Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map?

[SubmersedElk]

If you ask me, the Allies are much harder to play since the Axis decide where the focus is going to be, at least for the first 5 rounds or so. I can play Axis and give very good players a serious challenge, but I cannot play Allies at the same level, not even close. Maybe at the top level things even out a bit, but at my intermediate level the sides are very different in difficulty.

[regularkid]

a well-timed danish can opener can work wonders ;P

[SubmersedElk]

@regularkid:

a well-timed danish can opener can work wonders ;P

optimal timing: 6:30AM when all the Germans have fallen asleep

[regularkid]

lolz

[Peepette]

I usually give The Soviet Union 2 extra Tanks, one in Archangel, and one in Western Ukraine, I move the artillery in Western Ukraine to Belarus, and an extra Submarine in 127

China gets an Anti-Aircraft Artillery and an Artillery in Szechwan

The United Kingdom gets one Submarine in Sea Zone 98 and a Strategic Bomber in United Kingdom

Italy gains a Destroyer in 97 and a Cruiser in 96

France gets a Tactical Bomber in United Kingdom

[Nippon-koku]

Very well said Shadow.  I’ve been a big advocate that the Allies are not doomed from the get go and you articulated it very well.

Someone mentioned that the Allies require a different mindset and that’s certainly true.  One thing I’ve learned to be absolutely true: the Allies cannot win if the US and UK are not on the exact same page.  Let’s say you’re playing a 2 on 2 game, with the Allies broken up as Russia, UK, France, and US, China, Anzac: if the US has an idea and the UK will simply not cooperate (or vice versa) you may as well just pack it up.

A recent game I played as the UK I had this exact problem.  The forces were ready to hit hard and I was pushing for Norway.  It was there for the taking, but the US player absolutely would not do it because they wanted to hit the Med.  I firmly believe that if the Atlantic Allies are hanging around the Med turn 5, 6, 7, etc. that they have lost the game (which is exactly what happened).

Shadow, I’ve been working on an Allied strategy guide but I’m having the exact problem you mentioned: writing a guide based on completely theoretical moves.  Still working on it though!

[theROCmonster]

I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

[Young Grasshopper]

@theROCmonster:

I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

Good to see you again on the Global thread ROCmonster, seems like just yesterday I was disagreeing with everything you were saying about early Japanese aggression, and now I’m teaching it to my YouTube subscribers. I know Global is unbalanced and close to impossible to win in 1 vs 1 games, but it’s to much fun to give up on it… it just needs some good universal house rules or for Larry to come forward with an official solution.

[baron Münchhausen]

@theROCmonster:

I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

I wonder if some players reverse the attack values of bombers?
I know Barney tried it, but a switch between StB and TacB would make a real change on Germany’s strategy. It will rely more on TcB but would have to make a choice whether to use against Russia or Western Allies.
We are throwing ideas in this House rules thread
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
But I believe the TacBs was too new unit and haven’t find is right place while StBs is quite omnipotent with the additional +2 damage and Fg reduced to A1 D1 in SBR.
Habits to see StB as Attack 4 unit is hard to change but realistically they are not as good against tactical targets.

And now there is TcB in the roster, each can have is own nest. 1 with less range but more firepower and the other with more range and less firepower.
The payload in SBR doesn’t need to change.
StB carried more but was less accurate, TcB carried less but can compensate by accuracy on targets.
Just my two cents.

@Baron:

@Baron:

From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg:  1D6

And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2

It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.

StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.

In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.

That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.

I’m pretty sure, if asked politely to Barney, he can provide an OOB G40 TripleA with this sole change for play-test and feedback on this specific features of bomber.

[Karl7]

regularkid posted this G40 mod w/a lot of changes that I think could help the allies:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36867.0

If they come out w/a third edition, I think Avalon should definitely power up the allied NOs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@ShadowHAwk:

That mod is the same as giving the allies a repeating bid of around 10-15 if im not mistaking.

So every turn the allies get 10-15 extra cash. And some other funny things for both sides that would be mostly usefull for the allies.

Yes it helps the allies but i would not play Axis in that mod without a decent bid.

Are you talking about YG mod or Reg Kid’s Vichy rules ?

[Karl7]

The info on the link indicates it’s from regular kid…

[theROCmonster]

Honestly I think it would help a lot with game balance if Strategic bombers attack was reduced to 2. That would alleviate a lot of the stress the allies have in the Atlantic, as well as helping Russia when defending Moscow, and also it would help UK in the Med. The Strategic bomber was never built to attack navies or Army groups. The reason it was made was to attack Infrastructure and Cities. I am fine with the bombers get +2 on their roll in bombing missions, but maybe defending fighters should roll at 2 instead of 1 since they are in their home territory. Has anyone heard of home court advantage? Also the fighters defending would have much more fuel than the attacking fighters would, so they could maneuver more freely, and stay in the fight longer.

Why West Germany is connected to Northern Italy I will never know. That is the biggest problem with this map. Germany planes should not be able to go from Western Germany to Egypt in 1 turn, and it is way to easy for Germany and Italy to defend their homeland with Western Germany and Southern Italy being on two spaces apart.

[Young Grasshopper]

I would hate to go back to intercepters defending @2, during our early 1st Edition games no one would conduct SBRs… they just never happened.

[theROCmonster]

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

[Karl7]

The only SBR that tends to matter is against Russia.  Solution: change the value of Novosibirsk to 2 and put a minor there at the start.

[regularkid]

@Young:

I would hate to go back to intercepters defending @2, during our early 1st Edition games no one would conduct SBRs… they just never happened.

that’s interesting. That hasn’t been my experience at all. In the first edition, did fighters have 2 attacking and defense during air raids? or just defense?

In games of G40 Balance Mod (which increases fighter attack and defense to 2) there’s no shortage of SBRs. What doesn’t occur as often is sending bombers unescorted against targets that contain fighters (principally Moscow, india, london).

[baron Münchhausen]

Hey Kid,
your idea is weakening too much StBs when no escort is present compared to OOB G40 SBR:
to keep an equilibrium status you must increase StB damage to 1D6+3 or 2D6.
Or gives a better dogfight values to bomber, such as first strike @1 (OOB 1942.2 SBR)
or a better first strike @1 against up to 2 Fgs, which ever the lesser, similar to AAA ways.

In the last case, when an escorting fighter is present, first target means that interceptor always destroy bomber first.
Here an example, and the only case in which your idea is close to G40 OOB odds, when attacker is 2 planes against 1 Fg:

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +9.027 - 5.333 = +3.694 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1):
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR

The basic wrong scenario when Fg gets A2 D2 is -.61 IPCs/SBR - +1.819 = -2.419 IPCs weaker than OOB.
SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3: +5.278 - 5.333 = -0.055 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.556 - 5.333 = +0.223 IPC damage/SBR

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1)
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

So, giving A2 D2 to Fighter is still a major deterrent against SBR in an optimized play.

It needs additional boost to reach something interesting for both attacker and defender to commit into SBR escort and intercept.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35878.msg1411124#msg1411124

OK, everyone. I have some really big statements on a truly better SBR, and not so different from the basics OOB game mechanics.
First a few principles about what can make a good incentive to make SBR or to intercept an SBR attack.

1- A massive number of Strategic Bombers with each an attacking factor @1 is a pretty big deterrent for any TT with fewer Fighter defending @1.
This create an historical aberration in which all air defense stay grounded and let the bombers do the destruction over IC, AB and NB.

2- This situation is created by the fact that intercepting bombers are a worse situation than being bombed up to the maximum damage allowance.
Loosing Fighters which can be useful on regular defense (@4) while achieving almost nothing to destroy incoming bombers is also a major deterrent.

3- For an optimized play, on statistical POV, a good player should ponder whether intercepting the bombers really lowering their odds of loosing IPCs over the other way of letting Bombers directly under IC’s AA gun fire. So, a player must calculate how many IPCs will be lost on average if he intercepts against how many direct bombing damage can be done against him.

4- To prevent the fear of massive attacking bombers (acting like fighters attacking enemy’s fighters) most of you people assumed that a Strategic bomber with an attack factor @0 is part of the whole solution. (I agree, so I make a lot of table to find the perfect balance in regard to the usual odds of G40 OOB SBR.) They should be defenseless in dogfight. But with more destructive power.

5- To see if a given SBR mechanics could work, it should also compare the bare SBR value of Bombers raiding without interference and the TUV lost if a given number of Fighter(s) intercept(s) the bomber. To get an incentive mechanics, the defending player must see a real interest to intercept on a mathematical POV.

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008

…
SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
Regular SBRs
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3: +5.278 - 5.333 = -0.055 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.556 - 5.333 = +0.223 IPC damage/SBR

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1)
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +3.69 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +3.704 - 7.556 = -3.852 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +4.074 - 7.556 = -3.482 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +4.260 - 7.556 = -3.296 IPCs damage/SBR

D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +5.093- 7.556 = -2.463 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+3 (StB=2AA@1): +5.463 -7.556= -2.093 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +5.649- 7.556 = -1.907 IPCs damage/SBR

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.025 - 5.056 = -3.031 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +9.074 - 8.667 = +0.407 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3: +9.815 - 8.667 = +1.148 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +10.185 - 8.667 = +1.518 IPCs damage/SBR

D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +10.648 - 8.667 = +1.981 IPC damage/SBR
D6+3 (StB=2AA@1): +11.389 - 8.667= +2.722 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +11.759 - 8.667 = +3.092 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs
D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs
D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +6.155 - 5.33 = +0.825 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +9.445 - 10.667 = -1.222 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.556 - 10.667 = -0.111 IPC damage/SBR
2D6: +11.112 - 10.667 = +0.445 IPC damage/SBR

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs
1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +8.195 - 7.334 = +0.861 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +9.027 - 5.333 = +3.694 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +9.861 - 5.333 = +4.528 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +10.277 - 5.333 = +4.944 IPCs damage/SBR

D6+2 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +7.500 -5.333 = +2.167 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+3 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +6.5= +8.055 -5.333 = +2.722 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +8.333 -5.333 = +3 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1):
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 3.667 = +2.306 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs
1D6+2: +10.639 - 7.334 = +3.304 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +12.028 - 7.334 = +4.694 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +12.722 - 7.334 = +5.388 IPCs damage/SBR

D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +9.306 - 7.334 = +1.972 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+3 (StB=2AA@1):+10.695 - 7.334 = +3.361 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +11.389 - 7.334 = +4.055 IPCs damage/SBR

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs
1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +8.403 - 5.666 = +2.737 IPCs damage/StB
OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR

[baron Münchhausen]

@theROCmonster:

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

In that case, I would live with a more strategic target oriented bomber:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 2D6
Attack 1

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

[regularkid]

@Baron:

Hey Kid,
your idea is weakening too much StBs when no escort is present compared to OOB G40 SBR:

Having played the “2 attack/2defend” rule in countless games, I haven’t found that to be the case at all. And none of many of people I’ve played with has ever suggested that they thought the rules weaken SBR too much. But I guess its a matter of opinion!