Morning all,
Game 122; I’m the allies. +18 Bid goes to 3 arty, 2 men, all Russia. Goal is to beef the Rus opener such that it can knock out 3 german armies on R1.
Positives;
Russian opener went fine x3 strikes. Hitting both territories on the West side of West Russia leaves West Russia safe. When this happens, Germany has to recoil for a turn (giving Russia extra cash on turns 1 and 2). However, the German tanks always form up. Germany attempt on Egypt was a wash, so Africa stayed UK. This was a rare game where a rump-Russia survived for most of the game. Amazingly, the US fleet 1dd 2tt survived 11 sub rolls. My KGF luck therefore couldn’t have been better, except;
Negatives
I went 100% KGF, even moving the pacific stuff over. A huge but ineffective US navy can take Africa, but it gets one shot of troops in a 5 turn game, not sure but I think I eventually attacked Scandinavia. It simply made the choice easier for Germany; since the americans couldn’t be hit, they continued to focus on Russia. Losing 3 income there and 3 in Africa is easily replaced. Germany just focused on Russia, maybe the US pressure would have changed his G4 buy, but probably not.
I had a really good looking knuckle on India, putting all of my $ down there (~3-4 armor, 4 planes, 6 infantry, a few other units). With focus on his ships and planes, Japan annihilated this WITH EASE. Even with a few Russian (and American fighter) units, India is totally hopeless as long as Japan has 2 transports live J1. 5 trans come with nearly 10 planes and support shots, its over.
Takeaways; India is helpless unless you bid there. Western Allies = hopeless.
Game 123. Maphead plays the Allies. +20 bid. 1 armor on INdia, 1 arty on Burma, 1 fighter on carrier off india.
Gambit;
Attack Siam 1 inf 1 art 1 arm 1 fighter
Attack SZ 37 DD+TT 1 carrier 1 crusier
Attack Kwangtung? 1 man 1 arty vs 2 men 1 fighter.
Attack NG 1 cru 2 inf
Killing Siam makes taking Burma harder. Killing Kwang makes killing the Americans harder. Some Russians and americans survived, Japan’s commit on the mainland was reduced.
Positives; this bid limits Japan’s options. Maphead did well, Siam emptied but Japanese, everything else got killed.
Negatives; While India survived, Russia was hopelessly stacked once the German armor gathers. Not sure on the exact playout but Russia can’t stack everything on caucausus against a G3 (too weak), it cant set for a counterattack on R4 (too weak, arty does nothing to change this), if it puts everything on Moscow it might as well only buy infantry and back that with the UK fighters. Still, I’d need a whole extra turn of Russian production to get 50-50 odds. Each time he sets up against Moscow/Caucausus, its an easy take (10+ armor, 6+ infantry, whole air force, with 1-2 small armies holding the edges) its not a hard odds battle.
Takeaways; You saved India. Yay. Russia fell G4, as usual.
Game 124 I took over the Allies, +20 bid, exact same gambit as maphead (armor, arty, fighter in indian theatre)
Positives; Ha. Japan took some risks against US fleet that cost him 4 fighters, still, the US was a whole turn or more behind in the buy and Japan resumed its lightsaber offensives (hitting me wherever I was weakest) the next turn unabated. Because Japan lacked ground troops, his ambitions down south were curtailed, I even was able to kill a BB+TT with my 3 UK fighters but then they couldn’t reach Moscow that turn.
Negatives; I used Maphead’s opening gambit, it was a total failure. Lost both land battles, conceded UK1. We re-set the attacks and I focused everything on Siam (3inf, 1 arty, 1 armor, 2 fighters). Again, I failed to take it (1 armor 1 arty w/d, leaving 1 fighter). The UK fighters could have flown to protect the china guys (1 rus inf, 2 us inf, 1 fighter, 2 UK fighter), but map insisted that if I had protected this territory, he would have attacked pearl harbor instead. Germany easily took Egypt even with an extra rus fighter there.
Russia bought a bunch of artillery, nothing close to what would have been needed to ward off Germany. Pre-emptively attacked his Moscow-force, he lost 6 infantry, I lost everything (13 infantry, 9 artillery, 1 armor, 1 fighter). Game over for Russia (10 armor+AF against 5 men 3 tanks 4 fighters)
Oh, and I also got strat bombed on R3 for 14 damage. That meant no building up, not that 8-9 infantry would have changed the odds.
Takeaways; You might save India if you bid there and open with a Japan-smashing gambit (that you re-roll several times in order to get an acceptable result). Russia will still die.
Lessons Learned; As Maphead gets better, the Axis advantage grows. My luck is awful. Regardless, the Allies have to have at least a 24 bid, and even with this they have to take some fairly large risks at the beginning of the game just to slow the Axis down. Even the 24 bid is only enough to alter the game in one region, leaving other areas to die.
Takeaway; Play Axis.
Very interesting post. I play 1942.2 with my group in the Bay Area pretty often and I have also played it many times solo. Our bids for the allies range from 12-18. I have only seen the allies win twice. Argothair who played the allies that game defeated me as I was playing the Germans. I believe his bid was around 12 as I recall. He went KGF and performed brilliantly during the campaign. I did also win one time with the allies, though we were testing out some national objectives through a house rule post on this site. Granted the allies did win, but I felt like the National objectives favored the allies. It was really fun though! My conclusion is the axis win almost every game we play. I would not at all be surprise if the allies need at least a 24 ipc bid. I like the idea though of USA going first from a forum you started recently. Though not sure it’s going to stop the Germans from sacking Moscow or Japan from taking India. Anyways we shall see what happens next.
Taamvan, would you be interested in playing a game against me by email or on the forums? I would take the Allies repeatedly with a 13 point bid; maybe it would give you a chance to see some of the Allied tactics that I think can balance the game well under 24 points.
A few brief comments on your latest game notes, which I always enjoy:
The Siam gambit is very creative and has the potential to dead zone or pergaps even hold Burma against Japan on J1. However, it is crazy to make that attack with only 1 infantry – you have to also bring on the loaded transport, otherwise Japan has 50% odds to win a battle that you spent your whole bid on.
In a 100% KGF game, the USA needs to build at least 8 new transports so it can unload a rolling cycle of land units into France, Italy, and/or Northwestern Europe. If you are only targeting Norway and Morocco, then, as you noticed, you can’t sap the core of the German economy. Also as you noticed, if you only have two transports, you only get one delivery during the first five turns. The solution is to build new loaded transports every single turn as the USA, and then return the empties to the eastern us or eastern canada sea zone as you go. Once you have enough empties recycled, you can stop building transports and just buy more / pricier land units or extra air support. A decent repeating purchase is 3 inf, 1 art, 2 transport, 1 fighter. ($37) The fighter can go to India or Moscow for defense, and you can deliver two loaded transports on each of turns 3, 4, and 5.
Some strong players disagree, but I think 8 offensive units with 6 infantry on India is way too aggro for anything but a 100% KJF game. I would rather have something more like 11 infantry, 3 offensive units (including fighters) and spend the extra cash in London on forces to invade France, bomb Berlin, or reinforce Moscow.
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
Argo,
I would love to play, but TrippleA isn’t my cup of tea. However, in the interests of learning, I’ll boot the game up again and take a look at the functionality so I understand it well enough to manipulate the program.
Maphead is a good opponent, but his good outcomes from luck and taking risks make his gambits seem easier to accomplish than they really are (at least when I try to replicate them). I argued the same thing you did in sending in everything available to Siam; the only problem is those units probably aren’t going to survive Japan’s turn even if they survive the opener.
great idea. Problem is, that once the US transports die on turn 1 (95% of all games), KGF is effectively over. If that stuff could be preserved or replaced without losing fleet defensive units, that would be awesome. But unlike G41, G42, the US doesn’t start with any extra stuff to load, and it doesn’t start with a lordly income either.
I have not put together any viable strategy that involves any US splitting, bidding for the US etc. because even with a cruiser or destroyer there, maphead still attacks the US. the UK hasn’t been successful in putting a navy back in the water because even when im saving money with the UK, I still cant out-arms-race Germany’s air.
In short, I have not even put together the moving parts to cross the Atlantic, much less figure out what I’m supposed to do to limit Germany once I get there. its the exact same dilemma as G40–you spend 4 turns just assembling your offense, and once it crosses, it is extremely easy to push it back off the continent with newly built troops, or force it to all huddle together to avoid an air stack attack.
US and UK troops are 3.5$ more than German ones since they require a boat ticket, and they are 2 turns older when they fight. The US troops move at a snails pace only to be placed directly in front of Germany’s main factory (in G40, complex of 5 factories). This does not take into account the additional $3-$5 per unit required to provide them with defensive security. Why this has not been addressed by adding more capacity to transports, or some other mechanism like making navy cheaper vs land units, I simply do not understand.
The worst part is that Germany is about to kill Moscow at that juncture (turn 4), and nothing produced by any team including Germany can reach Moscow in time to change that outcome (except SB), such that Germany can then focus on getting deep (adding inf, bombers,…beef).
2b) what that’s leading to is me putting all my UK$$ in india. All of it. Since there are only 3 spaces, I’m buying fighters for Moscow, almost every time. That’s why I’m not buying the recommended amount of infantry; I basically get 3 placements of 3 units before India and/or Moscow are about to die.
I have not been successful in flying fighters over from London, at all. The proposed landing spaces (west Russia, gib, archangel) are not in Allied hands by turn 3. If I hold any LZs within 4 of London, they are under threat, starting turn 3.
Many of my headaches can be chalked up to poor luck, and we are playing with a variety of players on both teams, not all of whom are experts. Still, I would hope that the game would last more than 4 turns, you guys def. imply that your games are competitive up until turns 6-8.
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
I’m very surprised these bids don’t include a sub to hit the SZ37 IJN fleet. That’s a huge swing in the game if it can be destroyed.
Japan IMO needs to be weakened by taking the money islands of the Philippines/Borneo/East Indies.
Been more than a year for me since playing 42.2 but I’m 60% confident I can defeat an experienced Axis player with a 10 bid as allies. Turkish straits closed and no interception or tech.
Anyone up for it?
We are trying to use that sub to hit the BB CV fleet. You’re right, that TT has to die, but you cant hit both sets of boats.
If we only have to attack SZ 37, then the carrier and cruiser can come. I suppose the sub would be a smaller sacrifice, but it cant do the deed alone it’ll need 1 more unit. Vice-versa, if we don’t attack the BB CV Japan fleet, we don’t have much to do with all those UK ships except run and hide.
We have some new ideas, not sure how matchmaking works on AAA, thanks for all the interest in a game and I’ll try to come up to speed.
@ProtesT:
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
Good to hear back…Would you like to be Axis or Allies side? If you like to be Axis please PM your email and we can start one soon. :lol:
We are trying to use that sub to hit the BB CV fleet. You’re right, that TT has to die, but you cant hit both sets of boats.
If we only have to attack SZ 37, then the carrier and cruiser can come. I suppose the sub would be a smaller sacrifice, but it cant do the deed alone it’ll need 1 more unit. Vice-versa, if we don’t attack the BB CV Japan fleet, we don’t have much to do with all those UK ships except run and hide.
We have some new ideas, not sure how matchmaking works on AAA, thanks for all the interest in a game and I’ll try to come up to speed.
I don’t see how you can hit the SZ61 TT and also hit SZ37. I prefer hitting the latter.
Triple-A is pretty easy BTW. Playing online is the most rewarding.
@ProtesT:
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
Good to hear back…Would you like to be Axis or Allies side? If you like to be Axis please PM your email and we can start one soon. :lol:
PM sent. Forgot to ask about your bid as Allies. How much do you need?
Hey taamvan, if you do decide to give tripleA a try the simplest and most relaxed method is probably play by forum…
You can select that game mode in tripleA at launch and it will open a thread in this section…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=40.0
Basically what it does is each turn a gamesave is posted to the thread with the results. Then your opponent picks up the save and it goes back and forth like that. Leaves a complete record of the game progress both in the game history and in the thread. Also allows for commentary and after action reports.
You can of course play live at any point using the same gamesave. So it is possible to play a game by forum and then link up online too if both players are awake and down to play at the same time.
It makes it a little easier to keep the game going though with play by forum, in case someone has to call it an early night or whatever.
The thrill will never match face to face, but the upside is that you can play more hehe.
Probably Argo can walk you through the process. You can also explore that section for past gamesaves to see what sort of strategies others have employed at various bid levels.
@ProtesT:
@ProtesT:
I like to join playing some more 42 2E game via forum :lol: if anyone is interested…
It’s been close to a year since I played 42.2 but I wouldn’t mind my first forum game being this edition.
Good to hear back…Would you like to be Axis or Allies side? If you like to be Axis please PM your email and we can start one soon. :lol:
PM sent. Forgot to ask about your bid as Allies. How much do you need?
It seems the dice server has some issue now…will resume once the issue is resolved.
I like to start from minimum bid first and see how long Allies could stay. Let me think for moment…would do edit when starting the new game.
Hi A&A community,
I’m new to this board and wanted to share my thoughts about the imbalance of this game. I believe it has less to do with the units and their placement on the board, but that it is rather a logistical problem. The general consesus seems to be, that everything revolves around capturing Moscow for the Axis and saving Moscow for the Allies. So from a logistical viewpoint, the goal for every power is to get units to Moscow.
I compared four A&A games with regard to the problem of achieving this goal for both the Axis and the Western Allies (UK & US): Classic, Revised, 1942 1st Ed, 1942 2nd Ed
The general perception is, that Classic greatly favors the Allies, 1942 2nd greatly favors the Axis while Revised and 1942 1st are largely balanced. When looking at the supply lines for each power from their main production facility to Moscow i noticed the following:
Classic:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Karelia-Russia = 3 turns
UK: Karelia-Russia = 2
Japan: Manchuria-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Karelia-Moscow = 3
Revised & 1942 1st:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Archangel-Russia = 2
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-UK-Archangel-Russia = 4
1942 2nd:
Germany: Poland-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 4
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 5
What can be easily seen is, that the most balanced games are the ones where the supply line to Moscow for Germany, Japan and USA are all the same. The game where the supply line for the Americans is shorter than one of the Axis powers heavily favors the Allies. The game where the supply line for the Americans is longer than for both Axis powers heavily favors the Axis.
In 1942 2nd Edition the Americans could cut their supply line by one turn by dropping units from Finland or Norway directly into Archangel through transports. But that would require another large fleet of warships and transports on part of the Allies, which they cannot afford. So for me the solution to the imbalance seems to be, instead of pre placing several units across the board, to give the Americans the means to build such a fleet through either more income or a larger starting navy.
A better solution in my opinion would be, to have Iceland touch both SZ 2 and 3. Then the main Allied fleet could sit in SZ 4 and the American supply line would go: Eastern Canada-Iceland-Archangel-Moscow = 4. This would however require a reprint of the map. But other than that, i believe there is nothing else that can balance this game other than a large bid that completely alters the starting setup.
Hi A&A community,
I’m new to this board and wanted to share my thoughts about the imbalance of this game. I believe it has less to do with the units and their placement on the board, but that it is rather a logistical problem. The general consesus seems to be, that everything revolves around capturing Moscow for the Axis and saving Moscow for the Allies. So from a logistical viewpoint, the goal for every power is to get units to Moscow.
I compared four A&A games with regard to the problem of achieving this goal for both the Axis and the Western Allies (UK & US): Classic, Revised, 1942 1st Ed, 1942 2nd Ed
The general perception is, that Classic greatly favors the Allies, 1942 2nd greatly favors the Axis while Revised and 1942 1st are largely balanced. When looking at the supply lines for each power from their main production facility to Moscow i noticed the following:Classic:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Karelia-Russia = 3 turns
UK: Karelia-Russia = 2
Japan: Manchuria-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Karelia-Moscow = 3Revised & 1942 1st:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Archangel-Russia = 2
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-UK-Archangel-Russia = 41942 2nd:
Germany: Poland-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 4
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 5What can be easily seen is, that the most balanced games are the ones where the supply line to Moscow for Germany, Japan and USA are all the same. The game where the supply line for the Americans is shorter than one of the Axis powers heavily favors the Allies. The game where the supply line for the Americans is longer than for both Axis powers heavily favors the Axis.
In 1942 2nd Edition the Americans could cut their supply line by one turn by dropping units from Finland or Norway directly into Archangel through transports. But that would require another large fleet of warships and transports on part of the Allies, which they cannot afford. So for me the solution to the imbalance seems to be, instead of pre placing several units across the board, to give the Americans the means to build such a fleet through either more income or a larger starting navy.
A better solution in my opinion would be, to have Iceland touch both SZ 2 and 3. Then the main Allied fleet could sit in SZ 4 and the American supply line would go: Eastern Canada-Iceland-Archangel-Moscow = 4. This would however require a reprint of the map. But other than that, i believe there is nothing else that can balance this game other than a large bid that completely alters the starting setup.
Pretty interesting comparative analysis.
It opens a totally different approach on Balance issues.
However, I’m not sure that looking for the path to reinforce Russia via ground units is they key.
Fight the enemy where he is weaker.
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.
Also (your approach make me think about this) , may be you can make a rough approximation of many IPCs can land per Turn over the time. Example, assuming 1942.2 India need 3 units (2 Art and 1 Inf), this cut 31 UK to 20 available per game turn to land on Russia. So, at best it is going to be 2 Fgs in 1.25 turn to reach Moscow. For USA full KGF, it means roughly 2TPs 1DDs 22 IPCs per turn which cannot be land unit, hence 20 US IPCs per turn left for ground to reach Europe. Again, it can be 2 Fgs in Moscow assuming a Carrier in Easter US as a launch pad and via Iceland, it takes 2 turns to reach Moscow.
Maybe there is some way to compare and see how the money (here 1942.2 2*20 IPCs per turn) reach Russia.
Also, there is no India IC before 1942.2, so in a full KGF, it may reveals more fund goes to Russia, IDK.
I agree with grapesoda’s assesment completely.
This is essentially what I was trying to point to in the past when discussing the strategy of center control in A&A, and the lack of American shucks in 1942.2 relative to previous editions.
Also Japan’s drive is actually more extreme than grapesoda’s analysis would suggest. The northern route now takes twice as long as previous editions (grapesoda forgot Evenki when giving the numbers, so the northern route is actually 5), but that doesnt matter, because the central route is now one turn faster relative to previous editions! The shuck out of sz61 from Japan to Yunnan is one move. And then it is only two spaces that separate Yunnan from Moscow!
What’s more, sz 61 is in range of India as well (which in this version has the Achilles IC). So it’s a pretty bad scene as far as Center control goes for the Allies contra Japan. Meanwhile Allies don’t have a way to catch up on the Europe side, because of the way the Atlantic sea zones were drawn (esp. around UK.) So you have a situation, exactly as grapesoda stated, where the Axis route to the center clearly outpaces that of the Allies.
My proposed solution to this problem, which I won’t dwell on here for fear of seeing yet another thread moved to the HR section, is finding a way to get the Americans more purchasing power at the start (to offset their continuing logistical challenge), or alternatively to address the logistical challenge directly, such as by looking at the transport unit, or even revisiting the captial capture dynamic on Moscow itself.
None of those is going to be satisfactory for a play group that is only interested in using a standard bid to address the issue.
The way I’m looking at it the US needs almost a full two rounds worth of starting TUV to overcome the movement gap. This is unacceptable for most players using a standard bid process, because it’s much cheaper (in bid terms) to simply destroy Axis starting TUV instead, or stack ground at the center, rather than giving the US what they’d actually need to bring it across the ocean.
I agree that the core issue is mainly with the game map itself.
@Baron:
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.
I’m often tempted to capture and hold France or NWE if Germany allows me to do it. But I almost always regret it. I end up stacking France only to be in a stalemate with Germany while Japan takes down Moscow and there’s nothing I can do about it. Of course at some point I will take France to open up another front for Germany. But only after I have secured Russia and the surrounding territories. The problem with this is, when my opponent knows that I don’t like stacking France or NWE early, he can just leave those territories empty and throw everything toward Moscow.
Also Japan’s drive is actually more extreme than grapesoda’s analysis would suggest. The northern route now takes twice as long as previous editions (grapesoda forgot Evenki when giving the numbers, so the northern route is actually 5), but that doesnt matter, because the central route is now one turn faster relative to previous editions! The shuck out of sz61 from Japan to Yunnan is one move. And then it is only two spaces that separate Yunnan from Moscow!
You’re right! That happens when I count out the spaces in my head instead of actually looking at the map. :oops:
What’s more, sz 61 is in range of India as well (which in this version has the Achilles IC). So it’s a pretty bad scene as far as Center control goes for the Allies contra Japan.
I believe the creators gave the Allies the India IC for them to have a production point near the center, in order to mitigate their logistical disadvantage in the Atlantic. However to me it’s more of a liability than anything else. In previous editions, giving up India just meant + 3 IPCs to Japan. Now you’re handing them a free IC. India is also more difficult to reinforce for the allies, because the African route is also one space longer than in previous games.
Anyway sooner or later the Allies have to give up on India. My rule of thumb is to retreat once the Japanese can either take it with 2 transports + units from Burma, or when I anticipate the Axis can stack either Caucasus or Kazakh. When the Japanese need 3 or more transports to take India I’ll make a stand because I think it puts them too much out of position. I also don’t like trading Burma with Japan, cause it just wears down my units that I ultimately want to send to Russia so I just let them stack there.
Regarding India, that is what the USA ic on China helps with. You can kill the odd unit if Japan ignores the USA, and you have to. If Japan comes after China, the roles are reversed.
Regarding India, that is what the USA ic on China helps with. You can kill the odd unit if Japan ignores the USA, and you have to. If Japan comes after China, the roles are reversed.
I don’t think that an IC in China would ever produce a single American unit. Yunnan and Anhwei fall on J1. Szechwan and Sinkiang fall on J2, espacially if there is an IC on either one. Regardless of that, i don’t believe that an IC on a 1 IPC territory would ever be worthwile.
