An Allied strategy

ok this game is way to favored to the axis look what japan has all those planes transports no match to the chinesse military.china should of had more.also I think india should have the british infantry there but the country itself dived into 3 territories.why because india had 2 million regular army inlisted. Japan would of never taken india so simply.

the uk factory in sa is not a good idea.why?because it has to be defended against attacks before it itself can be attack.sorry about that.

@panzer666:

ok this game is way to favored to the axis look what japan has all those planes transports no match to the chinesse military.china should of had more.also I think india should have the british infantry there but the country itself dived into 3 territories.why because india had 2 million regular army inlisted. Japan would of never taken india so simply.

the uk factory in sa is not a good idea.why?because it has to be defended against attacks before it itself can be attack.

Good post, panzer.  Slowly, these A&A games are getting better.  Classic and Revised were absolutely ridiculous how fast Japan could get to Russia.  There are reasons Japan didn’t take over India and all of China.  It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.  Here’s the world if Japan had unlimited men and money and no logistical problems, and Midway never happened.  Pure fantasy.  Oh, and if Jap tanks could attack and defend right there with the Tigers, Panthers, Shermans, T-34’s, etc.  Yeah, right.

@gamerman01:

It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.

Have you ever played the 1941 scenario without NO’s?
Recall that National Objectives are an optional rule.

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

@axis_roll:

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

Great point, axis.  Yes, that’s sure to make a very, very different game.  I do really like the NO concept, so I’ll have to be in a certain mood to try this…  :-)

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

@DarthMaximus:

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

Good tweaks / addiitons

@DarthMaximus:

I kinda wish the Japan NO (for India/Aus/HI) was that they had to hold ALL 3, not just 1.  That is at least a bit more defendable then just holding one.  And maybe giving Russia a 3rd NO for when Japan enters Russia to simulate the non agression.  It would still be worth it for Japan to invade, but at least Russia can get 5 ipc to counter.  Essentailly I could see Russia losing the Arch NO (b/c Allied units) but gaining the 5 ipc back from Japan entering their territory.

Yeah, good thoughts, Darth.  I used to think about tweaking NO’s, but I don’t anymore.  One idea I had was that Japan had to hold 2 or 3 of those territories to get that NO.

But for awhile, when I was pretty new to the game, I did:
Germans get NO as long as they can hold all but 1 of those European territories
  (to make up for)
UK gets NO as long as they hold at least 5 of the 7 (I added India to the mix)
This way, even if you leave it that Japan gets NO for any one of the 3, taking Australia doesn’t automatically ruin UK’s.
Darth, my humble opinion is that if you give Russia another NO, you might reduce the big one to 5.

But my preferred solution has become - never play the '41 scenario  :lol:

@axis_roll:

@gamerman01:

It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.

Have you ever played the 1941 scenario without NO’s?
Recall that National Objectives are an optional rule.

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

Having played very few games w/o NOs, I’m wondering how it plays out.  Obviously, Axis needs a bid.  But what kind of bid?  Does playing without NOs make Pacific strategies more viable?

@gamerman01:

Darth, my humble opinion is that if you give Russia another NO, you might reduce the big one to 5.

It would be interesting if you added the 3rd Russian NO (Japan non-agresssion), but made that one the big one.  Maybe really deter Japan, by giving Russia 10 ipcs or even 15.  Now Japan really needs to decide if/when it is worth it.

Changes aside, I like the challenge of '41.  Its the first time since I started playing A&A where I actually want to be the Allies.  I’m used to the 24+ bids from Classic and the challenge of being the Axis so even the 8-10 bids in Revised was a welcome sight, now a bid 3-9 for the Allies (or whatever it will be) is a nice change.

I really don’t think balance is as much of the issue with '41 as it is with people not liking a 70 ipc Japan.  Or the game playing out too similar to both Classic and Revised.

@Zhukov44:

Having played very few games w/o NOs, I’m wondering how it plays out.  Obviously, Axis needs a bid.  But what kind of bid?  Does playing without NOs make Pacific strategies more viable?

Yeah, I don’t think there are many players who have played many AA50 games without NO’s.  It sure would change the game a lot…  That’s why I don’t do it.  I would get screwed up flipping back and forth because there would be two totally different mindsets, and sets of goals.  I guess when I get bored with NO’s and want something different…

Would seem that Axis would be the ones needing the bid, yes, if there were no NO’s.
I used to play with 1/2 NO’s.  1 NO = 2 IPC’s, 2 NO’s = 5, 3 NO’s = 7.  But when I started getting more used to AA50, I just got used to playing OOB (but with both official optional rules on!) and I haven’t looked back.  (But I don’t play '41 much anymore, either!  :lol:)

@DarthMaximus:

It would be interesting if you added the 3rd Russian NO (Japan non-agresssion), but made that one the big one.  Maybe really deter Japan, by giving Russia 10 ipcs or even 15.  Now Japan really needs to decide if/when it is worth it.

Keep thinking out of the box, Darth!  Somebody needs to!

Changes aside, I like the challenge of '41.  Its the first time since I started playing A&A where I actually want to be the Allies.  I’m used to the 24+ bids from Classic and the challenge of being the Axis so even the 8-10 bids in Revised was a welcome sight, now a bid 3-9 for the Allies (or whatever it will be) is a nice change.

Understood.  I never did get to be a hardcore Classic player, so never bid.  We did restricted Russia attack (no R1 attacks allowed) and sometimes gave Japs super subs and Germans jets, and these changes (esp restricted attack) helped a lot.  Like I said, I never got super experienced with the orginal, but I can understand how the veterans are ready to see disadvantaged Allies.

I really don’t think balance is as much of the issue with '41 as it is with people not liking a 70 ipc Japan.  Or the game playing out too similar to both Classic and Revised.

It’s a bit over the top.  They could have called the scenario the Japan scenario, or the Godzilla scenario, instead of the '41 scenario.  :-o

@Zhukov44:

@axis_roll:

@gamerman01:

It is still too easy for Japan in this game, and especially '41.  I don’t play '41 anymore - it’s just stupid with 3 carriers, a battleship, 5 transports, and 9 fighters at game start for Japan.  Some of us call it the “fantasy scenario” because that’s what it is.  I don’t get why it’s popular with a lot of A&A players - I guess because it’s new and fresh compared to Revised and Classic, starting at a different time - whoopee.

Have you ever played the 1941 scenario without NO’s?
Recall that National Objectives are an optional rule.

If you haven’t done so yet, play a few games with OOB rules with no optional rules and then tell me how much more the axis are advantaged.  More players like to use NO’s because there’s more money (for all), and that means more units which is usually more fun.

But usually that more money really means more Axis IPCs bonus than Allied IPC bonus.

Having played very few games w/o NOs, I’m wondering how it plays out.  Obviously, Axis needs a bid.  But what kind of bid?  Does playing without NOs make Pacific strategies more viable?

I am by no means a 1941 “No” NO’s expert

I do know that in europe, since most territories are only worth $1 IPC (no motivation to stretch for the $5 NO), there are not so many little battles and more slow advances.

Italy is pretty handcuffed with so little IPCs

I am not so sure about the pacific.  With Japan’s navy much more powerful initially, I would think it will take a while for USA to compete, even though Japan’s initial income is so low, it still will ramp up quickly (but not to crazy 70+ IPC levels)

I don’t play No’s or tech I think it takes away from the game.let the game be what it is.An allied strategy….there is none on the they hope for a bad dice roll from the axis first round.That’s why this game isn’t as popular as say chess.It’s all about the dice (for the most part)on G1.If G1 you get the worst roll the game is over .sorry.I meaN YOU LIMIT THE DAMAGE BY LETTING The canadian tranny live but to bad you can’t base a gamwe on dice rolls.I hope this game does become popular though.It needs more time chess has a history of thousands of years (maybe not that much)and this game they change every couple of years

LL (and no tech) helps A&A become more like chess, which is a good thing, imo.

bigdog, I understand the contain Japan aspect, but what in this strategy is putting pressure on Germany?  And have you encountered a G1 naval build in this scenario?

If Germany buys a carrier and cruiser, you’re facing a loaded carrier, 2 cruisers, sub and transport, supported buy planes and bombers in France and Norway.  The UK will start with 1 tranny and a cruiser, possibly another destroyer.  If Russia moves units into China, that helps out Germany.  I don’t see how it would be possible to buy 2+ transports in the first two turns and still be able to counter that German navy.

Germany will get one NO, and the UK will lose 8 production to Japan in the first round, so the incomes of Germany and the UK will flip flop.  It will be difficult for the UK to put any kind of pressure on Germany in the near future, giving Germany time to press into Russia.

@a44bigdog:

Gamerman I find it funny that you think '42 is less of a “fantasy” scenario than '41. It is much easier to win as the Axis in '42 it is not even funny.

All I can say is what I’ve experienced in playing a variety of opponents in the 1942 scenario.
And I think you meant “It is so much easier to win as the Axis in '42 that it is not even funny.”  And I totally disagree.
I always play with NO’s, by the way.

1942 -
VS Boldfresh, I was Allies - he quit in round 4
VS Boldfresh, I am Axis - close game in round 14 (not over yet)
VS CdnRanger, I was Axis - we called a draw in round 11
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won in round 4
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 5J
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 8G
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 7G
VS Funcioneta, I was Axis - won on 1R
VS Funcioneta, I was Allies - lost on G5 (I think I was winning, but I left UK with not enough defense and he attacked with all air and 2 ground units against my 8 ground units and he got perfect rolls.  Al AA missed, and he hit with almost everything in the first round, and i scored 2 hits)
VS Hobo, I was Axis - lost in round 7 (Hobo is a tournament champion, went KGF which I have not seen much of, and my AA ALWAYS missed his American bombers)
VS Katfishkris, I was Allies - won in round 10
VS Katfishkris, I was Axis - won in round 7
VS Mojo, I was Axis - won in round 8
VS Mojo, I was Allies - won in R4
VS Omega, I was Allies - won on G1 (he was exasperated with dice, including attack on Z2 that went South)
VS Plumsmugler, I was Axis - won on 6G
VS Plumsmugler, I was Allies - won on round 8
VS Plumsmugler, I was Allies - won on round 6
VS Spiral Architect, I was Axis - won on round 11 (but probably got lucky on this one - busted it open with a sneaky Italian can opener on Moscow for Japan to burst through before Germany or Italy fell)
VS Yoshi, I was Allies - lost on 7J
VS Yoshi, I was Axis - lost on round 11

Both games against Yoshi, he got really great techs before I did.  On the one where I was Allies, he had long range, heavy bombing paratroopers with Japan.  When he got the long range in round 7, I had had enough.  Russia had no chance against that.

OK, this is kind of a small sample size (I don’t have records of which side I was on in some games, so don’t know which side won) but I totally disagree that the Allies have no chance in '42.  For crying out loud, I had opponents giving up in the first round sometimes, as Axis.  You don’t do that if you think you have a big advantage.

OK, so in the above mentioned games, the Allies are 8-11.  In most games, there weren’t bids.  Various optional rules were in play on different games.  Sometimes Dard open, sometimes closed.  And often, I limit island production, which probably hampers Axis a bit.  But with 8 wins out of 21 games (and 2 draws) (again, this is a small sample size and just my playing experience) I am in disbelief that you’ve only seen the Allies win one game in 1942.

Much the same results as the Gamerman from me as well (though all live plays).

Gamer, it seems to me that the most telling stat in your post is that you only lost one game as Axis.

Especially in dice/tech settings, Allies are going to win sometimes.  So all the more surprising that Allies only won once against you.  Either you are an Axis master, or Axis has a significant edge, or more likely… both.

I think it’s too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win 42 than 41.  On TripleA the average bid is approximately the same for both scenarios.  It definitely seems hard for Allies in 42, but strats are still developing–the bid might end up being lower.

@Zhukov44:

Gamer, it seems to me that the most telling stat in your post is that you only lost one game as Axis.

Especially in dice/tech settings, Allies are going to win sometimes.  So all the more surprising that Allies only won once against you.  Either you are an Axis master, or Axis has a significant edge, or more likely… both.

I think it’s too early to tell whether it’s easier for Axis to win 42 than 41.  On TripleA the average bid is approximately the same for both scenarios.  It definitely seems hard for Allies in 42, but strats are still developing–the bid might end up being lower.

Yeah, I hear ya Zhukov.  Yes, overall I do win 75% of my games, and that was a fairly small sample size.  However, the Allies did win 8 games and pushed on a couple, so I think that proved my point that the Axis don’t win a “vast majority” of '42 games.  But thanks for pointing that out - it’s a good point.