One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.
One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.
this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs
this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs
It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.
It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.
I agree that the USA can slightly aford tech more than others, but the second part of your statement I must disagree with. Japan especially and Germany can both benefit from may techs from both tech trees even more than the USA can because both of them use Air/Navy and Land, where the USA wouldn’t use most of the Land techs until late in the game.
@Imperious:
Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.
One hour after playing 1941….“damm game is slanted to the axis…damm it!” :roll:
My point, I still do not believe this is a bad thing. We know the 1942 setup has been a problem for Axis players in the past. Now, we have a possible counter setup for the Allies in the 1941 setup. Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong. The Allied challenge, overcome the Axis operational tempo, the Axis were deployed and moving. It is like a monster chess game, One color Axis, is seven moves into the game, when Allies are just begining to move. The answer for the Allies should be tough to find, because it was. I do not yet, see it as impossible for the Allies, only tougher to find the Allied win. would the game be worthy, if we strolled in, did our best 1942 kGF and, yawn, victory-NO!! We need many more games, to research the answer.
Possibly, we could start a thread, tracking each players games as research data:
Setups used 1941-1942/Who won Allies-Axis/ Number of players 2-6/ Techs used yes-no/, NO’s used yes-no. We could quickly gather data from everone’s play.
Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.
….unless you are Timerover51
Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree? The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo. This is a great modeling of that advantage. The situation in 1941 was not balanced. Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.
….unless you are Timerover51
The problem with that is the USA ipc production is 40 in the game and in the real war it would have been 60-70, maybe more. If you gave the USA its real production though I fear everyone would still do KGF anyway…so what’s the point??
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
Bluestroke said
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
I couldnt agree more with you buddy! USA-KGF……zzzzzzzz :|
the only time I would do a KGF start for the US is if I was playing for money. Talk about historic _in_accuracy. The US was all over the Pacific…
well we could make a historical set up and see if its more balanced for 41.
I don’t think its historical in the slightest except it was designed to be balanced and that’s a fail ‘fo show’.
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
Seconded. If A&A devolves into this again, then I’m quitting completely. I do hope to be proven wrong however. :)
you show up? We don’t see you like for once every 3 years. Your like a comet!
What can I say, I’m as timeless and immortal as this Forum.
Why, if you look at the picture attached, that’s me on the far right (above Monty) alongside a prototype copy of Axis and Allies. Unfortunately, the pieces kept sliding off the board so we just used it as a map.
––
After three years, I can say things have changed a lot. For instance, the rise of the Super Posters – yes, I’m looking at you Mister 7068. For a long time, I didn’t think anyone besides Yanny, CC, and I would break 5000. But A&A:50 has that effect of bringing people back. Like a Renaissance.
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland,
Did the Japanese really NEED to be distracted or did the Japanese player make a mistake?
What did USA do that REQUIRED the IJN’s attention?
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
ROFLMAO !!
I see that you didn’t play the ‘wee covered’ krauts yourself LOL…
Did you take glee in watching the german player touch those pieces… perhaps even hope he would suck or chew on one… LOL! :-D
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
OMG, this is funny. I am still laughing.
It is good to hear a more balanced play strategy was rewarded.
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
I actually didn’t tell the German player that my cat had left marred the German pieces until after he finished setting them up. When I finally broke it to him (I couldn’t contain myself any longer) I swear I thought he was going to faint. It was hilarious.
The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.
It is interesting, a balanced strategy works.
I think that it could be seen as KI-WEGJ = “Killing Italy While Engaging German and Japan”.
I mean spending with USA on both front allow for hindering Axis powers effort of focusing on Russia.
At same time, however, Allies are not able to deal a quick and deadly blow to German or to Japan, IMHO, so the first objective remains, as in the History, Italy, which
have to be defeated as soon as possible.
The question is? Really this strategy may pay more than a KXF approach?
The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.
Yes it does. In fact, that would’ve been my USA pacific strategy as well (once we get around to playing the game)
