Long games

When I’m running short on time, I usually do some flashy 20-30% success attacks that will break the game one way or another, or resign regardless of whether I think I’m winning or losing.

1.  Long games favor the Allies b/c of fleet situation (regardless of KGF/KJF) and difficulty of Axis in retaining control of Africa.
2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.
3.  On the rare occasion I do play a long game, it’s usually because I consider the game too interesting to dismiss casually.  So I take a few extra minutes each turn to think things out

As far as long game patterns - I’d imagine usually the US sets up a transport chain from East Canada to Algeria, Japan shouldn’t screw around with multiple ICs (just buy one), and Japan maintains transport chains at Buryatia and French Indochina, switching to Buryatia dumps / infantry/sub builds when the US starts to apply pressure.  Once you stop bleeding Germany, it normally builds up enough power to pressure Russia again, but if UK maintains drops at Norway/Karelia/Archangel, it shouldn’t be a game ending problem for Allies.

@Granada:

@Bunnies:

2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.

Hobbes, Zhuk, Paulzy and other masters of the game, is that really true? The fact is the last game I lost was with Paulzy on 11th round with axis, when I really felt my Axis is fading and I have not much left to do to either break Allies or get superior income.

But if that is true, the strategy of the game could be reduced on Axis trying to break Allies – or Russia more precisely – within first 5-7 rounds and Allies just staying alive before becoming to big a monster for Axis to cope with. Correct?

I disagree with that sentence. The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

@Hobbes:

The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

I agree, neither side is necessarily favored in the long game.  The side that is earning more IPCs will be the one that is favored.  Control of Africa and the Pacific islands can be decisive, as well as control of Eurasia.

well sure but wouldn’t you say one side or the other tends to have an easier time leading in IPCs?

I’m going to assume veterans are the ones reading this.  So I won’t go into mind-numbing detail.

Let’s assume a KGF plan of UK dumping to Karelia/Archangel, and US to Algeria through the East Canada.  Japan builds an early IC at French Indochina, Russia did a R1 ground build, preventing Germany from holding Karelia for any length of time, UK prevented Germany from gaining a foothold in Africa and prevented Japan from moving into the Mediterranean through the Suez.  UK or US killed the German BB/transport on UK2/US2, or Germany built carrier with Libya dump with accompanying weakness vs Russia on later turns (regardless of the logistic advantage of S Eur to Balkans/Ukr dump, which is not too awful if Russia’s maintained control of WR, which it did b/c of early Allied fighters.  Allied subs in Pacific harass Japan to either force destroyer build for sub hunting, or battleship escorts (both acceptable).

Pretty average game.  UK builds minimal fleet protection, US builds minimal fleet protection, Japan grabs territory, Germany grabs territory.  Russia drops SFE, Buryatia, Yakut, US drops China and Sinkiang, UK drops India and let’s say Australia.  Germany drops Norway, Algeria, Libya, and West Russia.  That’s Allies dropping 12 IPC, and Axis dropping 7 IPC.  The Allies start with 96 IPC worth of territories, Axis 70.  With the change in territories, that’s still 91 Allies 75 Axis.  The Allies have better long term income in the midgame after control of Africa is established.  You could claim New Guinea and French Madagascar for Axis, but it’s still not great for Axis.

But the Allies also have a logistic advantage in Africa.  US East Canada-Algeria drops requires 2 turns after production (produced East US, march East Canada, drop to Algeria).  Furthermore, it only requires 1 US transport to keep this route.  Japan will have 7 units a turn at French Indochina, with an IC and 2 transports from Japan, but that already requires 2 transports.  Let’s say the transports are a sunk cost; French Indochina still requires 2 dedicated transports a turn to drop to Africa; it’s only at India that you can use a single transport to drop.  But India is a forward location near Caucasus, and Japan will have to do the heavy lifting in the attack against Russia.  Can Japan REALLY bleed off units to Africa, with 6 US units following 6 US units every turn there, and diverting early pressure from Russia?  But US is not similarly hampered.  The constant chain through Africa presses on Japan’s southern reinforcement line, relieving pressure on Caucasus.  That is, Japan is bleeding away from its main attack to hit Africa; US goes through Africa anyways.
So much for midgame.  Allies maintain economic advantage.

How about late game?  Japan pressures Kazakh/Novosibirsk, and Russia collapses at Caucasus, Belorussia, and West Russia.  That’s 12 IPCs more to Axis, say 13 with Evenki.  But just what are the Allies doing all this time? Either UK should have started rolling Germany up from Karelia, or US and UK should be hitting W Europe with 11 / 8 units (8 ground plus 3 air from London, 6 ground plus 3 air from East Canada, with 3 US transports at East Canada and 3 US transports at Western Europe maintaining a steady reinforcement stream) - becoming 11/11 pretty quickly.  Or maybe US is just ramming 10 units a turn in through Persia, or US is grabbing Pacific islands.  Anyways, the outcome is still contestable.

How about endgame?  Moscow can fall, so long as Berlin follows.  With Russia and Germany both fallen, Allies typically have the advantage.  Japan will have a lot of units, but can only produce 12 units a turn at Moscow and Caucasus.  UK/US can produce at Berlin and Southern Europe for 16, and use transports for another 16.  Even then, Allies have a huge logistic advantage in Atlantic with ability to drop infantry almost anywhere on coast, which Japan cannot do.  Japan will really need a huge unit advantage to overwhelm Berlin or Southern Europe before the Allies can stop it - but it should not be able to do this, since the Allies should have at least 3-4 turns to build reinforcements (assuming Allied blocking of Jap forces); with the logistic setup from Allies, 3 turns means 48 Allied units just from transports alone, let alone production at Berlin and Southern Europe.

So put it all together.  Allies have economic advantage early game.  Allies have economic advantage midgame.  Late game, Allies might not have economic advantage, but they may, and they will definitely have a logistic advantage.  Plus, they can afford to lose Moscow, while the Axis can probably not afford to lose Berlin.  So it comes down to, how much earlier will Moscow fall than Berlin?  If Moscow falls a lot earlier, Japan can race in to save the day.  If not, it can’t.

But regardless, the longer the game goes on, the better the chances the Allies have.

@Zhukov44:

@Hobbes:

The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

I agree, neither side is necessarily favored in the long game.  The side that is earning more IPCs will be the one that is favored.  Control of Africa and the Pacific islands can be decisive, as well as control of Eurasia.

My point in the post I just put up was that I think Allies are able to maintain economic advantage in the long game.  I think they should be able to control Africa, normally.

Hobbes’ answer is more accurate, in that it doesn’t assume one thing or another. I assume the Allies keep their fleets, and that Africa is controlled by the Allies, because that’s what I expect to see.
But my reply does not account for things like, say, 1 German sub/2 fighters/1 bomber attacking a US fleet of 3 destroyers 1 carrier 1 cruiser 2 fighters 4 transports and destroying the whole thing, while Germany maintains control of Africa.  In such a case - yes, the game would go on longer, yes, the Allies would be in bad position, yes, the Axis would have a better chance to win over the next 4-5 turns, and you could say such a game was a long one as Germany turned its economic advantage to good use against Moscow and defense of Berlin.

As Allies, I find it very difficult to hold Africa against an expert Axis opponent.  The shuck to Europe is more important for the Allies and its difficult to build enough surface navy to protect 2 shucks while maintaining momentum.  Shucking to Africa is particularly hard if you’re up against something like Hobbes’ Fortress Europe (a long-game strat) where both Germany and Japan have lots of air power in Western Europe.  Finally, in a KGF game Japan has the logistical advantage in Africa, since they dominate Egypt and drop directly into the heart of Africa from India.

If you’re saying that Allies are likely to win the game eventually if they hold down Moscow and Africa then I agree.  But in my experience Axis are just as likely to win the long game because there’s plenty of ways for them to get the economic edge without having to take a capital.

You guys seem to play quite a bit, so you’ll get a handle on the rules pretty quickly. In the mean time, I would suggest not playing with any house rules. The game is very ballanced as-is, so give it some time before you change things up. We played two games last weekend, same teams on the same sides both games: the Axis won the first, and the Allies won the second. Like I said, it is a very ballanced game. We do use the optional rule for industrial bombing raids, but that is listed in the rulebook, so I don’t consider it a house rule.

We’ve talked about moving up to the the Global 1940 game, but the fact is that we’re finally comfortable with the 1942 rules, and since we only play once every month or two, we’ll stick with what we’ve got for a while. I never liked winning or losing because of a rule issue, and now that we’re familiar enough with the game, outcomes are decided on strategy and to some extent, dice. Our games are very interesting; no house rules needed.