The Axis Advantage is Bigger Than You Think.

I agree with variance 100%

Variance makes good posts about grand strategy

Agreed that the allies are harder to play.
However, I feel the tides turn against the Axis once the allied players have learned how to defend the mentioned key points past round 7-ish. Poor dicing or an allied mistake aside, ofc…

I would even go as far as saying that the only thing the allies need to do is defending Moscow and either India OR Honolulu (depending on what Japan is doing -it cannot take both at the same time). Not talking about Sydney here because if Japan can take both Honolulu and Sydney while India is still alive then the Allies are making major mistakes >.<

I have seen the Axis take Moscow G6 and not being able to win the game because it was a pyrrhus victory and, again bad dicing aside, the allies can always guarantee this, at least.
I even suspect it is mathematically impossible to take Moscow from the correct allied defense and that this is one of the reasons we still have to roll dice in a combat system where they can screw a player big time.

As for Japan: taking its 5th VC is ‘easy’ (assuming the Philipines and Hong Kong as ‘given’). The allies can make this an expensive battle but that aside. Taking its 6th VC AND defending all the others is something that I also suspect to be - mathematically- impossible.
Too often I saw Japan take its 6th VC only too loose 1 or more VC the same turn (Calcutta to a strong UK comeback, or Philipines and Hong Kong to a superior USA fleet). Usually the battle for its 6th VC cripples Japan beyond repair so the Allies must be ready to abuse that knowledge.

Again… bad dicing aside ;-)

Yes, I agree, if the Allies are played well they should usually win

@Gamerman01:

Yes, I agree, if the Allies are played well they should usually win

With a fair bid of course  :wink:

The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

@Gamerman01:

The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

I heard the magic word: dice!
Agree with Gamerman. If you can win the game as the allies with a bid of 6-12 you can also win it without that bid. Bad dicing is going to screw you anyway ;-).

I still find that if playing with LL and the correct allied play, the axis cannot win anyway. The dice however can save the day for the Axis.
And I think there are two other things: coordination between the Axis and fake maneuvers can push the allies into making a mistake.

Coop example: If Germany and Japan both attack Russia, reducing it to just 3-4 russian controlled areas J6/J7, an allied mistake is easily made. Maybe only India can save Russia (producing extra RAF-units for airpower in Moscow) but not all allies know this.
  Maneuver example: if the USA positioned ALL its ships at Panama with a Naval Base, faking an India-crush with Japan can win the Axis the game because the USA can easily be triggered to go all in in Europe (a big mistake if Japan can  still reach Australia J3). Likewise, this Panama-position from the USA can be a trap as well, tho most USA players who position themselves at Panama are very eager to go all in against Germany…

While I am at it, another coop-example is Sea Lion. Possibly always a bad idea, unless the UK makes a big mistake and Russia doesnt look prepared either.
Virtually any J2 DOW is a bad idea if Germany is trying to do a Sea Lion, but it is especially painful when the USA already has a big investment ready for war at the east coast.

@Gamerman01:

The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

It still seems to be enough to make a diff in a few key turn 1 battles.

@ghr2:

@Gamerman01:

The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.  It’s a big game and there are a lot of dice thrown.

It still seems to be enough to make a diff in a few key turn 1 battles.

Yeah I hate those turn 1 battles too…

But those battles can destroy the hopes of winning the game for both sides alike. In my experience at least.

The impact of bids (between 6-12 IPCs) are over-rated.� Â

First time I actualy disagree with you Gamerman. Two extra subs in the med is a real Italy killer. 3extra Chinese inf in Yunnan +2 Soviet planes from Moscow makes life hard for Japan. These bid’s will impact the game like a big fist impact on a small face :)

Well, you are playing under the assumption that you can put multiple bid units in the same territory/zone
How about if you can’t?

Bid one sub in the Egypt fleet and one sub outside gibraltar  :wink:

@ErwinRommel:

Bid one sub in the Egypt fleet and one sub outside gibraltar  :wink:

I said 6-12 and you are assuming 12  :-)

What zone outside Gibraltar?  92?  That’s normally against bid rules because there’s no units there

Also, UK can normally annihilate 97 without any bid subs

In the grand scope of the game, even 2 extra subs in the Med is over-rated

@Gamerman01:

Also, UK can normally annihilate 97 without any bid subs

In the grand scope of the game, even 2 extra subs in the Med is over-rated

Having an extra sub in 97 can help UK to come out of the battle with more planes or surface ships intact.  Which does matter.  An extra sub in 91 can help defend the cruiser, counter the german fleet off canada or along the coast, or it can be used to hit 96.

More planes left after 97, more blockers against italy, clearing out pesky german subs off canada, or killing the german bb are actually quite big events in the grand scope of the game.

A 12 bid does wonders as it helps the UK to stabilize easier and cheaper after almost any kind of G1.

I know.  :-)

I win 90% of my games, and have gone 18-3 with the Allies this year.

I didn’t say a 6-12 bid is worthless or has no effect.  I said it’s over-rated.  Because people rate it very, very highly.

I agree with you Hawk, I experience the exact same thing over and over again.
Winning/being set back 1 turn I have come to call that ‘tempo’ (like in chess).

Maybe it is a good thing if people state which version they are playing ;-). I haven’t played the 1st edition of G40 but I figured 2nd edition that I play IS different in win percentages.

I read some of these comments and I have to wonder what game you guys are playing, it doesnt sound anything like the global I play.  I wonder if the Axis play u commonly see is simply subpar, or your allied play is just so good, or what.

Russia almost equal to Germany? for what, like 4 turns?  In my games if Russia doesnt fall on g6 (which most good players can stop, though very expensively in British air) Russia is down to almost no income, being forced to occupy nothing but Moscow, and making a few bucks from Iraq and Africa, while desperately holding on to the back half eastern money for the last few turns it can, while Germany is starting to ramp up monster with Cauc and Volgo bonuses.

G is earning 60s and 70s, and Russia is lucky if it can buy 9 inf.  And thats only if G is being cautious and not strat bombing Moscow.  By about turn 8, Russia is lucky to have 20 bucks to its name, and thats WITH 12 bucks from Iraq, Eth, and Somali.

Meanwhile that huge USA income?  If it isnt being used 60-80 percent in the pacific, then Japan is rapidly turning into an unstoppable orange hydra, taking out India with ease, gobbling up the Russian money up top, and just casually bullying the combined US/Anzac fleet ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Sure USA can go have a huge effect in Europe, take Italy out of the game, and start setting up to land on Normandy and force some trading, but if it does all that, the Axis will win the game in the Pac, not in Europe.

I play with a group of very skilled players, I think.  When we allow people we dont know well to compete with us on triplea, its very rarely a serious game, and we all have a hard time winning as the Allies against each other, with 12 or 13 being the standard bid.  On the other hand, outside our group, I would say our Allied win percentage is pretty good, well over 70%, meaning we do lose some games, but we nearly never lose w the Axis.

Im not saying we dont occasionally have a tough game outside our group, but its the exception, not the norm.  I am very confident there are better players out there who can still teach us a thing or three, we just havent run into them yet, sadly.

Please, Im genuinely curious, what are the Allied strategies you guys see which are so strong that the Allies win most of your games?

USA landings in W Europe are nice, sure, but do you guys actually see enough power developed that, for example, France gets liberated, or Normandy actually held strong, and not just traded, or a successful push all the way to novgorod?  I dont think I’ve seen that happen in any game that isnt already a worldwide blowout…

What are you seeing with India holding, and the islands being contested, while Germany is also being stopped from taking control of the Euro/Russia/Middle East theater?  I find doing one of those things very reasonable, but holding back every Axis advance is a tough pill, one Im still trying to figure out.

Sorry for the super long ramble, Im back at work today, but my workload is apparently still on holiday break, lucky me :)

Demandr3d,

You should consider looking into the league hosted on this forum. Check out our 2013 rankings, pick a top player with an exceptional Allied record, and see if they might be available for a match.

It’s very difficult to talk Allied strategy since the Allies generally have to play reactive in the early game. Better to do your own favored Axis strategy and observe first hand what can or can’t stop it.

Link to rankings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0
(if it doesn’t go to 2013 by default, flip to that tab)

2 quick questions

1. is this the league I’ve seen mentioned where the standard setup is Russia starting w a strat bmr, and then allies getting a bid as well?  I could certainly see that tilting the win percentage some.

2. is this the league which requires forum postings of each players moves back and forth, which each player then has to play out separately on their own game map?

If these are the case, frankly neither interests me much, from a competitive or effort standpoint.  Let me know, or just link to the rules and Im happy to check for myself.