Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map?

@EnoughSaid:

I feel the allies have the advantage, which I’m OK with since we did win the real war after-all. I hardly understand where all this Pro-Axis fervor is coming from. You’re worried the Axis will do these “winning strategies”? Then counter them! Screw with your opponents’ plan! Knowledge of your enemies’ intended moves is one of the greatest advantages a commander can ask for.

This is a very abrasive and callous thought, but to be extraordinarily blunt: If you keep losing, maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are?
Try thinking outside the box. Do something different!

Its easy to write this sort of thing, but in practice, it is a different story. The received wisdom that G40 is pro-Axis bias is not simply a bunch of players making excuses for themselves. The overwhelming majority of upper-level League Game end in Axis victories, even with robust starting bids. That should tell you something. Your assertion that “allies have the advantage” suggests either you are trolling or simply haven’t played enough to know any better. Either way, your post is misleading.

Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map? Between equally matched players, the answer is “Yes.”

I second regular kid. I’m just starting to learn Global and it’s clear that allies should receive a bid. To be clear though, I have played over 500 games, many at the highest levels in Revised, NWO, etc.

patterns I notice in high level play:

• Germany can consistently pressure Russia back to Moscow by turn 7
• Japan normal pattern is to force china to the edges and UK out of india.
• UK needs a bid to neutralize Italy. Otherwise axis can consistently achieve income parity
• Games seem to be short and end within 15 rounds. This is refreshing considering that high level NWO games last ~25 rounds and revised can easily last 40.

I’m always puzzled when people make the suggestion of playing better as the solution for strengthening the weaker side. The purpose of the bid is to an even game among players at the same skill level. Such posts are often followed by bad play suggestion (e.g. keeping russia in Bury, when the territory structure so dramatically favors Japan.

I think that in G40 the axis do have an advantage now. It trails back to the Alpha project, first the Japanese where scaled back some (mostly air and positioning), but the Germans got a boost in air plus more ground units (now 11 inf in Germany). So then it was London was too weak so more AA guns……but now we know that it wasn’t enough, the allies need some more help, or the axis need to be scaled back.

I’m not a fan of an out right bid, because as others have said 20 IPCs worth of units placed at the start can be too disruptive. It’s like the allies have an out of control house rule IMO. I agree that there should be a standardized tweak to the set-up, but bitching about it isn’t going to make a difference IMO. We need to get an official tweak, and someone should start a thread over at Larry’s site to see if you can get him to bite, I nominate Young Grasshopper :-D

Ha, I am a little amused that there has been a negative reaction to the allied 20+ bid.  Go the league and see how many games the Allies have lost with that much.

@Karl7:

Ha, I am a little amused that there has been a negative reaction to the allied 20+ bid.  Go the league and see how many games the Allies have lost with that much.

I’m not saying that the allies don’t need a boost in units, maybe they do and it should be in the 20 IPC range, but as your post suggests more isn’t always better, and individuals can screw it up LOL. Just throwing IPCs at the wall doesn’t seem like the right answer.

Like I said, I think that a 20 IPC bid is too much like an allied house rule, and that is what turns people off IMO (myself included). It isn’t standardized, and most people like to play with the same rules set which would include the starting set-up. That plus each little theater was set-up to have a certain balance (maybe favoring one side or the other), but having the ability to just toss units into the mix on a whim messes with that way too much at the start IMO.

Like I said players placing 20 IPCs worth of units at set-up with a bid, or players removing/swapping units on an unofficial level are all basically house rules. I would like to explore those things though if we could get something that was standardized, IDK maybe endorsed by say Larry? His site has had the crickets chirping for what the last year probably longer? Maybe he wants a challenge LOL.

I know that Larry is a big fan of less is better, so maybe it’s something more simple like moving around some allied units on the board to put the allies in a better position from the onset, or keeping certain assets out of harms way in the first turn?  Maybe part of it could be swapping out some allied units that could have an effect on both Pac and/or Europe. I have always thought that those 18 Russian inf was a joke. If you swapped out 4 inf (12 IPCs) for an art and 2 mech (also 12 IPCs) in the Sakha stack Russia would have some more options IMO. They could possibly threaten Japan in the right situation by flying a plane out there, or the six inf that normally make it back + 2 mech could make a big difference on the Moscow attack (w/allied air support). Keep in mind that Russia had the Siberian Rail, so a couple mech could be a small representation of that.

Anyway just my 2 cents WB

But it takes a different kind of player to be good with the allies then it takes to be good with the axis. So even 2 equaly skilled players might both win against eachother with axis all the time not because the game is unbalanced but just because they are just not as good with the allies as with the axis.

ShadowHawk put down my thoughts much more politically than I did.  :-)

@ItIsILeClerc:

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.

The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

War Bond Campaign
The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

In my gaming group, we play with a house rule: The only national objective used is USA getting the extra 30 IPC’s. I think it makes the game more realistic. The axis win about 30% of the time in our group.

@Young:

@ItIsILeClerc:

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.

The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

War Bond Campaign
The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

Does the US start with 15 base or something? I’m not seeing how it gets 21 IPC’s in round 6 in your house rule…

US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
1+2+3+4+5+6= 21 IPCs

FWIW, I really like this time ticking bomb against Axis, YG.
Is it enoug though?
If not, makes +10 IPCs US and Japan at peace NO reciprocal.

As Wild Bill pointed out, the starting bid necessary to “balance” the game (20 PUs or more, according to many experienced players) is so large that it effectively stifles early game development. For example, the bid is often used in the Med/North Africa to kill Italy in its cradle, transforming those areas into stagnant zones, rather than the dynamic theaters of war they were intended to be. Does this make the game more balanced? Maybe. But it also makes gameplay less dynamic and more mono-dimensional. The net result is to reduce the game’s strategic depth.

As an alternative to this double-digit bid, a “Balance Mod” conceived of by Adam514, myself, and several other players, and playtested extensively, uses National Objectives as way to generate  income for allies in the later stages of the game (when they need it most). The NOs balance the game while also enriching its strategic and historical dimensions. It works. Its awesome. It has also developed a reasonably large following.

The revisions are as follows (attached is playable saved game with the NOs built in):

Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

**REVISIONS    **

Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

**Additional National Objectives  **

UK

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece (“Southern Europe Beach Head”).

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or pro-Allied controlled (“Control of Mediterranean Shipping Lanes”).

• 3 PUs for UK Europe if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127 (“Control of Atlantic Shipping Lanes”).

• 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and Egypt; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81) (“Control of Indian Ocean Shipping Lanes”).

USA

• 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“Western Europe Beach Head”).

• 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“North Africa Beach Head”).

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam (“Pacific Airbases”).

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas (“Vital Forward Bases”).

Revised National Objectives

Russia

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe (“Spread of Communism”).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is open if Russia is at war with European Axis and no allied units are present in any originally Russian territories: (Persia, sz 80), (Amur, sz 5), (Archangel, sz 125); An additional 1 PU per open Lend-Lease lane if Japan has declared war on Russia (“Lend Lease”).

G40BalanceVariantv4.tsvg

@Baron:

US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
1+2+3+4+5+6= 21 IPCs

FWIW, I really like this time ticking bomb against Axis, YG.
Is it enoug though?
If not, makes +10 IPCs US and Japan at peace NO reciprocal.

If the +10 IPC at peace NO was reciprocal, I wouldn’t implement the War Bond Campaign until America is at war, which would probably make more sense anyways. Also, if you do that for the US, it should probably be done for Russia as well in regards to the 5 IPC at peace NO for Germany.

The one thing I did once in a game to balance it long term was to give USA +5 increasing +5 every turn.  So 5 R1, 10 R2, 15 R3 etc so by turn 8 USA is 90ish, putting real pressure on the Axis to win.

@SubmersedElk:

The ultimate test of balance is whether the best Allied players can go toe-to-toe with the best Axis players.

If they can’t, then the game is not balanced, regardless of any other factor. People have playtested and analyzed this game thoroughly enough to try everything worth trying.

If they can, then the question is: what are the best Allied players doing that the rest aren’t?

Take as an example, those Russian inf in the east. What to do with them and why? Bring them home always for Moscow defense? Use them offensively when focusing on Japan? If used offensively, do you bring in tanks and/or planes to support them? Is a bomber buy appropriate in that case? Should there be an extra inf or three pushed into Chinese territories south of Mongolia to trigger the war pact if Japan attacks them? Are there a set of Chinese/UKpac/ANZAC/US moves and buys that are necessary to make this kind of initiative successful? Are these good moves against certain Axis openings and bad ones against others? If so, which ones? Etc.

Feels like whole-map coordinated allied strategies are missing, even though there is a lot of point-level advice out there.

A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

Wow…I didn’t realize that the game that I have so much fun playing was so screwed up and unfair.  There are a number of posts along the forum that sound like whining rather than newre players trying to discover what experienced players have done over the years with the purpose of becoming better players.  When all is said and done, it is a game.  Have fun with it.  Try something and if it doesn’t work,  try something else.  If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.  We had to in real like anyways.  To get back to the opening question: are the allies doomed from the outset on the G40 map?  No.  Are they at a disadvantage?  Maybe but that’s what makes playing the allies so much of a challenge and thus fun.  Guys…Just have some fun.  The world is hard and nasty enough without bringing into our leasure time.  Just an old man’s opinion I guess.

@SubmersedElk:

@Young:

A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

That’s not necessarily a question of balance but of strategic depth. A good game should have both of course.

My fear is that so much of the G40 map is scripted by the particulars of its design that it leaves no room for strategic depth even if it were balanced. For example, some have said that they have seen games go well without UK doing the Taranto raid, but can they do so against quality Axis players? If not, that attack is effectively scripted by design. When I analyze Allied-side choices, many of them are essentially scripted responses to Axis openers, since deviating from those responses can only produce worse results than the script. When you boil it down to optimal openers followed by scripted responses, it becomes a one-player game (all choices on Axis side), and not a terribly fun one at that.

For what it’s worth, It’s my experience that Axis and Allies is inherently scripted on both sides with one optimal strategy that dominates all others. This is my experience on Revised, 1941 v3, Big World, Global 1940, Lord of the Rings, and New World Order.

Then again, the optimum strategy is complex enough to execute that few/nobody humans can actually attain it. It’s similar to Chess, where state of the art computers have nearly solved the game such that the computer can look at each point and evaluate the decision tree of outcomes to select the best one. The parallel I am drawing is that there’s an inherent optimal play in both game structures, not that Axis and Allies has good AI (doesn’t yet.)

Still, Axis and Allies is a fun game that’s certainly captured my attention across over 500+ full games.