at last. Some sort of ‘gear up war production’ NO. The axis are geared up to their limits already but not the USA so experimenting with their (late wartime) income is historically justified.
Example: starting the 3rd turn after the USA entered the war, they receive a new NO. This NO can be anything, from +5 to +25 per turn, whatever is needed to pul the allies back into balance, keeping points A and B above still in mind. Of course this would prohibit any bids at game start.

[Nippon-koku]

@ItIsILeClerc:

@Nippon:
I think there’s perhaps a little confusion.

First let me say that I think you’re a strong enough allied player, judging by the allied ploys you previously wrote. Can’t say I saw any allied games of yours but it’s an impression. I take it you play bidless because I think that any1 playing with bids, admits unbalance to begin with (why place bids otherwise).

Anyway, you said that when Germany + Italy turtle up to prevent any landings in Western Europe while all axis gang up to reduce Russia to having ~10IPCs/turn (if playing economically well), you’d sail the Atlantic fleet into the ME to set up shop there. While I think this is a good move I also think that it still achieves nothing meaningful if used to aim for Europe.
I must admit that I have not tested this to the fullest, because I only recently also got the idea (it will be my next try ;-)), but I reckon the allies won’t enjoy any foothold in the Balkans for long so this leaves maximizing aid to Russia from the ME. With Russia @10, the UK @40 and the USA (+ ANZAC) @full investing in the Pac, the allies can get a maximum of 50IPCs per turn into Russia, whereas Germany + Italy recieve ~75 + ~5 = ~80IPCs per turn that they can throw East. Germany also has large forces of ‘reserves’ both in Scandinavia and Berlin -initially deployed to thwart allied landings- that no longer are required to remain there (will move eastwards as well). Let’s presume that Germany leaves their very large reserve forces in Western Germany and Paris where they are, but if the allies move their invasion Forces deep into Russia those German reserves can do so as well.
I think all that’s a loosing proposition for the allies, even more so because Japan can keep the USA investing 100% in the Pacific indefinately in this course of events.

So, what (do I think) the allies can do best with their Atlantic fleet in the ME?
Sadly enough, I think both the invasion- and the war fleets should be aimed at the Pacific map as well (loosing Moscow), joining with the Pacific forces to once and for all close the deal on Japan. When Japan is contained, Germany should give up unless they have a serious shot at taking and keeping London for a turn (or Caïro, but that’s not very likely as this is now the main allied base of operations). After all, with Japan contained, the USA can now focus on Germany as well and with UK + USA + ANZAC on 160IPCs against Germany + Italy + Japan on ~100IPCs per turn, I think we can both agree on an allied win ;-).

So, what has started as a KGF turned into a KJF. Again. If you think otherwise, please say so with some overhauling strategy outlines like I just did.

Oh, I didn’t think you meant anything like that.  No worries  :-)

All I’m saying is there is a counter to everything in this game.  I’ve played a few more games since last posting in here and saw another Allied victory.  My girl and I have gotten pretty good at harassing Japan a lot with minimal US impact in the early rounds of the game.  Sending China’s troops north around turn 3 (after Yunan is firmly under Japanese control) and harassing Japan with the Siberian troops (my new favorite tactic up there: R1 put the troops in Buryatia, R2 back to Amur.  Japan either has to attack, severely slowing them down, give up Manchuria or Korea or stack both countries to avoid losing one).  All of those options slow them down enough to let America catch up.

I remember being new to Global and thinking the Axis were too strong to lose.  I believe many people stopped looking for better Allied strategies after hitting that initial wall.

[theROCmonster]

@ShadowHAwk:

@barney:

So a solution to the KJF only allied way to win would be ?
Seems like Japan would have to be weakened and possibly the US as well?

Maby change the turn order so the game becomes more balanced.

How about.
Germany, USSR, Italy, UK, Anzac, US, Japan, China, France.

This makes a decent game in the med because Italy actualy keeps its fleet.
UK-pac gets 1 more turn buys effectively and a battleship.
Anzac fleet is grouped.
US fleet can group.

So less easy targets, India has 1 turn extra buys so harder to get from japan. Same for the anzac.

At least J1 will be less predictable, UK1 will be less predictable and it gives the allies the initiative in the pacific.

While this completely cripples Japan it makes the European Axis absolute monsters. Don’t see how the axis would ever loose. UK looses his fleet off Egypt right away and his forces in Alexandria. Italy takes Egypt T2 100% and then what do the allies do?

Ya, you are more able to invest money into Europe as US, but could you stop a monster Italy/Germany?

One big thing I’d like to note is that I really don’t like that Anzac can can open for US. This is way too powerful.