Need a little help the game is preditable

Hi Warhawk

here’s a couple strategy guides for axis

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19929/germany-playbook-overall-strategy-guide/198

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/338

Thousands of games played by elite players have proven the axis to have the advantage in an oob game. If you are all new to it though, it probably isn’t that noticeable.

Anyway, Keep Playing :) It’s fun figuring out how it works. Also Live or FTF games are more competitive than email games when each person can take hours between turns

I think it’s a good example of taking too much “advantage” of waiting for Rus/US to join the war.

Germany and Japan has advantage in terms of units at the beginning of the game, and as the game unfolds, the US/Russians/UK will be able to match that. Try to invade Russia on turn 2, and declare war on the US/UK/ANZAC on turn 1 or 2 with Japan. They can’t threaten you in the beginning, so you might as well just do it and push for the money islands :)

In many games, the US has a hard time getting into the fight before it is too late. Try to keep that in mind :)

Enjoy and welcome to the forum.

@Warhawk77

While as a new player there is a lot to take in since Germany has so much to do, it holds all the cards. As was noted earlier Germany has a huge number of advantages relative to its historical strength/alliances at the stated time frame of the game. OOB a determined push for Moscow is unstoppable in sufficient time. That is why on the first turn Germany can do an impossible number of things all at the same time: e.g. wipe out the UK home fleets, take France, strafe Yugoslavia, perhaps even do a G1 Barbarossa and occupy Bulgaria, maybe land an aircraft in Italy to protect the Italian fleet.

It distills down to Germany starting with far too much air power, plus too much armor, along with getting lots of “free” allied infantry units it shouldn’t have. Admittedly, some of this is clearly done to get around game mechanics issues that otherwise can’t be accounted for: simple historical force/division balances (rather than unit effectiveness/experience and operational/tactical doctrine), defensive advantage (in game mechanics) and a single ~6 month turn base preclude replication of the simultaneous assault on the Low Countries and armored penetration through the Ardennes into France resulting in rapid capitulation of all of France.

However, this has resulted in some serious distortions of the timeline. The distortions allow Germany to do far more than it should be able to, and far more easily than it should. In the game Germany doesn’t even need air power to take France and as a result is free to do things it shouldn’t be able to do immediately. Anyway, the following is offered as perspective, rather than actual house rules, alternate scenarios.

Historical considerations and how they impact game play:

• Holland/Belgium would not have any German units on them at the start of the game. Instead, Germany would have to do a simultaneous attack on them and France. Of course this would make Normandy unreachable on turn 1. Having the Low Countries already occupied by Germany means no Dunkirk…because those forces that were rushed in to protect the Low Countries were the ones evacuated along the border w/France.
• Denmark and Norway would have to be occupied during the 1st turn to open the Danish strait. They wouldn’t have a large number of forces already in them as this was occurring at the same time as the invasion of France. Instead, one would have to commit forces to taking/holding them. Not having the strait open at the start of the game means no battleship sally (along with all the extra air power) to wreck the entire British home fleet at the start. Having more of the fleet surviving changes the complexion of the game.
• While Slovakia was on board for the invasion of Poland, Hungary and Romania were not Axis members until late 1940. Romania supplied a lot of manpower during the war, but that would have to be activated by “occupation” on Turn 1 to even roughly simulate the timeline.
• Bulgaria was neutral until 1941 when it joined the Axis allowing the attacks on Greece and Yugoslavia through its soil but not by its forces. The four man infantry stack activated for it is problematic since it wasn’t a supplier of manpower to invasions of Greece/Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. Instead they served as occupiers of portions of Greece and Yugoslavia.
• Finland shouldn’t be activatable as an ally until at least a turn later (e.g. through Norway after it is activated.) Again, the super-early Barbarossa would be problematic if Germany didn’t start with Norway in hand.
• Germany’s divisional dispositions at the start of May 1940 were 114 (primarily for the attack on France/Belgium/Netherlands), 7 for Norway, 15 on the Eastern front and 29 for “Germany” administrative/forming/training (~23 divisions had formed since January), other. Basically, there was very little that wasn’t on what would be considered Western Germany in the game–the exception being the Norwegian operation. Germany essentially had to go all in to assure success. It didn’t have a plethora of excess air and armor to deploy for other ventures (Yugoslavia or Russia) at this stage.

From what I gather the bidding system is a way of compensating for Germany on steroids that steamrolls over Russia before the US or UK can effectively engage. In light of the above, negative bids for Germany might be interesting…removing a few tanks, plus a few air units would accomplish much of the same. Germany would have to be more cautious in risking air or tanks, and couldn’t play as aggressively without squandering precious air power in dicey low probability attacks.

@Warhawk77
Im very surprised at your view. Having studied the board at the outset - ready for the start of my first game … I can only see an Axis victory. Especially if certain tactics are followed.

@Warhawk77 I think it comes down to early decisions. If players play the same way each time, the game may take a certain predictable path. But as soon as someone tries something new, the game can be turned on its head. For instance, a round 1 Barbarossa is very different than a late (Italy round 3) one. Japan attacking the Allies on round 1 is a different game compared to round 3. Try different approaches and you’ll see different results for sure!

By the majority of good player accounts, Global is unbalanced in favor of the Axis and needs a 30+ bid to be balanced. So unlike your experience, the Axis is greatly favored.

A common new player mistake is to not play aggressively. You need to take advantage of the Axis strength and attack everywhere where odds are in your favor.

@akreider2
Your the third person to confirm my initial impression. The game is overwhelmingly in favour of an axis win, especially if the axis player is aggressive which really is the norm. Im going suggest an initial cash input to allies of 30 IPCs which they can spend on first go. (Any nation or nations). (But not on factories first go). I know exactly where all this should be invested.

@freh
Why would a single axis player try a different approach when one known approach practically guarentees a quick win? The only reason I can think of is to avoid killing off our glorious game so quickly.

@Axisarmpit

Minor changes can also make the game more challenging.

Option taamvan Changes the control of Novgorod, Volgograd, Russia Objective to 3 PUs for Germany. Control of Caucasus is also reduced to 3. Also adds a Fighter to Russia and a Armor to Urals.

taamvan is an experienced player and has had good luck using the above.

@Axisarmpit said in Need a little help the game is preditable:

@freh
Why would a single axis player try a different approach when one known approach practically guarentees a quick win? The only reason I can think of is to avoid killing off our glorious game so quickly.

Are you asking what the logic is for someone not to use a guaranteed strategy to win? Or for one axis power to do something different when ideally all 3 should be working towards a common goal?

@Axisarmpit You might want to try the Balanced Mod 3.0 which is more balanced. Typical bid is around 10 for the Allies. It’s the standard version used in League play on the forum and has been tested by a lot of people. Mostly the rules alter the National Objectives to make it easier for the Allies.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/27451/g40-balance-mod-3-0-rules-and-download/2

@freh
Im writing from the point of view where just two people are playing. One Axis player and one Allied.

As an experienced player of over 25 years its clear that the Japanese can run rampant in SE Asia as the game stands, at set up. India is there for the taking and once its factory starts to produce this will seriously aid the German assault on Russia or they might advance towards Africa. I just see the inevitability of the outcome.

Some sort of Allied adjustment/initial bonus is required and Im trying to decide a fair cash figure or other compromise. Im proposing an IPC bonus of 30 that can be spent by any Allied nation or nations on their first go. Is that fair/reasonable?

@Axisarmpit It depends on who the players are, and at what level. Brand new allied players could need a bid of 60 because they dont know how to focus on certain objectives and properly utilize their IPCs. But more seasoned players could only need a bid of between 0-20 depending on the strengths of the two players. This is for OOB btw

@WindowWasher
Hi WW

The more I study the initial set up the more alarmed I become. Isnt it true that if Japan sends all its fleet and airplanes south… and builds a sea base in Hainan at the end of its first go, she can attack India on its second turn?
British warships might stall the Japanese fleet by declaring war, but their suicide would only briefly stall the Jap advance?

@Axisarmpit

UK can block 37 with the India DD so turn 3 soonest on the India attack. Yea, it’s a tough row to hoe for the Allies oob

If India buys Infantry t1 and t2 it becomes very costly for Japan, especially with some planes from anzac or Mediterranean. A combination of that, China applying pressure, and US and ANZAC going hard should prevent most early india takeovers.

Japan cant utilize DEI, and ANZAC gets that income for a long time, which leads to a ridiculous amount of fighters, subs, or whatever they want to focus on.

Also, In the case that this happens, apply pressure with the russian troops in north, get china manchuria, and yourself korea (6 IPCs in OOB).

@barnee
Ahh but if Japan is not at war with UK …Blocking ships do not work at all. Japan can put 16 ships into sea zone 39 in Round 2 if she buys a sea base in Hainan. There could be as many as 23 planes in a position to attack India if Japan occupies Yunan or Shan State after Round 1 or 2 which is perfectly feasible. I think this kind of aggression would be decisive in most games.

@Axisarmpit You wouldnt let Japan take Shan State or Yunnan using china, also, if you buy just infantry, and keep your planes in india, Japan will have to bring more than their starting ships.