How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)

You have not to prove is unbalanced. Basic gameplay with Pacific USA fleet leads to axis economic advantage too soon (round 3-4). Simple mathematics. Sub-optimal KGF gameplay leads to greater axis economic advantage (also at round 3-4) if Japan attacks America by Alaska. Sub-optimal SBR strat leads to a even more agressive Alaska path or to a axis SBR strat over Soviet Union.

You have to prove me that the scenario is balanced. I still fail to see a way allies could have a 50-50 win ratio, or even a 40% of victories unless wacky dices or bad axis playing.

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out.  Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.

@allies_fly:

The sub can be considered offensive too

This simply made my day  :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D

@HolKann:

@allies_fly:

The sub can be considered offensive too

This simply made my day  :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D

Yes, many a submarine has offended me.  They are usually on my side and dieing, which is why I get offended!

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

This I agree with. You have to assume that the game is balanced and then prove that it is or is not.

BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out.  Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.

This I do not always agree with. There is more than 1 way to skin an axis cat.

@Cmdr:

It’s already balanced, but you have to have National Objectives and Technologies.

The only changes I could see would be:

1. -4 Russian Infantry in the East, +1 Fighter in the West
2. Move the Chinese Fighter from Yunnan to Chinghai so it can live one or two rounds.

This just plain puzzles me. If you think that the game is balanced, then why suggest changes. Leave the game alone if it’s balanced.

Furthermore, while techs and NO’s are both optional parts of the game, NO’s are necessary, but techs are not.

I just suggested two minor changes if you wanted to make changes.  IMHO, it’s okay the way it is.

And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy.  But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.

@Cmdr:

And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy.  But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.

Why would I cry when the US would be having pasta and wine in Rome and the British would be having shnitzel and beer in Berlin? I did notice that you went all the way back to classic to dig up the JTDTM for our game.

And for the record, I didn’t say I don’t agree with you. I said I don’t always agree with you. Sometimes I do think a US strategy of harassment in the Pacific can be helpful. I just disputed your claim that you must ALWAYS invest in the Pacific with the US.

As a matter of fact, in every 41’ game that I have been the Allies I have invested in the Pacific with the US for experimental purposes and I have concluded that in a couple games it has been a waste of money.

Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.

Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.

Also, not sure what JTDTM is

Japanese tank dash to Moscow.

Oh, I’ve pretty much been doing that in AA50 forever because it’s the only time convenient way to get to Moscow…otherwise it takes like 40 rounds to march there!

@Cmdr:

Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.

Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.

Really, ever try an efficient KGF?  By round 3, Germany can be looking at massive navies at Z3 and Z12 each landing 12 units of material with air support-yikes.  Russia gets stronger in the east and pushes back, Italy loses Africa.

Personally, I think the Allies are at the advantage in 41- if you play them right- they just out produce and squeze the life out of Germany.  The new Geography makes the Japs too slow- they just get there too late.

Brit Z3 navy and American Z12 navies bring multiple threats and Germany collapses.

Want some details??? :?
Questioneer

yes pls :D

efficient?  what about KUSF :P ?

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I’m seeing). It doesn’t mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn’t want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you’ll have proven the game can be balanced.

I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one jap trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I’ll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.

I do not think that KGF (or KIGF) is dead.  Infact it could possibly be even deadlier since Germany can’t send inf directly to Ita, they have to go through WE or Blk first.

The Axis may get an economic lead, but it should not last long.  Japan will always be strong, but this is no different than Classic or Revised.

If I go KGF I’d go with the heavy shuck from Wus-Wcan-Ecan starting in round 1 (similar to my Revised strat).  You buy something like 10 inf, 1 ftr, a bom + inf could make more sense in AA50, but as long as you buy 6-8 inf for Wus you are good to go to start. 
Can Japan annoy you in Ala later?  Sure.
Will it be effective?  Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on the US player.
No longer can Japan land directly into Wcan.  And can they put a dent into the 8-10 unit shuck?  Not if the US player is good.  For the US Inf + ftrs (or boms) is a killer deterant.

The Allies can do a Heavy Afr landing in rd 2 and then shift the UK to Sz 6 while the US helps in Afr and puts a token threat on Ita.

Japan cannot get to Mos until like rd 5 (perfect scenerio), but can’t have a sizable army until rd 6 or 7 or later.  This gives the Allies 6 rounds to sink the Ger ships, sink the Ita ships, 2-3 Afr landings, reclaim Kar for Rus and start dropping either 14-18 units in Europe or splitting them between europe in Afr and this is all very doable.

The US can get inf from Ecan to Mos in 4 turns, and can get inf from Ecan to Cauc in 3 turns.  Both are shorter than Japans supply lines.

Also, once the Ita fleet is sunk, the US, if played right and they wanted to, can turn its entire income to Japan now since you should still have 3 shucks that are ready for Europe or Afr and if you know Germany won’t be able to take Mos in those three turns.
Depending on how you play and setup the Allies sometimes the Mid-Pac switch (US switches to Pac strat mid game) is better and sometimes it is better to just finish off Europe, depends on the game and Ger inf stack in the core of Europe.

Alaska is a dead end in AA50.  You were hard pressed in Revised to use it as a staging ground to take W. USA or E. USA, it’s impossible now that America has +5 IPC more than before!

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

KGF, dead in AA50???-brave words my friend.  Oh its alive, and even better than Revised if you play the Allies right and hit Europe hard.  Against a forceful KGF, Japan’s best moves are to either
a.) try hitting the U.S. through Alaska- hard!! or
b.) get to Africa ASAP and help Italy.

Denying Italy income is the key for the Allies, if Italy continues to makes 10 or less dollars, than the Axis in Europe will fall- that simple.  Z3 and Z12- remember those zones.  What are they?  Massive navies from the Brits and the Americans giving multiple threat options that Germany/Italy cannot contain by round 3.  And if your playing with NO’s, its even better for the Allies.

Questioneer
:-D

I don’t think tech should be considered when talking about balance. I don’t think any revised player I have matched up with has ever wanted tech. They may be fun\cool but they distort balance with too much randomness, even with the new rules. Any game where you research becomes a non reproducible strategy. Leave tech for playing-for-fun games and leave it out when playing-for-balance/competitive play.

–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• In real life the Germans were also against a Japanese invasion of the USSR. Germany played as a mediator for the non-agression teatrise between the USSR and Japan. Japanese have had their “lower-butt” kicked on many small (and not so small) engagements against Soviet troops at Manchurian borders as to know that attacking the Red Army was a bad idea.

how how, hold it
in 1940-41 they were pushing Japan into attacking Vladivostok
they changed their minds after all, so they wanted Singapore taken, but still…

@questioneer:

KGF, dead in AA50???-brave words my friend.  Oh its alive, and even better than Revised if you play the Allies right and hit Europe hard.  Against a forceful KGF, Japan’s best moves are to either
a.) try hitting the U.S. through Alaska- hard!! or
b.) get to Africa ASAP and help Italy.

Yes, Alaska path is the way to counter KGF, and by itself alone it’s a good reason to even not trying KGF. USA can have 5 more IPCs now with NOs, but Japan will have at least 10 more from the same source, probably 15. Anyway, the fun thing is that Japan can go Alaska path and attack Africa at the same time because they have enough income.

DM said you cannot land directly in wcan. Well, not from Japan, but you can from bur or sfe. Simply land guys there from Japan and setup a 4x4 chain. And there are many wicked tricks for Japan when you start with 5 trannies.

You should take techs into account, but that’s another history. I’m not sure if I would play a game without techs or without NOs

Too risky trying KGF. And adds no fun to the gameplay -> I would not try it even against a novice player

@questioneer:

And if your playing with NO’s, its even better for the Allies.

Sorry, I just read that, and I cannot believe it. Two plus two are still four