Suppose that you play a game in which everybody knows what to do. Everybody buys exactly the units they need, everybody moves to exactly the right territories/sea zones, and the dice more or less come out in synchrony with the odds. In such a scenario, I believe that an Allied victory is inevitable, which means that the only way the Axis can win a game is (1) if the Allies make major positioning/movement errors, (2) if the Allies get shafted by the dice in a few major battles, or (3) a combination of these two. Obviously reading up on strategy will prevent the Allies from making blunders in the positioning of their units, but an equally strategically-savvy Axis player is still bound to lose as long as the Allies are moving to the correct positions and not getting extremely unlucky die rolls. I don’t think it’s right that the Axis must rely on lack of skill of Allied players and/or pure luck with the dice to win a game. Does anyone else feel the same way? This was the major design flaw of the original version, they’re supposed to have balanced it more but whenever I’ve played test games, the Allies win unless they make huge errors like switching to KJF mid-game after a KGF start.
I don’t know that an Allied victory is inevitable. That is to say, I’ve won with both sides against intelligent competition. Granted, I’ve played just 3-4 games of Spring 1942. However I have played many Revised games so I’m quite familiar with the map and the game.
Has Japan been contesting Africa in your games? I usually take Australia, sometimes New Zealand and Hawaii, and then take Madagascar and trade African territories with my battleships to bleed off Allied units so the Allies either send a constant stream of units through Africa or they concede Africa.
Are Japan’s fighters used as a tool to help Germany advance? Example, when they aren’t needed elsewhere, I like to land my fighters on French Indochina, India, China, etc. so they can support a German stack advance to Ukraine or Karelia so that the Soviets can’t make a favorable attack.
How long does it take for Germany to be broken? By that, I mean not captured but limited to stacking Germany and trading its borders.
If you’d like, I’ll take the Axis in an ABattlemap or TripleA forum game.
I’ve played about 8 games of spring 1942, and every time the axis loose. Both being skilled players and alternating sides each game we cannot pull off an axis victory. I know there are bid systems or advantages we could add, but i think a good game shouldn’t require that. I will add thought that i have only played the game 1 vs. 1. So the allied player can perfectly coordinate the allied effort in a KGF strategy. I’ve even pulled off a KJF game with the allies just to shake it up. Perhaps a 2 vs. 3 game where each nation is looking to win overall with highest increase in IPC would be more balanced for the axis.
I’d really like to play the Axis against people who say that the Axis can’t win. Someone, please, teach me a lesson! :-D Maybe I’m missing something.
I know there are bid systems or advantages we could add, but i think a good game shouldn’t require that.
They could be disadvantaged, that was true in Revised and was balanced by a bid of 6-9. Having a bid for balance doesn’t bother me, different bids can make for different games and keep things fresh. But think how difficult it would be to perfectly balance a game of this nature before it’s released for sale. It’s actually impressive for a game beginning with so many units that the balance could hinge on 1-3 small units.
Well no I haven’t tried contesting Africa with Japan until the very late rounds, after Germany has been captured, by which time it’s too late. I just try to get as many troops across Asia to Russia and it still doesn’t seem to work on time. It is round 8 or 9 before I can stack Novo/Kaz with a good amount of Japanese units. Germany is limited to its 3 key territories around round 7 as the UK and US pinch them, by which time Russia is focusing solely on holding back Japan.
I try to get Japan involved in Africa starting around J4-J6 not counting Madagascar which generally falls 1 turn earlier. Round 8 or 9 seems reasonable for holding Novosibirsk. Round 7 seems reasonable for Germany to be limited to 3 territories but which ones? I often will turn Western Europe into a trading zone and then hold Germany, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. That way, Germany can trade Belo and Ukraine and maintain a threat on Karelia rather than trading Eastern Europe.
WE and EE are trading zones by round 7/8 and Germany still holds SE and the Balkans. I also usually send around 1 inf liberating the eastern front territories as Russia is concentrating on Japan. Too little too late though. Maybe I will try hitting Africa with Japan mid-game if it’s clear Germany won’t get gains on that continent.
If you have the time, maybe you could enlighten me. I’d like to play someone who says the Allies are too powerful and will almost always win.
I’ve done some 10 games of AA1942 (plus hundreds of Revised) and so far I think it is pretty much balanced (I’ve started playing with LL, which should confirm/disprove this claim).
The balancing factor are the new rules for planes and subs. G can sink the UK BB and transport on G1 and if it buys 1-2 bombers it can keep the Allies off Europe for the first rounds. The Allies need to invest more on naval protection, before you only needed 1 BB and 1 AC to protect the transports, now you need 1 DD for each transport.
G’s Med fleet can be sunk on R2 if the Russians buy a sub for the Caucasus but the fleet could already be sunk on Revised during UK2 and 1 Russian sub is less 2 inf on Europe plus the fighters won’t be available to retake German territories.
In general UK is weaker in Europe (but stronger in Asia) because of the naval rules. Japan starts also with a weaker position and a KJF strategy seems more likely to succeed than in Revised but it will still be hard.
i do not feel that allied winning is inevitable.
Once Japan reaches the borders of russia, Germany can spam infantry to its heart’s content, while still pushing its stack of 15 tanks around eastern europe.
Hobbes, I have tried a bomber purchase on G1 and by G3 I was already feeling the heat from Russia and my territory was shrinking rapidly. I coudn’t help but think that if I’d bought the 4 inf instead it would’ve slowed that down. 4 inf can make all the difference when Russia is going all land.
I believe the perfect game is one where everyone has a good time! What fun is it to work out the perfect formula that works 100 percent of the time. Or what fun is a perfectly balanced game where if everyone does everything 100 percent correct it always ends in a draw. If that is what we wanted, we would all spend 10 hours playing tic tac toe instead of AA. LOL. I am not that good, but getting better all the time and I ALWAYS enjoy playing and trying new things. Sometimes I have to be happy with my own personal victory instead of destroying my opponent. I can be very happy delaying the win of a superior opponent instead of falling to him in round 4-5. :) As long as there are dice rolls and human opponents we always have a chance to win and can ALWAYS choose to have a great time.
Hobbes, I have tried a bomber purchase on G1 and by G3 I was already feeling the heat from Russia and my territory was shrinking rapidly. I coudn’t help but think that if I’d bought the 4 inf instead it would’ve slowed that down. 4 inf can make all the difference when Russia is going all land.
G3 bomber really depends on how things are going. I’ve only been buying 1 bomber for G because of Russia on my games.
If the Allies are going KFG then send all Jap planes to Europe at once. Since J’s turn is between UK and US, they can use a 5 fighter, 1 bomber force to sink any ships that are left unprotected after the UK moves. That can really mess up the Allied landings.
I must say that I am a new player to Axis and Allies and have only played this 1942 version, but my group of, again, new players have been commenting on the apparent Axis slant of this game as far as they’ve seen it. Karelia is hard to defend, as is India, so as long as Germany gets to Moscow while the Allies are still setting up, the Axis has won. I’m sure we’ve been missing the Allied coordination and strategy, but with Germany mostly gunning straight for Russia, the Axis has won all 5 games we’ve played.
I must say that I am a new player to Axis and Allies and have only played this 1942 version, but my group of, again, new players have been commenting on the apparent Axis slant of this game as far as they’ve seen it. Karelia is hard to defend, as is India, so as long as Germany gets to Moscow while the Allies are still setting up, the Axis has won. I’m sure we’ve been missing the Allied coordination and strategy, but with Germany mostly gunning straight for Russia, the Axis has won all 5 games we’ve played.
If you are keeping track of Victory Cities I’d say to ignore them. The game is decided the moment Russia or Germany (or Japan) falls. If G is heading straight for Russia then the Allies need to be able to keep trading Karelia, Ukraine and Bielorussia with Germany, while at the same time to take advantage that G’s forces are on the East to take and hold Western Europe.
I must say that I am a new player to Axis and Allies and have only played this 1942 version, but my group of, again, new players have been commenting on the apparent Axis slant of this game as far as they’ve seen it. Karelia is hard to defend, as is India, so as long as Germany gets to Moscow while the Allies are still setting up, the Axis has won. I’m sure we’ve been missing the Allied coordination and strategy, but with Germany mostly gunning straight for Russia, the Axis has won all 5 games we’ve played.
If you are keeping track of Victory Cities I’d say to ignore them. The game is decided the moment Russia or Germany (or Japan) falls. If G is heading straight for Russia then the Allies need to be able to keep trading Karelia, Ukraine and Bielorussia with Germany, while at the same time to take advantage that G’s forces are on the East to take and hold Western Europe.
I figured that’s the general idea, but the main issue has been coordinating attacking on the West side while trying to effectively reinforce on the East, with the reinforcing part being the bigger issue, plus getting my Allied partners to work with me has been challenging… :-P Though I suppose that’s part of the strategy/challenge.
Not keeping track of Victory Cities kind of makes sense in that typically by the time Germany, Japan, Russia, or UK falls (I’m assuming US falling is super rare), the opposing side would have 3 extra anyway, but do you not play to the end of the “round” (the end of US turn)? You don’t play with the chance of liberating a capital?
I figured that’s the general idea, but the main issue has been coordinating attacking on the West side while trying to effectively reinforce on the East, with the reinforcing part being the bigger issue, plus getting my Allied partners to work with me has been challenging… :-P Though I suppose that’s part of the strategy/challenge.
Not keeping track of Victory Cities kind of makes sense in that typically by the time Germany, Japan, Russia, or UK falls (I’m assuming US falling is super rare), the opposing side would have 3 extra anyway, but do you not play to the end of the “round” (the end of US turn)? You don’t play with the chance of liberating a capital?
Coordination is key to the Allies (and to the Axis as well). If you usually play 4 or 5 players games try not using any bid for Axis if the Allied players can’t work effectively as a team. If you are going KFG then the main Allied objective should be to force Germany to switch their main effort from Russia to dealing with the US/UK. By her own Russia can deal with the initial Japanese thrusts and make them costly, if Russia is allowed to switch its main force from Europe into Asia. The US/UK can also land a few units on Archangel to help out with those initial J thrusts or to lessen the burden of retaking Karelia from the Germans. Sometimes it is the only option if the threat of a German airforce prevents landing on the rest of Europe.
Depends on how the capital was taken. If it was a stroke of luck or bad planning by the defender then it might be possible to retake it and later win the game. Losing the UK on the first rounds is not a complete catastrophe if the Germans lose a few planes on the process and if the UK retakes it on their turn. But when Germany or Russia fall you might be able to reconquer it but most likely the enemy will take it back during their next turn. I’ve played games on Revised where both Germany and Russia fall on the same turn or close and the remaining players decide to continue but I’ve never seen Japan retaking Germany because the US/UK start outproducing Japan.
I believe the perfect game is one where everyone has a good time! What fun is it to work out the perfect formula that works 100 percent of the time. Or what fun is a perfectly balanced game where if everyone does everything 100 percent correct it always ends in a draw. If that is what we wanted, we would all spend 10 hours playing tic tac toe instead of AA. LOL. I am not that good, but getting better all the time and I ALWAYS enjoy playing and trying new things. Sometimes I have to be happy with my own personal victory instead of destroying my opponent. I can be very happy delaying the win of a superior opponent instead of falling to him in round 4-5. :) As long as there are dice rolls and human opponents we always have a chance to win and can ALWAYS choose to have a great time.
I second this notion. We added tech to the game as well for more variance. The fact that it can throw everything out of balance and new strategies have to be formed around the technology you have. We are using AA50 Tech trees. Can anyone say heavy bombers and paratroopers. Pretty sick.
Uhm, one thing i liked that we do as a standard was that bombers could be used as a transport. Only 1 friendly infantry and it can be dropped off into friendly spaces.
