That is what I was saying.
Yep, I should have said I was agreeing with you there. My apology for that oversight!
Marsh
MOW,
The rules as such are already so tweaked in favor of Axis. Just look at the way Germany is set to obliterate UK Navy in Atlantic…
So, finally , playing within the rules, I come up with a play to at least give Allies a chance, and it’s termed “cheesy”…
There are different types of play and players.
Some favor the mindless, brute strength if the Axis battering away at Axis, till they win or bust.
Some favor some artful play, with interesting moves, that may confound the former type of players.
So now, this is basically “Dumbing down the game” for the sake of the former.
What this is guaranteed to do is to add BIDs for playing Allies, as the tilt is so profound.
Comparing history to the game, Japan attacks either J1 or J2…
J3, and J4 are definitely not following the historical timeline.
But…playing a J3 or J4, gives immense advantage to Axis in Europe.
So UK BB in Hong Kong, generally draws in a J2, DOW…that is point of TMG.
Now, by this rule change, we go back to the old J4G4 boring game…which is almost always an Axis win without bid.
Before TMG was proposed, there were numerous players , good ones at that, who were bemoaning this very type of play.
TMG was criticized, that UK is “giving” away the BB…
With a mild Allied counter, suddenly, it’s all “cheesy”… and they do a rule change to shaft the Allies.
There is a reason why Chess played in 1800 or 1900 s can be compared to now, and beauty of moves can be appreciated.
Imagine suddenly, they say “Castling” is illegal…or change the way Bishops move… then the game is substantially changed.
That is why rules should nor be changed so abruptly, it destroys comparitive ability of the game…over time. There are choices one can make called “House Rules”.
-----------------------’
Now, as far as US initiative in Pacific, the only thing it can do other than defend Hawaii is bunch up in Queensland…
In the short term, neither one of these sites does not present much of a threat to Japan.
Look at the common scenario…
All Japan SZ6 navy joins SZ 33 Navy in Carolines…and lands 2 SBRS and 6 FTRs there too…
UK Malaya BB joins Anzac navy in Queensland.
Remember, Japan can selectively obliterate Allied Navies at its will. MORE IMPORTANTLY , also take hits on planes Alone, and land new FTRs on undamaged CVs…they have 11 of them…!
It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!
(Unless they changed that too…)… and wipe off half the Allied Navy… and USN will have to decide to vacate the SZ or attack the Japanese Navy .
Initial USN, from PHP, SFO and Hawaii, combined would be hard put to damage the IJN…forget destroy… And they risk being destroyed the follow up force Japan sends. All this when the islands are taken…no allied Navy will get there in ages…
Most folks play Japan close to mainland China with Factory buy… but there is also the agressive Naval and Air build in Carolines play…which leads to very narrow number of reactive actions US can take.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I used to think that way taamvan. After playing the past two seasons of league I have to agree with them that the game is not very balanced. Without a bid or (Balanced Mod 2.0) I cannot see allies having a chance in a league game. Its very easy for Germany to roll Russia and with Japan’s help make it happen early on round 6 or 7. With a bid you prevent Italy from taking the med and thus create a quick pathway for fighters to make it to Moscow. Without the fighters Moscow will not survive on their own. Without a bid these fighters make it too late or not enough to make a difference. Sure you can try many different strategies for the Axis but why change when there is one that cannot be contested.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope.� it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I used to think that way taamvan. After playing the past two seasons of league I have to agree with them that the game is not very balanced. Without a bid or (Balanced Mod 2.0) I cannot see allies having a chance in a league game. Its very easy for Germany to roll Russia and with Japan’s help make it happen early on round 6 or 7. With a bid you prevent Italy from taking the med and thus create a quick pathway for fighters to make it to Moscow. Without the fighters Moscow will not survive on their own. Without a bid these fighters make it too late or not enough to make a difference. Sure you can try many different strategies for the Axis but why change when there is one that cannot be contested.
You dont need the bid to clear italian navy, it just makes it an easy win there. Give the bid to russia to give it extra figher or tactical so it can slow germany down a bit or at least force germany to stay together. And you can still build the IC on turn 2 with or without the sub so the path to moscow is just as clear with or without a bid in the med. With the bid it is just a no brainer regardless of what happens in G1 without the bid there might be better targets to hit and you have to chose.
I used to think that way. Without a bid in the Med most players are going to take 1-2 fighters and 1 bomber from London to seazone 97 to make it 90%+ If Germany sinks the CA off Gibraltar they will need 2 fighters from London depending if they scrambled any on Germany’s turn. Now the two fighters in the med are going to take out the DD/TT at malta. If they lose the CA off Gib they can no longer take 97 and block Egypt. If they buy an IC I can almost guarantee they will get Sealioned. That will shut down their production in Africa.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
Actually, Japan can. It just can’t do that without allowing the US to declare war on its turn.
Example: if you mass the UK Pacific, ANZAC, and US fleet elements in one sea zone, Japan can declare war on the UK and ANZAC and destroy those fleets while the US fleet looks on helplessly. If Japan’s navy is large enough to withstand the attack from the US navy, this would clearly be much better for Japan than declaring war on the US at the same time.
Furthermore, depending on positioning, the US navy may not be able to escape being hunted down after the US declares war… Depending on the specifics, this could lead to the ludicrous situation in which the US watched the ANZAC/UK fleets being destroyed but finds that declaring war in response would be a game-losing move.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I agree with you here. The Allies may have a small disadvantage due to logistics, but not the bids in the 30+ that some folks on the board are getting.
Marsh
Mr. Marsh;
Then we are only arguing semantics; a declare against UK is war with the US. Whether Japan attacks or declares at that point is immaterial; the American factories pop the moment it enters the war. The only ally Japan can attack without consequences is China.
It’s fairly easy to see the Axis as all powerful; if Japan and Germany are played by strong players they will leave few openings to exploit. But this is always true of any wargame. There are several devastating combination strategies that the Axis can do;
German planes into Africa
Germany and Italian planes against E UK
German and Italian bombers fly to Japan
Germany Italy Japan all attack USA
Germany Italy take UK together
Germany fakes sea lion and goes to nemestia
Axis dark skies Germany Japan Italy all strat bomb
etc etc
The ones people tend to dismiss see are the Allied versions of the same concepts, using all of your powers moblity together. When you do it right, its Japan that seems weak.
The better Axis openers are J1 J2; but they have some serious disadvantages to them in terms of brining USA into the war early, forcing Japan to move in a specific way…
The only ally Japan can attack without consequences is China.
Yep, this I agree with! The rest I mostly agree with :-D
To clarify – I’m not sure about Sea Lion feint/land in Nenensia being devasting. It seems like it would depend on bad play by Russia. That’s a lot like expecting White to play Byrd’s opening in chess… I would welcome elucidation about why you think this particular Axis trope is devastating.
In any event, I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
Marsh
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
Agree 100% I’m still yet to experience this imbalance, despite over 100 live games, with a large variety of opponents, under my belt at this point.
It only takes 1 transport to feint :-D
I dunno Marsh, I do play Russia badly at times, its very easy to assume that Archangelsk and Nemestia are in your backfield.
Here are my Russia rules I never follow;
What sometimes happens is that Russia is tempted (or forced by G1) to leave some men in the Vyborg/Karelia/Finland death zone and the map is expertly designed to make it super easy to cut off the German forces in Novograd by controlling or can-opening Belarus. Smart players then abandon this front once it becomes untenable, because anything that gets left up there is going to die. It is good to take Finland and Norway, but esp during G1G2, its easy to take back and they need only 2 trans to keep it forever.
It is when they abandon this front that the opening occurs. A lot of players will turtle Moscow; hardly anyone puts anything on Vologda. This is where you need troops.
If the germans get a carrier and a few transports, UK will freeze up and turtle. At this point you have options
If you pull this off right, you can grab a second round of troops off scandanavia, putting half your force north of Moscow and half west. At this point, the Japanese can land their entire air force on your LZ (usually this is Vologda from Chahar a turn after).
unlike most naval strategies, you aren’t necessarily 100% in with navy. Only need 2-3 trans and sea cover.
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
@Arthur:
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
In spite of you 3-peating me, I would say that small moves at the start make a very large difference.
Some standard moves/inactions I find quite incomprehensible. Not landing on Sumatra or buying an Indian fighter UK1 are my two faves. Majority of my games as Allies don’t see Calcutta fall. Although I have much more trouble holding on to Moscow than most.
I’m not convinced that the convention wisdom is fully evolved. I guess that means this game has life in it yet even for experienced players. Says something pretty solid about it.
So to clarify again, one thing at a time…
Japan can declare war on UK+ Anzac and NOT with the US. Is this correct?
Hence , Japanese Navy can do a double play, where the weak UK+ Anzac Navy is cleared out for the loss of a couple of TB, whose spots are taken over by FTRS.
This makes the US auto-DOW related decision on attacking the 3 CV+BB+ CRU+ 3 DD+ Sub +5FTR+TB , almost suicidal…hence it has to clear out…only that whether IJN follows it or not, allowing Japan is sucking Island money.
This again, makes US have a devilish choice to make…keep building in W. COAST, to prevent Japan from winning, or help Moscow…by attacking Rome/Normandy.
I have done this twice, won the game as Japan twice, and thought it is perfectly legal.
Please let me know if this is not the case.
Curious about what you are saying here?
If you move most of the IJN to SZ26 J1 or J2, can’t the US evacuate to SZ54 and then Japan don’t get the benefit of the Naval base while the US can use the anzac airbase and fleet to defend.
I guess they have the other option of evacuating towards SZ10 but this would not work very well if the IJN moves in J1. Is that what you are suggesting? Sounds a strong move because you can divide the USN and cause it to decide to go full atlantic, not declare against the IJN or perhaps try to defend SZ10 which I’m not sure how it could succeed. Certainly forces a response and takes initiative away from the USA.
@Arthur:
Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced. Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.
In spite of you 3-peating me, I would say that small moves at the start make a very large difference.
Some standard moves/inactions I find quite incomprehensible. Not landing on Sumatra or buying an Indian fighter UK1 are my two faves. Majority of my games as Allies don’t see Calcutta fall. Although I have much more trouble holding on to Moscow than most.
I’m not convinced that the convention wisdom is fully evolved. I guess that means this game has life in it yet even for experienced players. Says something pretty solid about it.
Great point and I strongly agree. I’ve played against the “unbeatable strategies” many times and they are anything but. Not saying I’ve never lost with the Allies, but an idea such as “JDOW1 done correctly breaks the game” has been proven false many times in games I’ve played (on both sides).
@Arthur:
**Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced.** Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.Â
I agree with you here. The allies have to be played perfect with excellent dice to win without a bid. Rolling Moscow is too easy without a bid. Anyone want to play a friendly game I am willing to show you how easy it can be done.
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade Moscow
If the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
@Arthur:
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade MoscowIf the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
I seem to be in the minority here, but I still don’t see this plan as an almost guaranteed Axis win (especially since I’ve seen it beat several times, on both sides of the aisle). Every time I see an Axis strategy written out it never seems to factor that the Allies get to play the game too.
If Germany buys all art G1, tanks/mechs G2, then it’s obvious they are going Barbarossa, and the Allies simply have to prepare for it. Two turns of 9 inf and a fighter for Russia, take Persia UK1, factory there UK2, and US going heavy EUS, and suddenly it’s not a gimme. By turn four the US will either be dominating the Med or landing in Norway (either way they will easily have 6-8 loaded transports in tow); Russia will have at least 7 fighters (one per turn for at least 3 turns, and the UK will send a plane per turn from Persia to Moscow starting on turn 4), making bombing raids difficult (if not impossible) for Germany and the UK will be assisting the US in either the Med or Norway, while providing support to Russia.
Japan can still be contained, as the US can spend the majority of its money in the Pacific from turn 3 on. Plus, Russia should use the Siberian troops to push into Japan on turn three, either into Korea or Manchuria depending on how it looks.
None of these things guarantee an Allied victory of course, but I’ve seen the all out rush to Moscow fail too many times to agree that it’s virtually unbeatable
The Moscow push definitely can be countered by heavy spending by the Allies in the Atlantic, as you mention. 100% US build in the Atlantic for the first two turns, plus a large number of UK fighters in Moscow, is enough to stall a G6-G7 attack on Moscow. That does give Japan a window to expand, requiring major US spending from turn 3 onward. The returned focus of the Allies on the Pacific allows Germany options to push into the Middle East.
At that point, the game requires both perfect Allied gameplay, and good dice rolls. I find that the Axis has usually won if Japan still is swapping control of the Money Islands with the Allies when Germany has control of Persia & Iraq. The economic output of Germany is just too large to counter. Certainly a better player can pull out a victory against an inferior player a majority of times. Nobody is questioning that. The argument is that evenly matched players will not be able to achieve 50% win rates as Allies without a bid. If the game really was balanced, I would expect that top players would gladly play Allies +20 and consistently crush their opponents.
If Japan does NOT declare war on W. Allies till J4, then US domination of Med and Norway is delayed 1 turn.
That one turn is crucial, because , it buys time for Germany to buy 1 more turn against USSR.
That is what usually tips the balance of power toward Axis for good, either, through an Economic victory, by caging Moscow.
Thus bringing in Japan to attack J2 or J3 allows for a more equitable game for Allies.
Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.
