After Action Reports

Here’s some more economic analysis for us nerds out there (thanks to Microsoft Excel) relating to my game above “Kill Italy First, Then Lose”

Rnd	G	J	It	
1	45	41	15	101
2	53	53	23	129
3	43	59	24	126
4	48	62	24	134
5	45	64	21	130
6	33	67	23	123
7	39	72	11	122
8	44	75	9	128

Axis	350	493	150	993

Rnd	R	UK	US	
1	31	42	48	121
2	33	32	48	113
3	32	29	44	105
4	27	30	43	100
5	38	38	44	120
6	28	29	45	102
7	23	43	45	111
8	19	35	57	111

Allies	231	278	374	883

I calculated the income until round 8, because that was about the time the game got decided, but we kept playing for 2 1/2 more rounds.  As you can see the Axis led the Allies by 110 over the course of those 8 turns.  Only once did the Allies have the lead, Turn 1.

A couple things:

• These values do NOT include the fact that Germany was rocketing UK and to a lesser extent Russia.  These values are the money received at the end of each turn by each player.

• If the Allies had attacked Italy earlier and sunk their fleet on UK turn 3 instead of USA turn 4, that might have reduced Italy and their NOs, reducing the Axis income from turn 3 through turn 8 by a total of ~$50.   Granted though, if sinking the Italy Fleet by UK was happening, the UK might not have been invading Norway, Finland and France as much, thereby losing UK money and/or giving more money to Germany.  Net total gain over 8 rounds?  My guess about $25 for the Allies if Italy lost her fleet earlier.  Of course strategically speaking an Italian player with no navy tends to build Tanks and planes and go after Russia, as as it was in our game Italy never went after Russia at all.  I can’t decide what’s worse for the Allies - a rich Italy and more $ for the Axis or a poor Italy with Italian tanks in Russia???  :-)

Title: Whoa, a german fleet!
Date:  3/13/09
Special Rules:  1941 with Tech but not Nos
Victor:  Allies Victory > Axis Concession
Game Length:  5 full rounds
Bias: Slight Allied advantage.
Description:
Allies: Mostly go after Europe, build some forces in Pacific.  Allies go after Italy hard first, then focus on Germany.
Axis: Japan tries to squash Russia, then ends up helping Germany/Italy.  Germany builds carrier and later a battleship and destroyer.

3/13/2009	1941 with Tech but not Nos				General Strategy: Attack Europe			
	Ger	Russia	Japan	UK	Italy	USA		

1	33	29	29	35	10	40		
2	37	27	34	32	10	40		
3	35	28	40	29	10	38		
4	32	34	43	28	9	38		
5	27	32	45	31	15	Game Conceeded		

Major Events
1 Garmany builds carrier, sinks UK Battleship, Japan does not take Philipes, US gets long range Air
2 UK holds egypt, sinks Italian fleet with bombers, Germany and Russia trade territories, Japan IC in Manchuria
3 Germany buys more fleet, Japan takes India, Philipenes, UK/UK combine fleets in atlantic
4 Germans lose in Libya, Russia takes Norway and Finland, Stalemate in Poland, Japan sends planes to Europe
5 UK Sinks german fleet, USA invades NE Europe and destroys 6 fighters and bomber there, USA sinks most of Japan fleet
Economic Breakdown

	G	J	It	
1	33	29	10	72
2	37	34	10	81
3	35	40	10	85
4	32	43	9	84
5	27	45	15	87
Axis	164	191	54	409

	R	UK	US	
1	29	35	40	104
2	27	32	40	99
3	28	29	38	95
4	34	28	38	100
5	32	31	38	101
Allies	150	155	194	499

Commentary:
This game had a slight Allied bias in terms of skill.  However on another table we had a similar setup, but with a slight Axis bias in terms of skill.  Their game the Allies still won, but it took 9 turns.   Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias.  Without NOs a slight Allied bias for 1941.  Can anyone say “variable N.O. value bid system”?

Sample Allies Bid:  “I play allies and I’ll give you 40% N.Os” (this means All IPCs worth 2 IPCs instead of 5 IPCs, with the 10 IPC Russian One being with 4 IPCs)

@Stoob:

Commentary:
This game had a slight Allied bias in terms of skill.  However on another table we had a similar setup, but with a slight Axis bias in terms of skill.  Their game the Allies still won, but it took 9 turns.   Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias.  Without NOs a slight Allied bias for 1941.  Can anyone say “variable N.O. value bid system”?

Sample Allies Bid:  “I play allies and I’ll give you 40% N.Os” (this means All IPCs worth 2 IPCs instead of 5 IPCs, with the 10 IPC Russian One being with 4 IPCs)

So the allies win these last two games and then you proclaim '41 with NO’s are Axis biased?

Perhaps the wild card affected your perspective.
Did tech play a <key>component in the other allied win?  Long range for USA = Killer weapon, especially round 1.</key>

axis_roll, you really make me laugh.  I didn’t “proclaim” anything… you quote my post in order to then misquote me and twist my statement.  Are you really trying to be this unnecessarily negative and/or argumentative?  I hope not.

I said in fact, quite the opposite, that it’s “too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion” in regards to bias.   Sure Long Range helps the Allies win, but the other table had an Allied win as well, with an Axis advantage in skill and no tech rolls.

Respectfully and without ill will towards you, I ask kindly to keep it positive and take any negativity elsewhere with someone else, please?  You are welcome for the detailed after action report.

@Stoob:

axis_roll, you really make me laugh.  I didn’t “proclaim” anything… you quote my post in order to then misquote me and twist my statement.  Are you really trying to be this unnecessarily negative and/or argumentative?  I hope not.

I said in fact, quite the opposite, that it’s “too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion” in regards to bias.   Sure Long Range helps the Allies win, but the other table had an Allied win as well, with an Axis advantage in skill and no tech rolls.

Respectfully and without ill will towards you, I ask kindly to keep it positive and take any negativity elsewhere with someone else, please?  You are welcome for the detailed after action report.

WTF dude?  Sorry I chose the wrong verb in your eyes.  I think YOU chose the negative connotations of my statement.  There was no hidden attacking agenda, I can assure you.  One of the definitions of proclaim is:

“to indicate or make known publicly or openly”

The internet is a pretty open public place.

I was merely trying to point out that the allies twice won with NO’s but that you typed (good enough verb for you?) 1941 version with NO’s has an Axis bias.

Your conclusion contradicts the two game outcomes you reported.  So I asked if tech made up for that inconsistency.

And you did eventually answer that question: tech was not a factor in the allied win.

Can you follow-up with reasons as to why:

@Stoob:

Too early to tell in my opinion to make a definitive conclusion, but I’d say it’s looking like with NOs 1941 has an Axis bias.

For of all, you misread my original post which said there were “Special Rules:  1941 with Tech but not Nos”  – that means NOT N.Os.  Both games did not use National Objectives.

Secondly, I give up.  You win.   This forum and these people are definitely not my style.  I’m done having conversations like this.  Sorry to do…whatever I did.   I’m not going post anywhere but in this thread anymore and will avoid posting any more commentary on these After Action Reports.  Hopefully this will prevent further conversations like this one which are a waste of time and database.  I like the game and hope that by limiting my posts to commentary-free facts it may somehow contribute in some small way to making the game experience better for everyone.  Please don’t bother replying, just keep this thread for the factual reports, good luck to ya.

Apologies that I missed the “No NO’s” part of your post.  However, it didn’t follow with your comment on the game bias, so I was confused and made a wrong assumption.    :-(

All this because I wrote “proclaim” instead of “typed”.  BTW, I did ask you to clarify your opinion regarding the game balance because your train of thought was non-sequitur to me.  :?

Sorry you are so stressed about a message board that discusses a game in which the goal is to have fun.  :|

To quote a classic comedy from the 1980’s
“Lighten up Francis”
:-D

Title:  Atlantic Fleets collide
Date:  3/15/09
Special Rules:  1941 NO Tech YES Nos
Victor:  Axis Victory
Game Length:  8? full rounds
Bias: Slight Allied advantage in skill
Description:
Allies: Went after Europe hard, landing a large quantity of forces into africa
Axis: Germany fleet held in the baltic, Italian fleet with Japanesse backup held in the med.  Germany pounded Russia hard early, then pulled back to protect the coast with Japan harrasing the US and pushing hard toward the middle east.

Deciding Point: Was when the allies lost way to many boats taking down the axis fleets, and were then mopped up by axis air.

That game against bugoo was one of 4 if I remember correctly, I feel that I played bad in both that game and the other game I lost as allies, especially with naval warfare. We played 4 games total and axis won all of them. From rnd 4-5 in both my axis games I felt I couldn’t loose.

As allies I thought I probably would loose after turn1  :|

For me there’s one of 2 options, either we’re doing something wrong with allies, can’t play Russia right, or naval warfare, or axis have an advantage which is perhaps as big as the allies got in AAR w/o bids.

I think the axis advantage in AA50 is in fact greater than the allied advantage in Revised. After all, many would agree that axis had about 40% chance of win without bids in Revised, and I think the chance was near to 50% playing 4 players face to face.

Now I don’t feel allies have even near a 40 % chance of win in AA50, and splitting axis team in two players will not change much, even if one plays germans and the other ITA + JAP, because axis fleets usually don’t need much cooperation

I think axis advantage in AA50 is closer to allied advantage in Classic than Revised one

Title:  Spring Break '41 (1941)
Date:  3/22
Special Rules:  Tech: yes (Heavy Bombers nerfed to roll at 5 for attack and greater of two dice for SBR) NO: yes
Victor:  Allies (Axis concession)
Game Length:  4.5 hours
Bias:  About even
Description:  Started KJF but Russia got some incredible rolls making Germany an attractive target.  German vulnerability and Italy having some success in the Med diverted a huge amount of US focus to Europe/Africa who focused soley at Italy to help Russia fight a one front war.  The UK by round 3 had IC’s in India, Australia and the East Indies which after holding against Japanese invasion started pumping out more ships (from E Indies and Australia) and tanks than Japan could handle.  UK made a huge point to sink any Japanese transport that was built, which made retaking the Phillipines and Borneo fairly easy especially after the UK got Paratroopers.  The UK single-handedly would’ve crushed Japan if not for the USA making quick work of Italy, forcing an Axis concession.
Observations/Recommendations:  Japan should have gone straight for the E. Indies but viewed America as a bigger threat, did not see 100% of UK’s effort going into Asia.  Allowing the US player to focus soley on Italy sped up what was becoming a certain allied victory.

@TG:

Classic was ridiculously in favor of the ALlies – it wasn’t even close after Russia moved.  Even after Russia got restricted, the Allies were still at a supreme advantage.  But you’re right:

(imbalance) Revised < Anniversary < Classic

I’d say least balanced:

Classic Worst, in favor of Allies
Revised Bad, in favor of Allies
Anniversary, close to neutral, can have a very slight bias for the allies or the axis depending on how round 1 turns out.

Title:  USA in the Pacific
Date:  3/23/09
Special Rules:  1941 with Tech + NOs
Victor:  Axis Victory > Allied Concession
Game Length:  Almost 5 full rounds
Bias: About equal

This game went pretty fast.  USA adopted a strategy of “all in” in the Pacific.  Only USA action in the Atlantic was one landing at Algeria.  USA max build every turn in Western USA.  Culminated in a big naval battle in the Philippines which the USA won, but without enough forces left to threaten Japanese Empire seriously.

Germany slowly moved in on Russia and by the end of turn 5 Moscow was virtually surrounded and would have fallen on turn 7 for sure - no help was on the way from UK or USA for Moscow.  Game conceeded by Allies.

UK got Long Range Aircraft, it helped sink a transport here or there was not a major factor.

3/24/2009	1941 with Tech + NOs				General Strategy: USA Max Pacific	
	Ger	Russia	Japan	UK	Italy	USA
1	45	31	40	42	15	49
2	49	31	54	43	10	49
3	49	25	59	26	10	40
4	53	31	65	19	14	50
5	54	28	57	31	Conceded	

Axis by Team

	G	J	It	
1	45	40	15	100
2	49	54	10	113
3	49	59	10	118
4	53	65	14	132
5	54	57		111
6				0
7				0
8				0

Axis	250	275	49	574

Allies by team

	R	UK	US	
1	31	42	49	122
2	31	43	49	123
3	25	26	40	91
4	31	19	50	100
5	28	31		59
6				0
7				0
8				0

Allies	146	161	188	495

Major Events
1 UK gets Long Range Aircraft, Germany tries and fails to take Egypt, sinks some UK fleet , Japan builds factory in FIC
2 Rus/Ger trade Karelia, Italy fails to Take Egypt, Japan Takes Egypt, UK sneaks into France
3 Japan expands into Africa, build mighty sea force to match US plus IC in Manchuria, UK sinks italian fleet, France is retaken
4 Massive Sea/Air Battle In Pacific, Heavy Losses but US is Victorious, takes back Java
5 Japanese forces in Persia and eliminate China, Germany tanks in East Ukraine, Allies Conceed

Title:  1941 With New Players
Date:  3/28/09
Special Rules:  1941 with Tech + NOs
Victor:  Allied Victory > Axis Concession
Game Length:  4 rounds
Bias: About equal

All players at the board were new (1 game experience or 0 games experience) except for Italy who has played about 10 games of AA50.

The game took some interesting turns.   The players were willing to make attacks that sometimes were not in their % favor, with the exception of UK and Italy who did not make risky attacks.

Major Events Turn 1:

1. Germany took Karelia and Russia took it right back.
2. Germany attacked Egypt but did not get any hits first round and withdrew.  UK counter attacked and took Libya.
3. Japan played conservatively, taking Philippines along with Borneo and East Indies.  Japan did not advance into China.  Japan attacked and sunk the Battleship in Hawaii with fighters.
4. UK moved in and took Morocco.

Turn 2:

1. Germany and Russia once again traded territories, but Russia rolled well and was left in a defensible position.  Russia income above 30.
2. USA builds in Western and Eastern, adopting a balanced strategy, and lands in Morocco.
3. Germany builds a couple bombers and UK builds a fleet to match.

Turn 3:
By turn 3 Japan had only secured 1 of its National Objectives.  As a result income was in the low 30s.  Germany had also failed to secure more than 1 of its National Objectives, and Russia income was now greater than Germany income.

Turn 4:
UK sinks Italian fleet and secures Africa.  I did not record numbers sorry, but by this turn incomes of the Allies were superior to any of the incomes of the Axis.  Meaning UK, Russia and USA each had an income that was greater than any of the Axis.  Germany was in the 30s and so was Japan.  Russia stunned the table with a 52 income after taking Finland and Bulgaria and Balkans in the same Round.

Axis conceeds.

Title:  Rookies for AA50, But not A&A 1941
Date:  4/5/09
Special Rules:  1941 with Tech + NOs
Victor:  Axis Victory by Allied Concession
Game Length:  5.5 rounds
Bias: Experienced Axis Player (Japan) and Experienced Allied Player (Russia), rest Rookies to AA50

Tech almost turned this game from a dashing Axis victory to a slim Allied win.  All players (except Italy) rolled for Techs, but only the Allied players succeeded.  In Round 1 German took out the UK in the Med Sea and Egypt.  Italy was able to mop up and move toward Russia.  Japan had great dice and lost virtually nothing on round 1.  India was ripe for the taking on J2 as was Australia.

The US spent 90% of its IPCs on the Pacific.  It caused some problems and 2 seperate fleets begun to move towards the Japanese.  On J3 a classic pincher move with Carriers, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, surrounded by Destroyers sent both fleets to the bottom of the sea. This however slowed down Japanese movement toward Russia and allowed China to just ‘hang around’.

Russia began to fade and a failed invasion of France on UK4 doomed Europe.  The USA got Heavy Bombers on US4 and started to become a real problem.  Japan fully dominated the Pacific landmass and the islands, but Heavy Bombers out of Alaska started to put some dents in the fleets.

Luckily Moscow fell on G5.  It was recovered on Russia5, but Italy and Japan were closing in. The Soviets could not last another round and UK was all but useless with a few men in Great Britain and a couple in South Africa.  The US could have survived a few more rounds but a Axis victory was declared b/c Europe and most of Asia was engulfed.  Another fun adventure in AA50 1941.  It was quite evident to me that Russia needs to go on some offensive to keep Germany from just pushing the entire game. Also the US strategy for hitting the Pacific played a bit differently could have been disasterous for the Japan.

I would completely agree.  The US lose its fleet and for the next few turns they could do very little.  It neutralized the threat to the Japanese island holdings and allowed a push toward Moscow.  The UK without US help could not hold Europe or even put enough pressure on Germany, that late in the game, to stop them from charging east and ending things.  What always amazes me is how Techs change the game.  W/o heavy bombers the US would have conceded and the game would have ended a turn earlier. Happy gaming!!