Playtest report and conclusions

That was an interesting report, JohnBarbarossa  8-)

It seems like those of us who have tried a kind of pre-version of AA50, with a setup that is presumed close to the real AA50 game, with OOB rules, allies seems to be favored even more than in AAR.

To the official playtesters (Yope and Krieghund?): during playtesting, was AA50 designed to be balanced both with and without National Objectives?

Thats great posting! Good read.

I’m not sure yet whether Egypt or Karelia is more critical for G1. In my games the Allies have totally locked down Africa, even when Egypt is cleared/taken in the first round, so I’m not sure whether its worth sending in the bomber and the extra tank, only to get backed out again or trapped in Trans-Jordan almost immediately thereafter. The odds aren’t very spectacular either, so its almost just as likely that the fighter will survive regardless of what G does. Karelia on the other hand risks the AA gun fire on the Luftwaffe, but if you take it out then you also get the NO bonus (and most likely on the next round as well.)

I’m not sure though, G seems really strapped for cash. I’m amazed for example that they don’t even get a battleship in sz 5. There’s just no good reason to make a naval purchase that I can see, since Germany needs every penny to coordinate the defense of Europe in round 3.

I don’t think the game is balanced without the NOs.
KGF is just way too easy to pull off otherwise.

Thank you, that was a good read!

I think (with what I’ve read and seen so far) that the NO’s are going to force the fight in the Pacific. I’m looking forward to this. I’ve always compared Axis and Allies to a balloon, if you squeeze it in one place it bulges in another. From your little test, (and what I am guessing) it looks like if everybody squeezes G then J bulges.

In your first game, did it look like Japan had a shot at Canada? Thus putting pressure on US to be defensive? How about a J bomber base at Hawaii with a build up to invade the West Coast? If nothing else, this would be an attention getter.  :-D

@Black_Elk:

I’m not sure yet whether Egypt or Karelia is more critical for G1. In my games the Allies have totally locked down Africa, even when Egypt is cleared/taken in the first round, so I’m not sure whether its worth sending in the bomber and the extra tank, only to get backed out again or trapped in Trans-Jordan almost immediately thereafter. The odds aren’t very spectacular either, so its almost just as likely that the fighter will survive regardless of what G does. Karelia on the other hand risks the AA gun fire on the Luftwaffe, but if you take it out then you also get the NO bonus (and most likely on the next round as well.)

I’m not sure though, G seems really strapped for cash. I’m amazed for example that they don’t even get a battleship in sz 5. There’s just no good reason to make a naval purchase that I can see, since Germany needs every penny to coordinate the defense of Europe in round 3.

I don’t think the game is balanced without the NOs.
KGF is just way too easy to pull off otherwise.

The Egypt G1 attack like we performed it has a 80% chance of clearing. Germany don’t really need to take it, Italy can do that, it’s all about that one fighter of the UK.

I am not sure how the Karelia odds are but attacking with 4 ground units (2 from Finland, 2 from Germany) against 6 ground units (5 inf, 1 rtl) and an AA gun gives me a bad feeling in the underbelly as well. Cause if you fail I think your whole eastern front collapses…

Losing Egypt hurts like hell too but as we proved it’s not a game decider on G1.  :wink:

To answer Todd7912: Yes, I (Japan) tried to attack Northern America as well. However I had 6 trannies, one sailing around the globe and I needed 3 to keep the flow to the mainland going. So my offensive was limited and therefore failed completely, also because the USA player did really well by buying armor and infantry and keeping the shuck going by building them on the west coast. All I did was delaying him one turn.
Although many people here state otherwise, I don’t believe Japan can take over Western USA with 70 IPC+ on hand vs 45 of the USA. You would need about 5 turns to get a big enough force and you need to invest every IPC into this offensive. Meaning on the mainland you are pushed back by the Russians + British landing forces in Archangel–> to Moscow—> to the Japanese forces.

@JohnBarbarossa:

Our playgroup (JohnBarbarossa, Driel310 and Dizon) played 2 testgames with the known rules and setup over the course of the last two weeks and we like to share our experience here.

First game
Germany took egypt on G1 with good rolls (2 arm left). This is a mandatory battle in our opinion. Germany HAS to take out Egypt (at least kill all units). The Italians move after UK, this gives UK the possibility to retreat their forces there and save the fighter.
Bring 1 inf + 1 arm from France using your transport and your bomber (plus all forces from Libya). With the bomber this is a 80% battle. Your transport can only be attacked by the UK bmb, but it has to land in deadzone Transjordan, which will then be attacked and killed by the Italians. If the UK does this (they didn’t in our game) it is a bonus I think. The german transport has already done its most important duty. The rest of Africa should go to Italy anyway. If you go to Egypt with Germany, Japan should also take out all UK ships at India in J1.
We also decided to take out the DD in SZ 6 and attack the UK BB in SZ 2 with 2 subs and 1 ftr from Norway. The reason for this was that UK would then only have 1 transport left. Unfortunately this attack failed due to bad dice. Germany lost a fighter there and UK was able to land on France and in the process kill the second German fighter. Since Germany is so low on Infantry it is important to take out at least one UK transport, since France cannot be defended on UK1 against 2 transports.
On G3 Germany build an IC for France (you need it otherwise you are outproduced by Russia) together with an AA gun. For the remainder of the game the transport was used to conquer Africa together with the Italians. Germany build lots of Infantry and an occasional fighter and later on more armour.

Hi John,

Thanks for the post.  Now, we still don’t know if this is the true setup or not, but your German play sounds fairly standard.  I see that in both games, there didn’t appear to be much German Naval purchases.  This is not surprising, as I really don’t see either the incentive (no convoy raids) or protection (subs still to vulnerable) to encourage them.  The game represents the Eastern Front very well (and has gotten better with each rendition) but is still severely lacking in it’s representation of the Battle of the Atlantic  :cry:

Italy took out Transjordan on their first turn and received their 10 ipc bonuses every turn after that. They send most troops to Africa and aided Germany at the eastfront as they put pressure on Caucasus with their 2 trannies and 3 offshores. Their builds were mostly inf + arm. Later on when they received more money (the game was almost over) they bought a bmb due to their building limit of 6.

Sounds like they got the feel of Italy just right, spreading it’s resources btw Africa and the Eastern Front  :-)

Japan took all of the Pacific in two turns. Their first build was 2 trn and 1 inf. We decided that pressure on India was the most important thing, and naval and land forces needed to be in position to take out India in turn two. Therefore attacks in China were minimal and we decided to let the Chinese fighter live. This turned out to be a good decision since that fighter could not do much harm. Japan is not a monster when unchecked, it is Godzilla! In later stages of the game, Japan cashed out 70+ a turn!

This is my biggest fear with the game… A UK stand in Asia or Pacific not being viable.

I have the same impression that if Japan wants India, they can get it.  This means there is no point for UK to even build an IC in India as it will fall so easily.  The only alternatives then become a full-tilt US Pacific campaign, or the dreaded KGF.

I am hoping the true setup will have a pre-built India IC from game start, as this is the only way to keep UK there.

Allies did make some tactical mistakes. They decided to ignore the pacific. UK and USA both build a lot (more then needed) of ships in the Atlantic. UK started to land in Netherlands and bomb France with their offshores (which appeared to be not a good tactic). USA build bombers and started to bomb Germany. This hurt Germany a lot, but was certainly not a game breaker. Due to the second IC and Germany cashing out 30-50 Germany could hold out. To counter this strat Germany tried to develop Advanced Industrial Complex but got Warbonds instead (not bad either). Later in the game they tried again and got paratroopers (and took back Norway from the Russians). USA tried to develop heavy bombers during the course of the game but got Radar, Supersubs and Jet Fighters.
During the game the Russians single handed stopped Germany and even drove them back at one point (Germany needed to defend the beaches and hurted from the SBR’s) all the way to Rumania and Poland. Then the Allies realized that Japan was getting to big to stop and changed strategy. The bombing stopped and the allies started landing in Archangel. Russia had to fall back to send troops to the Japanse front. The Allies then sent all of their ships to SZ 4. This took a lot of pressure of Germany who could send a lot of defensive inf from France and Germany to the eastern front, and from that point started to push the Allies back. The Allies did not make any serious attempts to go to Africa. A mistake in our opinion. The allies conceded after 12 rounds with Moscow surrounded. During the course of the game there was a lot of investment in tech. USA got three techs, Germany got two and Japan got one (Longe range aircraft).

I agree, Allies could have made a more cohesive strategy.

I’m very disappointed to hear the Allied reinforce through Nor/Kar is still alive and well.  It’s so ahistoric.  I can’t blame them completely, as there are a couple of NOs (France, no Allied units in Russia) and map changes (Fin/Nor separate, new NW Europe territory) to discourage this, but a D-Day rule to focus the UK/US attack on France would have been nice.

I’m also disappointed to hear about the Random Techs.  It seems you guys had an idea of what Tech would best assist your strategies, but had to pray for the right tech to come by to do it.  That shouldn’t be the case for a strategy game  :cry:

Overall, it sounds like this game boiled down to a KGF vs. JTDTM to Moscow type game with the KGF portion just being very poorly executed.  I was hoping this playout would be a thing of the past in the supposed Deluxe Anniversary Edition.  Unfortunately, it looks like it is still alive and well.  :x This doesn’t bode well for the OOTB rules…  :cry:

@JohnBarbarossa:

Second game
With the experience of the first game I decided that Japan cannot be ignored. I also observed that Russia can fight a long time before they need any help. With this information I decided to use the following strategy:
UK would go after Italy, and try to hold onto Africa.
Russia would fence off Germany alone (at least for the time being)
USA would go all out against Japan and therefore start a pacific war

Germany did the same moves as the previous game, this time they won SZ 2 but lost in Egypt. It was fairly easy for the UK to secure Africa after this. With Russia I made a big mistake on the first turn. After that I lost the initiative and was only reacting to the German moves and plugging the holes. My first turn build of 1 bmb, 1 ftr, 1 arm and 1 inf also might have been to aggresive. The Russian front did not fair well (dice did not help either) and was almost collapsing after three rounds. USA did a good job building up a substantial pacific fleet and 5 bmbs and conquered the south pacific. At that point both fleets were facing each other and the one could not attack the other. Since the Russian front was going very poorly and Japan (even if they lost some bonusses and IPC from the Islands) could buy some ships as defense and continue to ship troops to the mainland I decided to invest 20 ipc in tech with USA (despite of this, this was no techgame at all) and hoped for heavies, and I got them! I wiped out the entire japanse fleet. But heavies were not enough to turn the game. USA started to send bombers to Germany (and had 10 bombers on the board) but they came to late (when the bombers started to bomb Germany, AA guns took out 3 out of 3 - ouch). The Allies started frantically to ships troops to Europe through Scandinavia/Archangel but it was too late. Moscow fell in round 8/9.

I’ve said all along, that to kill the KGF playout, you would have to either make a UK Ind/Aus IC viable, or a US Pacific Fleet viable.  In your 2nd game, even though you went all-out US Pacific, you still did not have enough to push Japan back.  I think the OOTB rules will be doomed to KGF as the best Allied alternative :oops:

Just looking at the opening setup you used, I can see Japan is WAAAY ahead on material.  US has no chance going mano a mano with Japan in the Pacific and like you say in your conclusion, it looks like Atlantic builds would be the proper way to go.  Now, of course, you did get HB and totally blew Japan away in the Pacific, which only goes to show how broken HB are.

Conclusions
The game looks pretty balanced so far. Allied play usually is more difficult so it is normal that the first games are won by the Axis. Even is the Allies did not play optimal in the first game. The game still lasted a lot of rounds. The NO’s are a great addition and forces you to play differently. But without them Axis are toast. It is not enough to go out full against Japan with USA so you need a different approach. Maybe next time we try an all traditional approach and build a transport fleet with both UK and USA, UK goes to Europe and USA goes to Africa. As usual Africa cannot be ignored.

I’d say balanced but only if Allies go KGF.  I would have hoped they got rid of this everything moving towards Moscow/Berlin playout and replaced it with a true global game.  Barring some big changes to the real setup (either UK IC or stronger US Navy), I think we’re going to be disappointed again.

Thanks again for the post John.  I think it generally confirms what we already suspect.

Thanks JohnBarbarossa for sharing your test games with us! I’ve been playing a bit with a friend of mine (Perry) over the internet and we will be writing up a report soon.

One thing, and this also answers Cousin Joe’s fears, is that there is a possibility to reinforce India with Russian troops and then an IC build IS VIABLE. We tried this in one game and it worked out fine, although Russia was of course slightly weaker. In that game, the Allies balanced the Russian support for India with UK attacks vs. Leningrad. So, while that Scandinavian push might be felt to be a bit ahistorical, game-balance-wise it works out well I think.

A caveat of course is that a maximized anti-Indian Japan strat must be tried out vs. this Allied strategy, and also maximum German and Italian pressure vs. Caucasus. I think the jury is still out if this is possible to pull-off as the Allies without losing Caucasus, which, if not retaken, usually means losing the game.

I think it work like this:

UK IC in IND w/Russian Support (like: 2-3 inf and 0-1 Arm) + US Pac Builds (only occasional builds in Atlantic allowed) = VIABLE

You need to have ALL three of the above (UK IC IND, Russian support + US Pac Builds), in order for this to be a cohesive, viable strat.
Leave out one of them , and the Allies are in trouble.

UK and Russia need to handle Germ+Italy on their own, in this scenario.

Now, what happens with the Russo/German Front , in this scenario, is a totally different question.
I do not yet know wheter UK/Russia got the strength to face Germany/Italy on their own. Time will tell…

Perry, with an Indian IC in place, UK will only be at 50% (or even less) strength vs Germany and Italy.

I have serious doubts whether that will be enough looking at the games we played. Africa needs attention as well and Russia is a sitting duck vs a marching German army + Italy landing in her belly countries.

And you won’t win the game this way since Japan can defend her countries with her fleet + land forces while Germany slowly tightens the screws on Russia……

IMHO it’s almost KGF for sure to make an Allied win possible the way we stand now.

@Driel310:

Perry, with an Indian IC in place, UK will only be at 50% (or even less) strength vs Germany and Italy.

50%?

I was thinking a build of either 3 inf OR 2 inf + 1rtl/arm turn. Thats a cost of 9-12 ipc/turn.
After UK looses SUM+BOR+Their 1 NO they’ve got at the outset,  they’re at 30.
Losses in Afr is amended by capturing NWY+FIN, imho.

So we are talking about a UK with approx 30 ipc income, right?

But even so, yes I agree that it is tough/impossible for UK/Russia to match Germany/Italy on their own.
But my point was, that if you want to Counter JAPAN, you need to do all of the following three:

1. UK IC
2. Russian strengthening of UK IC
AND
3. US Pac Fleet builds

Yes, you will get trouble in Europe, but me, for one, would like to try this out a couple of times, before throwing the entire strat on the Scrappile.

@cousin_joe:

This is my biggest fear with the game… A UK stand in Asia or Pacific not being viable.

I have the same impression that if Japan wants India, they can get it.  This means there is no point for UK to even build an IC in India as it will fall so easily.  The only alternatives then become a full-tilt US Pacific campaign, or the dreaded KGF.

I am hoping the true setup will have a pre-built India IC from game start, as this is the only way to keep UK there.

With China sparring status, there is no chance for UK keeping indian IC, starting or not. With BGG “setup”, from round 2, chineses are no more and Japan can focus on India, even if USA build some fleet. Revised indian IC worked with Sinkiang IC, not alone.

China needs more infantery, fighter killed or not

Seems axis won 2 games of 2, the third still playing, and Godzilla Japan 70 IPCs appeared, sent to soviets twice (Alaska path needs 8 trannies, maybe 10 with improved industry, that should work). A capital trading will mean how about? 90 ? 100 IPCs? Not Godzilla: super-saiyajin level 4 Japan, and allies need 2 axis capitols this time, Rome and Berlin, funny if Mussolini is still alive and Hiro-Hito can save him  :-P Sure, boys, axis needs a bid with this “setup” :roll:

I’ll pick Japan in my first … eeer … all 6 players game if this is the setup  :wink:

About techs, random tech in fact means the player must cover more circumstances when thinking strats: what if this guy gets long range?, so in fact a better strategist is needed playing random tech than no techs. A good strategist will beat a lucky tech shot, because a good strategist will have a counter on his/her sleeve.

Probably techs are balanced, but or you love tech or you hate tech, so Larry made optional this time for preventing bad moods and such.

@Lynxes:

Thanks JohnBarbarossa for sharing your test games with us! I’ve been playing a bit with a friend of mine (Perry) over the internet and we will be writing up a report soon.

One thing, and this also answers Cousin Joe’s fears, is that there is a possibility to reinforce India with Russian troops and then an IC build IS VIABLE. We tried this in one game and it worked out fine, although Russia was of course slightly weaker. In that game, the Allies balanced the Russian support for India with UK attacks vs. Leningrad. So, while that Scandinavian push might be felt to be a bit ahistorical, game-balance-wise it works out well I think.

A caveat of course is that a maximized anti-Indian Japan strat must be tried out vs. this Allied strategy, and also maximum German and Italian pressure vs. Caucasus. I think the jury is still out if this is possible to pull-off as the Allies without losing Caucasus, which, if not retaken, usually means losing the game.

Hi Lynxes,

Yes, I am aware the Russian reinforcement is an option, but a few points…

-Those Russian INF in Caucasus are needed to counter the G1 hit on Ukraine which is a must on G1

-Russian INF supporting an India IC is even more ahistoric, and shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.  UK should already have the initial setup or resources to support the IC on it’s own.

-If Russia goes to Per R1, I would send maximum pressure I1 and G2 to get the Cau IC (or at least setup for a G3 takedown)

-As Japan, if I see the Russians moving to Persia R1, then India becomes priority one over everything else.  Japan has enough stuff to take out the Russian reinforce if they bring the kitchen sink on J2.  The IC will not be able to build anything until after J2 (which comes before UK2)

-on US1, the US will be seeing Italy going after Russia, and Japan ignoring the US in favor of India (which has a good shot of taking India).  With minimal incentive to stay in the Pacific (no Convoy Raids, few IPCs, and the need to help Russia) then Atlantic builds would seem the more reasonable approach.

Overall, the Russian reinforce + UK IC + US Pacific Fleet strategy is just too risky from what we know of OOTB so far.  Strategically, I would much rather take my chances with the KGF race vs. JTDTM.  And in that case, the game is still highly flawed like it’s predecessors.  Global conflict should be the goal, not races to Moscow & Berlin.

John Barbarossa:
Pardon the french, but how the heck are you supposed to counter the UKR on R1  :? :? :?

Three games down the road, this is what I’ve found in UKR, after G1:

Game 1: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
Game 2: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
Game 3: 3 inf 1 rtl 2 arm

To counter this we’ve got ‘all’ the units of EUK (1 inf), CAU (4 inf) and the 1 Arm of MOS.

Conclusion: You can’t counter EUK as Russia on R1! Or what am I missing?  :?

Hah, sorry JB! It was Cousin_joe that talked about countering UKR  :-)

So, Cousin_joe , what do you have to say for yourself  :-)

A question first. How valid is the map and setup?

Often an inf or two more in setup makes a world of a difference…

Second: In defence of Random Techs…

IMHO its “historical” to invest money to research - what you get is often not determined by your goal, but by pure luck.

Best example - when they wanted to make gold they found Blackpowder ;)