Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map?

@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.

@Dafyd:

Wow…I didn’t realize that the game that I have so much fun playing was so screwed up and unfair.

Sry to disillusion you

@Dafyd:

When all is said and done, it is a game.

Wait, you mean we’re not controlling real world events with our moves?! Gay

@Dafyd:

If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage. We had to in real like anyways.

but I thought you said this was just a game? Now its like real like? I’m confused.

@Dafyd:

Guys…Just have some fun.

Yeah, come on, guys. Stop having a discussion you find fun, and lets just have some fun

@Dafyd:

If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.

We did. We changed the rules. Problem solved.

@regularkid:

@Dafyd:

If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.

We did. We changed the rules. Problem solved.

This sounds like poor will to solve a challenge  :wink:
In “real life” (like Dafyd said) you’ll find many hard challenges… and you can’t change the rules  :evil:

I think that Axis hasn’t an advantage… it has “initiative” (at the start) that is another thing.

My group (about 15 players) is playing a G40 tournament. We played over 80 matches with bid 0… and the outcomes are nearly 50%

@regularkid:

Wait, you mean we’re not controlling real world events with our moves?! Gay

**Out of respect for our gay members on this site, please do not use that word in a derogatory manner.

Thank you.**

@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”?

Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

1940        1941      1942      1943        1944          1945
Allies      40            60          123      150          180            190
Axis        35            50          70        80            70            60

And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they  allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…

Well, if we’re gonna play by history the axis powers are doomed. The only reason the Germans held out so long is because they had a superior way of fighting (tactics: Auftragstaktik, operational: improvisation/Blitzkrieg, but that advantage wore off during the war…).

In strategic terms the axis powers never coordinated their war efforts. Germany took on Russia, and Japan the US. Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, and Japan had a bad experience fighting the Russians (a certain general Zhukov defeated the Japanese in the 1930’s).

So perhaps the Germans need a bonus to in A&A… ;)

But I really would like the powers to be more balanced, and I don’t think giving the US a extra 5 IPC a turn is adding to the fun of the game. Which is personal of course. Better give them an extra bonus in my opinion, or change the set-up.

@ItIsILeClerc:

@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”?

Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � 1940� � � � � � � � 1941� � � � � � � 1942� � � � � � 1943� � � � � � � � 1944� � � � � � � � � � 1945
Allies� � � � � � � 40� � � � � � � � � � � � 60� � � � � � � � � � � 123� � � � � � 150� � � � � � � � � � 180� � � � � � � � � � � � 190
Axis� � � � � � � � � 35� � � � � � � � � � � � 50� � � � � � � � � � � 70� � � � � � � � � 80� � � � � � � � � � � � 70� � � � � � � � � � � � � 60

And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they� � allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…

problem is, nobody is gonna play it… you can take a simple rule like The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, but it won’t ever replace the bid system until Larry endorses it. I’ve read tons of great house rule ideas over the years for balancing G40 way better than the bid system, and they all got buried in the house rule forum. Now the G40 discussion forum is getting over run with house rule talk because there’s nothing for experienced players left to discuss other than the balance issue. If Larry or Kevin introduced or endorsed a simple modification that gives the Allies a boost, the bidding and setup alterations would end, but it’s the only way it ends.

Yeah, that’s what I am hoping for: at least a sophisticated reaction from the developers, saying that we (especially the league gamers) are all wrong. Nobody knows how to play the allies ;-). OR… they fix the rules and/or endorse or acknowledge some of the houserules indeed.

@Tolstoj:
You are absolutely right! I am perfectly fine with a WW2 game designed to be balanced. This means 1:1 that I’m OK with the allies not having as much production capacity and have less military forces as they historically did and the axis have even more military forces than they historically did, but I have problems with a WW2 game where all this is the case and time is also the axis friend… I am struggling with my love for A&A for that very last reason.

I am disappointed by the fact that the community had to come up with a bidsystem to give the allies a boost, and all we hear is that this bid system is not officially acknowledged. I can agree if the devs don’t like the bid-system, but then give us an official alternative, please. It is much needed!

Honestly I prefer an unbalanced game with a bid to a balanced one (that is, if it were possible to have a perfectly balanced game).  The bid introduces diversity and surprise into the game.  And it provides a fair way to choose sides.

Moreover bidding can hardly be described as an artificial process for A&A given that bidding has been used to balance the game and award sides since the Classic map came out.

The fact that Global requires a high bid for Allies actually makes Global even more interesting imho.

A&A board members, new and veteran alike,

Im sure by now a few of you feel like this thread is kicking a dead horse.  Coming from someone who is relatively new to the game and the boards (just about a year), some of these thread ideas are new to me.  I appreciate all of them.  I know that the veterans feel that the game is slanted towards the Axis.  Me personally, in my relatively small sample size, I have never won or seen the axis win.  That doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong, all it means is that’s my perspective.  I love to hear everyone’s perspective.

This board and it’s members have been SOOO helpful to me!  It’s a great community.  When I see the arguments, it bums me out a bit.  We can be better.  I know it.

There is a difference between balance and symmetry.  This version of Axis and Allies is intended to be two very different forces against one another, with diverse choices and unequal assets.    Chess is a fully balanced and symmetrical game (its fair balanced because white gets +1 more move and black gets +1 more piece of information and its symmetrical because you get to have the exact same assets.)

This type of “opposing forces” has become more and more popular.  G42 is a great example of a more balanced and symmetrical set up than G40.  Xwing starfighter has completely imbalanced sides with dissimilar assets, as do many 21century TTWGs

However, there is a point that we find that asymmetrical and imbalanced forces imply a kind of bias or advantage.  This is very hard to argue in absolute terms since player skill, luck, and plain errors can bias the outcome of any survey of wins/v/losses.

I am not fully convinced that the game is biased towards one side or the other, over the complete game (14-16 turns).  95% of games are ended by time or patience running out and one side capitulating, this should be a tremendous sign that we are not really assessing the games objective bias or balance but rather telegraphing our opinions and unsupported conclusions onto it.

The more effective analysis is that a combination of luck and strong play will reduce the game to a specific contest (eg one battle for Moscow or pacific naval dominance), a contest that will be won by small decisions leading up to it.    All of the other side stuff (battle for Africa etc.) is essentially meaningless and distracting.  I am not convinced by my experience that these culminating battles are entirely in the favor of one side or another, but rather that by the time we reach the crucial point we are all too clouded by exhaustion and small considerations to recognize that the outcome is largely dependent on luck and the culmination of small decisions over time.

I do agree in general that the Axis have a much clearer, cleaner path to victory and that they are more adaptable and flexible.  But this does not necessarily translate into an overwhelming material advantage at the crucial point in every game, which makes me believe that the bid (while a good flexible solution) is not necessary and is a bigger bias than it intends to address.

I am open minded, and given the varying skill levels of all players and the chance for a mistake, I would rather play with diverse players or random team assignments (as a way of addressing a putative advantage), and accept that the fun is in winning (or trying to win) with a “losing” side.

I haven’t been following this thread in detail since it began, nor have I contributed any posts to it before now, but here are a few thoughts for whatever they’re worth. I think that many of the issues that have been discussed here (and in many other threads) basically come down to various pairs of competing interests: some related to the game itself and some related to the player community.

In terms of the game itself, it’s possible to list many pairs of competing interests: things like realism versus playability, detail versus simplicity, and so forth.  The issue of balance that’s been discussed here is one such example.  I don’t know what Larry’s thinking has been on this issue over the years, but it’s possible that the question of competing interests which he had to resolve was the following one: should A&A be viewed primarily as a military simulation which accurately depicts the situation that existed in WWII, or should it be viewed primarily as a military-themed board game?

The impression I have is that Larry opted for the board-game concept rather than the military simulation concept.  That option, however, has the following implication: most board games give (or are assumed to give) a roughly equal chance of victory to all the players. WWII, however, was a historical conflict fought between highly asymmetrical military forces on a highly asymmetrical “board”, i.e. the surface of the world.  So the design choice then becomes: should A&A give a roughly equal chance of victory to all the players (which would imply distorting historical accuracy)?  Or should it try to be historically accurate (which would imply giving an unequal chance of victory to the Axis and Allied sides, which would mean that the players on one side would always be facing a frustrating built-in disadvantage)?

My guess is that Larry has traditionally tried to “have it both ways” by choosing as the starting point for most of his global-scale games the moment of WWII when the two sides were the closest to being balanced: the middle of 1942.  It’s a good choice from that perspective because it’s the point at which the initial Axis drive had more or less run out of steam, but the Allies were not yet strong enough to drive the Axis back.  So it’s arguably the point in WWII where the two sides were realistically “balanced”.  The problem, however, is that this rationale stops working when the starting date of the game is changed from mid-1942 to mid-1940, as is the case in Global 1940.  So this placed Larry back at square one on the fundamental question of accuracy versus balance.

Historically, June 1940 presents an interesting problem in terms of “balance.”  On the one hand, it can be argued that June 1940 is part of the first third of the war, which was the period when the Axis was racking up its early successes, and therefore that it’s appropriate for the Axis to have an advantage at this time.  On the other hand, it should be noted that the first third of WWII was not a period of unalloyed Axis success.  When Germany was scoring its big wins in 1939 and 1940, Japan was seriously bogged down in China.  Conversely, when Japan was running rampant in South East Asia and the Pacific in late 1941 and early 1942, Germany had run into serious trouble in the Soviet Union.  Italy, meanwhile, see-sawed back and forth across North Africa during much of this time.  Moreover – and this is something which the A&A game system does not model well – both Germany and Japan failed to use effectively the resources of the territories they captured and of their own domestic resources.  By contrast, the UK, the USSR and the US (as each country entered the war) very quickly learned to mobilize their manpower and their industries to the full…though of course the USSR and US components of this factor hadn’t yet come into play in June 1940.  And as I’ve argued in various other threads, I feel that Germany and Japan had unachievable strategic aims and at best ultimately could hope for nothing better than a stalemate.

So my feeling is that Larry, when designing the 1940 game, gave a secondary priority to accuracy and tried instead to give the Axis a better chance of victory than it had historically, with the aim of producing a balanced game whose probable winners and losers would not be predetermined by the actual events of WWII.  As some forum members have pointed out, however, Larry may in fact have overcompensated and produced a game which not only isn’t balanced but is actually balanced in the wrong direction from the point of view of historical accuracy.  So instead of “having it both ways” (being accurate and being balanced), he may instead have created a “worst of both worlds” game which fulfils neither objective.

As for the question of how to fix the 1940 game, we’re dealing here too with a case of competing interests.  There’s no shortage of proposed solutions; in fact, the range of options that’s been proposed is so vast that it’s become unmanageable.  A few solutions, like the bid system, have gained a degree of general acceptance, but most of  these proposed solutions haven’t been used beyond a few individuals or groups because they 're unofficial personal systems.

As some people have said, the only solutions that would have any convincing force would be the ones that ultimately come from Larry himself…and Larry, at the moment, doesn’t seem to be producing any new A&A games, nor even really any revised rule systems for existing ones.  Which leaves us to fall back on fan-developed house rules.  And the problem with house rules is, here again, a case of competing interests: it takes a minimum of two people to play A&A, but there’s no guarantee that any house rule designer will ever find anyone other than himself who’s satisfied with (and who’ll agree to play under) the rules he’s created.

There’s an old saying that “anything known to more than one person cannot be deemed a secret,” and the problem with house rules can be expressed similarly: any house rule read by more than one person is going to generate differences of opinion.  Other than any official rules that Larry might issue – and it doesn’t look as if he’ll be issuing any in the near future – I don’t see much prospect of the community ever reaching any kind of broad and definitive agreement on how Global 1940 (or any other  A&A game) can be fixed.  The most realistic solution is probably for local gaming groups to settle on their own customized solutions, since getting half a dozen people who know each other personally to agree to something is easier than achieving the same thing with a much larger and much more diverse forum community.

I have never won or seen the axis win.

Just wait, you will.

Someone somewhere in this topic did a breakdown that shows that what “seems” to be the Allied material advantage is highly illusionary.  A lot of it is in infantry, bases and sucked up by the fact the allies have to transport large amounts of stuff.  Plus much of the Axis firepower is in airplanes, giving them a huge advantage.

@CWO:

I haven’t been following this thread in detail since it began, nor have I contributed any posts to it before now, but here are a few thoughts for whatever they’re worth. I think that many of the issues that have been discussed here (and in many other threads) basically come down to various pairs of competing interests: some related to the game itself and some related to the player community.

In terms of the game itself, it’s possible to list many pairs of competing interests: things like realism versus playability, detail versus simplicity, and so forth.  The issue of balance that’s been discussed here is one such example.  I don’t know what Larry’s thinking has been on this issue over the years, but it’s possible that the question of competing interests which he had to resolve was the following one: should A&A be viewed primarily as a military simulation which accurately depicts the situation that existed in WWII, or should it be viewed primarily as a military-themed board game?Â

The impression I have is that Larry opted for the board-game concept rather than the military simulation concept.  That option, however, has the following implication: most board games give (or are assumed to give) a roughly equal chance of victory to all the players. WWII, however, was a historical conflict fought between highly asymmetrical military forces on a highly asymmetrical “board”, i.e. the surface of the world.  So the design choice then becomes: should A&A give a roughly equal chance of victory to all the players (which would imply distorting historical accuracy)?  Or should it try to be historically accurate (which would imply giving an unequal chance of victory to the Axis and Allied sides, which would mean that the players on one side would always be facing a frustrating built-in disadvantage)?

My guess is that Larry has traditionally tried to “have it both ways” by choosing as the starting point for most of his global-scale games the moment of WWII when the two sides were the closest to being balanced: the middle of 1942.  It’s a good choice from that perspective because it’s the point at which the initial Axis drive had more or less run out of steam, but the Allies were not yet strong enough to drive the Axis back.  So it’s arguably the point in WWII where the two sides were realistically “balanced”.  The problem, however, is that this rationale stops working when the starting date of the game is changed from mid-1942 to mid-1940, as is the case in Global 1940.  So this placed Larry back at square one on the fundamental question of accuracy versus balance.

Historically, June 1940 presents an interesting problem in terms of "balance."  On the one hand, it can be argued that June 1940 is part of the first third of the war, which was the period when the Axis was racking up its early successes, and therefore that it’s appropriate for the Axis to have an advantage at this time.  On the other hand, it should be noted that the first third of WWII was not a period of unalloyed Axis success.  When Germany was scoring its big wins in 1939 and 1940, Japan was seriously bogged down in China.  Conversely, when Japan was running rampant in South East Asia and the Pacific in late 1941 and early 1942, Germany had run into serious trouble in the Soviet Union.  Italy, meanwhile, see-sawed back and forth across North Africa during much of this time.  Moreover – and this is something which the A&A game system does not model well – both Germany and Japan failed to use effectively the resources of the territories they captured and of their own domestic resources.  By contrast, the UK, the USSR and the US (as each country entered the war) very quickly learned to mobilize their manpower and their industries to the full…though of course the USSR and US components of this factor hadn’t yet come into play in June 1940.  And as I’ve argued in various other threads, I feel that Germany and Japan had unachievable strategic aims and at best ultimately could hope for nothing better than a stalemate.

So my feeling is that Larry, when designing the 1940 game, gave a secondary priority to accuracy and tried instead to give the Axis a better chance of victory than it had historically, with the aim of producing a balanced game whose probable winners and losers would not be predetermined by the actual events of WWII.   As some forum members have pointed out, however, Larry may in fact have overcompensated and produced a game which not only isn’t balanced but is actually balanced in the wrong direction from the point of view of historical accuracy.  So instead of “having it both ways” (being accurate and being balanced), he may instead have created a “worst of both worlds” game which fulfils neither objective.

As for the question of how to fix the 1940 game, we’re dealing here too with a case of competing interests.  There’s no shortage of proposed solutions; in fact, the range of options that’s been proposed is so vast that it’s become unmanageable.  A few solutions, like the bid system, have gained a degree of general acceptance, but most of  these proposed solutions haven’t been used beyond a few individuals or groups because they 're unofficial personal systems.Â

As some people have said, the only solutions that would have any convincing force would be the ones that ultimately come from Larry himself…and Larry, at the moment, doesn’t seem to be producing any new A&A games, nor even really any revised rule systems for existing ones.  Which leaves us to fall back on fan-developed house rules.  And the problem with house rules is, here again, a case of competing interests: it takes a minimum of two people to play A&A, but there’s no guarantee that any house rule designer will ever find anyone other than himself who’s satisfied with (and who’ll agree to play under) the rules he’s created.Â

There’s an old saying that “anything known to more than one person cannot be deemed a secret,” and the problem with house rules can be expressed similarly: any house rule read by more than one person is going to generate differences of opinion.  Other than any official rules that Larry might issue – and it doesn’t look as if he’ll be issuing any in the near future – I don’t see much prospect of the community ever reaching any kind of broad and definitive agreement on how Global 1940 (or any other  A&A game) can be fixed.  The most realistic solution is probably for local gaming groups to settle on their own customized solutions, since getting half a dozen people who know each other personally to agree to something is easier than achieving the same thing with a much larger and much more diverse forum community.

Exellent post as always CWO Marc, maybe if we all agree on one solution… we could take it to Larry and ask for his aproval.

HHHHAAAAAA!!! LMFAO.

Great post CWO Marc