Its not Japan killing russia you need to worry about, it germany killing them that is the worry. Whenever the germans are making 50+ IPC after turn 2, russia’s 30 cant keep up. And yes the UK can annoy germany, but then italy gets africa and theres 20 IPCs coming at russia from them. (and dont underestimate the royal pain it is when there is a stack of germany tanks on East Poland with 2 italian tanks, and Italy has two transports and three shore shots at the caucaus).
When playing with NOs on you get 4 turns to seriously pressure germany, if you dont russia will fall to german tanks.
It seems the allies have a choice, let germany get huge, or let japan get huge. There is no way to keep them from getting all 3 of there NOs by turn 3, and keeping them, without ignoring one of them. I personally feel while NOs are an interesting idea, there current implementation is flawed. Getting all 3 NOs should happen mid to late game for all nations, not turn 2.
I don’t see why you would be pissed… there are many mechanics in A&A, since the beginning, that have made KGF the best strategy. As long as these mechanics remain, so will KGF. Amazingly, Enhanced completely cured KGF :-D Too bad the official game can’t do it right. The only thing that pissed me off was when I found out what victory cities were chosen, saw one in Canada, and facepalmed hard :-P
As there are 4 types of playing (1941 w/ NO, 1942 w/ NO, both without) it will be hard to make a definite assessment of balance, but I still can’t wait for TripleA to get AA50. If you doubt the power of KGF, I’ll see you online and show you a thing or two :lol:
@Rakeman:
I don’t see why you would be pissed… there are many mechanics in A&A, since the beginning, that have made KGF the best strategy. As long as these mechanics remain, so will KGF. Amazingly, Enhanced completely cured KGF :-D Too bad the official game can’t do it right. The only thing that pissed me off was when I found out what victory cities were chosen, saw one in Canada, and facepalmed hard :-P
As there are 4 types of playing (1941 w/ NO, 1942 w/ NO, both without) it will be hard to make a definite assessment of balance, but I still can’t wait for TripleA to get AA50. If you doubt the power of KGF, I’ll see you online and show you a thing or two :lol:
Triple A already has AA:50. Granted, it’s an unstable version, but it works perfect. Just some minor bugs in really complex battle situations, but nothing that can’t overcome the -edit-function.
@Rakeman:
I don’t see why you would be pissed… there are many mechanics in A&A, since the beginning, that have made KGF the best strategy. As long as these mechanics remain, so will KGF. Amazingly, Enhanced completely cured KGF :-D Too bad the official game can’t do it right. The only thing that pissed me off was when I found out what victory cities were chosen, saw one in Canada, and facepalmed hard :-P
As there are 4 types of playing (1941 w/ NO, 1942 w/ NO, both without) it will be hard to make a definite assessment of balance, but I still can’t wait for TripleA to get AA50. If you doubt the power of KGF, I’ll see you online and show you a thing or two :lol:
Triple A already has AA:50. Granted, it’s an unstable version, but it works perfect. Just some minor bugs in really complex battle situations, but nothing that can’t overcome the -edit-function.
Oh that’s good to know… I did read they are working on a more stable version to be released soon.
I hate to say it but I feel KGF is alive and well especially with NOs. The reason is Russia. In a proper KGF Russia should have an income of atleast 40 IPC if not more. (+5 for fin/nor / +15 NOs). This allows Russia to survive against Japan for a good amount of time. Whereas in a KJF game, Russia is usually reduced to around 20-25 IPCs, even less once you start landing UK/US figs in moscow to keep it alive, while germany is making 50-60+ and italy 10-20+.
Also, while on paper it looks easier to defend against KGF with Italy, that is just not true! It is even more difficult esp with the value of France. It is easy for the US to threaten Italy and retake africa / meeting the japs in egypt while the UK trades france or poland or wherever they want to be. Then you can threaten to do a double drop on France to take and hold, or threaten Italy, or threaten germany forcing the germans to pull back from russia. Add in some SBR for good measure and Europe is yours. It just takes some skilled Russian play in pushing Germany back by T3-4.
On top of that, Japan makes more money than the US by the end of turn 3 no matter what you do and there is absolutely no way to defend southern asia or keep china in the game. Well I suppose you could abandon moscow, but yeah bad idea. Oh and good luck defending Russia from 70 IPCs of Germany/Italy with can openers and all that Jazz.
Add in the fact that most German openings leave a portion of the UK fleet alive, try to threaten Karelia with overwhelming force, and only leave token troops on France and why wouldn’t you go after them? Add to that the fact that Japan’s opening moves typically pose absolutely no threat to anyone (other than IPCs you cant defend anyway!) until J3 at the earliest, usually not until J4, and why wouldn’t you ignore them?
I really think the key to stopping KGF is to rethink typical G/J turn 1 moves. To what I don’t know, but right now Germany screams “kill me or I kill russia” and Japan screams “i’m huge but can’t reach just yet”. I’m also speaking of when NOs are being used.
I hate to say it but I feel KGF is alive and well especially with NOs. The reason is Russia. In a proper KGF Russia should have an income of atleast 40 IPC if not more. (+5 for fin/nor / +15 NOs). This allows Russia to survive against Japan for a good amount of time. Whereas in a KJF game, Russia is usually reduced to around 20-25 IPCs, even less once you start landing UK/US figs in moscow to keep it alive, while germany is making 50-60+ and italy 10-20+.
Also, while on paper it looks easier to defend against KGF with Italy, that is just not true! It is even more difficult esp with the value of France. It is easy for the US to threaten Italy and retake africa / meeting the japs in egypt while the UK trades france or poland or wherever they want to be. Then you can threaten to do a double drop on France to take and hold, or threaten Italy, or threaten germany forcing the germans to pull back from russia. Add in some SBR for good measure and Europe is yours. It just takes some skilled Russian play in pushing Germany back by T3-4.
On top of that, Japan makes more money than the US by the end of turn 3 no matter what you do and there is absolutely no way to defend southern asia or keep china in the game. Well I suppose you could abandon moscow, but yeah bad idea. Oh and good luck defending Russia from 70 IPCs of Germany/Italy with can openers and all that Jazz.
Add in the fact that most German openings leave a portion of the UK fleet alive, try to threaten Karelia with overwhelming force, and only leave token troops on France and why wouldn’t you go after them? Add to that the fact that Japan’s opening moves typically pose absolutely no threat to anyone (other than IPCs you cant defend anyway!) until J3 at the earliest, usually not until J4, and why wouldn’t you ignore them?
I really think the key to stopping KGF is to rethink typical G/J turn 1 moves. To what I don’t know, but right now Germany screams “kill me or I kill russia” and Japan screams “i’m huge but can’t reach just yet”. I’m also speaking of when NOs are being used.
KGF certainly isn’t dead, but to my liking, it depends too much on the dice.
Here’s what I mean:
In a KGF game, Japan is totally ignored. Japan will grow huge, and be knocking on Moscow’s door at turn 6,7 with enormous force, and then it’s Game Over.
So this means, that in any KGF game, the Allies MUST have taken Berlin by turn 6.
And to my knowledge and experience, that’s not an easy task, especially against some decent Axis players.
My games always go as follows when I am Axis, and the Allies are going KGF.
I open agressive on Russia with all land units, and all air and sea units are used to set GB 1 step back. I even invest in some Baltic navy to hold UK back a bit more.
Sure, Russia is now in a luxury position, with no German reinforcements available untill G3. But Russia will soon be stretched thin, and the German/Russian front will fall into a back and forth game.
At the mean time the UK and USA are prepping for an invasion, being pestered by German and Italian navy and air.
At around turn 4, Japan is annoying USA through the Pacific, next to slowly creeping up on Moscow.
By the time Germany slowly gets into trouble because all it’s navy and air is gone, and Russia finally is getting it’s big bonuses etc…they have to turn around to face the Japanese threat.
And thus…as the Allies…I will never go for a KGF, and I am frantically looking for other ways to deal with the Axis.
I do know, that when I am faced with a UK and USA threat as Japan in the Pacific…things definitely don’t go as smoothly as I hoped they would…
in 1942 KJF is possible, with and without NO’s
biggest problem with KJF isn’t japanese navy, but german panzerwaffe
if they take moscow, allies are pretty fucked
UK should fix on germany, and be in the baltic sea
The main reason it is KGF is because G is harder to ignore. If the allies were to go KJF then Germany would become much to hard to kill. A godzilla japan is easier to kill with a compined allied effort. Sure once Germany falls then the allies go after Japan it is not going to go well for the allies for a few rounds untill they liberate/take high value terrirtories and reduce the japanese inductrial might. While germany is harder to ignore because the allies would lose Russia and a german monster would have pretty much killed UK off. You would basically end up with with a fight between USA, Germany, and Italy. From there on it would only be a matter of time before the US then falls because it would be nearly impossible to liberate either the UK or Russia with a huge German tank/ air force on land and a large navy. The best option is to go KGF.
Nope. KGF is NOT a option if Japan goes Polar Express. Japan only can be ignored if Japan also wants ignore USA, a bad option for Japan
by the time japan has an effective enough force to really threaten the US (maybe 4 turns while they expand in the south pacific) the combined forces of both the US and Britian have nearly killed germany. At this point the US can now ignore europe and fight the Japanese back while Britian and the USSR finish off Germany/Italy in a couple turns or two. Then even if the US is weaken to such an extent that it can bearly defend the EUS, the UK can help defend while the USSR and small/medium sized UK task force economically cripples Japan.
with all the complaints about AA games being so unbalanced and ahistorical, why is it when it comes to that the historical example of KGF or KIGF that it is then spat upon when played ingame? But then when all the Axis gang up on Russia it is derided because it’s ahistorical? WTF? It’s a game, once you start playing it, you’ve changed history!
from a strategic view who wouldn’t want to gang up 3 on 1 (or 2, sorry Italy) rather than fight everywhere and spread yourself thin? It may have been a world war in the fact that war happened everywhere around the world…just not at the same time.
Don’t play LL and be alert to the weaknesses of the enemy. Japan probably is in a better position in AA50 than earlier versions to legitimately make the Allies pay attention to them the whole time. And if that’s not enough, I’m in favor of switching and having someone else play the Axis. (insert mischievous laughter)
EDIT-may have to swing over and see how the balance thread is going…
In the real WW2, US spent approximately 15%-20% of its production against Japan. The rest went to Europe.
If A&A had this setup, or any other ipc values that was close to the real production numbers,
the game would be very unbalanced, axis would need a $50 bid in preplaced units :roll:
Another fact is that with a global war game which takes 3-9 hours to finish, it can never be even semi-realistic, or else it would be a very boring game which no one would want to play, and then only the balance could be realistic. The other option is to do this in a sophisticated computer game.
I think we should rather complain about the gameplay issues, rather than AA50 being to a-historical.
But there are some exceptions, as some rule changes are both easy and historical, as closing of the Dardanelles, but then all the other straits should have the same rules, as according to history.
closing dardarnelles should also mean sz5 closed for allies (except planes), and no landings in finland or norway via shore except sz5 ;) if you want to be historically correct :P
with all the complaints about AA games being so unbalanced and ahistorical, why is it when it comes to that the historical example of KGF or KIGF that it is then spat upon when played ingame?
@Subotai:
In the real WW2, US spent approximately 15%-20% of its production against Japan. The rest went to Europe.
Yaay! AGREEMENT!.. Yaay! AGREEMENT!.. Yaay! AGREEMENT!..
@Subotai:
Another fact is that with a global war game which takes 3-9 hours to finish, it can never be even semi-realistic, or else it would be a very boring game which no one would want to play, and then only the balance could be realistic. The other option is to do this in a sophisticated computer game.
I think we should rather complain about the gameplay issues, rather than AA50 being to a-historical.
But there are some exceptions, as some rule changes are both easy and historical, as closing of the Dardanelles, but then all the other straits should have the same rules, as according to history.
I think you may be referring to the scope of the realism of the game. All the AA games are semi-realistic to begin with as they ‘abstractions’ of the war.
What is complained about though is how so many people seem to go after Europe first as the Allies. The fact that they did this historically is true. But when it happens in the game, it’s what is derided. That’s all I was saying. We don’t like how the Axis win by a-historically sandwiching Russia but we also don’t like how the Allies historically win by surrounding Germany/Italy. We live in a funky world of ideas, and possibly not sure which side is up.
What’s strange is that it is considered that the Axis have the advantage in '41 and it takes the Allies working together to win so when we ask, ‘why has the game turned into KGIF?’ it’s possibly because it’s the only way to win, it’s desperation. KGIF is more viable because of the proximity of the Allied powers to the Euro theater of the game. If Germany/Italy had the ability to stalemate the Allies on their income alone the game is way out of whack, but generally speaking in my experience, they don’t and have to use their advantage early to win before the Allies get into full swing.
