After Action Reports

Italy had all of africa by the end of the game… But it was too late as the allies had already established a huge foothold on the western front of europe and berlin had fallen… Italy was quite strong but the soviets, if berlin was liberated by the italians, would have easily crushed the counter offensive the next turn and recaptured berlin.  I belive if germany had lets say a fully loaded aircraft carrier and a cruiser or two with subs ect… they could have easily held off any allied landing force, while spending money on infatry in order to hold their ground in the east untill britians cash was exhausted due to italys conquest of afrika… this is simply my opinion, it might have worked, but i guess we will never know

Title:  Russian Agression
Date:  December 19th, 2009
Special Rules:  NO’s + Tech (1941 setup)
Victor:  Allied victory, world domination
Game Length:  12 hours
Bias:  About equal, 1player allies (me) against 2 axis players 
Description: 
Russia implemented an agressive strategy and bought mostly tanks and artillery for several rounds. They used up their infantry on high risk battles but this severely wore down germanys assault possibilities. UK took scandinavia and supported Russia with infantry. US established a bridgehead in Algeria and kept Italy from moving his fleet to the caucasus. Japan soon controlled the entire pacific after long ranged aircraft bombed away every allied navy vessel there. However, the UK had built a factory in india and SA where land units where sent to fight a land war in asia. After the italian navy was sunk by UK planes the Americans took the balkans and Roemenia, russia followed with reinformentment. From here the Italians were soon defeated and allied navies rushed to the passific using the suez canal. Germany fell after a long war of attrition. Japan lost their fleet and production and capitulated.

Allies techs: UK, warbonds/jetfighters, US, jetfighters
Axis techs: Japan, Jetfighters/Long ranged, Germany: Rockets
Observations/Recommendations:
Germany had a really hard time dealing with a very agressive Russia. They tried to counter it with lots of tanks but this only made them vulnerable. Japan was sole ruler of the pacific but it didn’t bring them victory because UK put all there effort on land. I would recommend every allied US/UK player not to attack France or Netherlands unless you’r able to bring enough to survive any counter attack.

@TG:

Seems pretty true to life.  Except for the part about the Allies pushing their navy across the Suez Canal.

How successful was Japan pushing inward to Egypt and Russia?

Overall not very successfull. Although Japan managed to temporarily knock out china, they never reached Egypt and the russians had grown too strong to take.

Hey Guys,

I’ve been scouting the after Action Reports and I’m reading a lot of the same things…

For the No Tech games, 1941 scenario:

1.  UK trying to place an India IC is a lost cause
-It’s just too difficult to defend
2. Japan, played correctly, typically becomes a MONSTER!!!
-I have a J1 opening that basically destroys most of the Allied Pacific fleet, positions for a fork move on India or Australia J2, and gets Japan all 15IPCs of their NO money
3. There is no Battle of the Atlantic
-German Navy usually gone on UK1
4. Germany can push early, but more often than not, Russia can hold
-Germany is too weak, and UK can apply too much back pressure
5. USA is mostly forced to go 100% Pacific
-They can never really get to Japan though, and if they abandon for Europe, then the game boils down to that same old “Can Allies get to Germany before Japan gets to Moscow fiasco”  :roll:

For the Tech Games, either scenario"

1. It’s a virtual Crapshoot!!!  
-basically you spin the wheel and see if you can get lucky

Now I know some of you don’t mind playing A&A like this, but for those of you who want a game with a more historical playout, and a more strategic form of Tech, I’d suggest checking out AA50: Strategic in the House Rules section (see signature below for link)

Here is the assessment of AA50 from my play group.

1.  Russia is still the weakest link in the Allied chain.  It is land locked with Germany, starts with the least production, and is the hardest for the allies to reinforce.  Most games come down to the take Germany before Russia falls category.

2.  Germany has the most accessible capital for the Allies.  Thus many games depend on Germany holding out against a combined assault until Japan gets it in gear.  The purchasing of a German navy allows them to hold of any France landings for an extra couple of turns, and if the US and UK don’t work together to counter it, it may be what gives the Axis the victory.

3.  While Japan can become a monster, the Axis will still fail without a clear cut plan of attack (ie which Capital they are going for.)  We’ve seen Japan collecting 60+ IPCs and still lose because Germany fell and they weren’t in position to take Russia.  Japan must threaten SOMETHING for the Axis to win.

4.  A UK factory in India is feasible, but will most likely require backup from Russia through Caucasus via Tanks.  May be more trouble than its worth, as it pulls resources from Russia and the UK, without having enough production to counter Japan’s 8 placements.

5.  Italy should always be cautious, as both the UK or USA can annihilate their starting navy if caught out of position.  Sacrificing its fleet for any short term NO gain is folly.  Italy should focus on taking out Egypt, a hard to reinforce spot for the Allies, and take the time to do it with ample force.

6.  The American player is the most likely to become distracted by a high income and waffle on the chosen strategy.  Pick a theatre and stick it to ‘em.  Sending in your starting navy to Morocco Algeria on Turn 1 usually sees the loss of said fleet.  Take the time to amass a sizeable fleet before moving in either direction; Russia will not fall in the first few turns, so slow it down.

@Whackamatt:

2.  Germany has the most accessible capital for the Allies.  Thus many games depend on Germany holding out against a combined assault until Japan gets it in gear.  The purchasing of a German navy allows them to hold of any France landings for an extra couple of turns, and if the US and UK don’t work together to counter it, it may be what gives the Axis the victory.

Agree with all but this one, although I could see where you’re coming from because of the UK to German proximity.
But this also makes them one more turn further away from USA

Other points against (or Arguments for Italy being the weakest Axis capital)
Italy income is less
Italy can only produce 6 units in her capital
No axis help can intervene in a UK & USA one/two punch on the capital (yes, I realize Italy can help herself)

I didn’t really consider Italy in the equation, as they’re a minor player.  They can be effective, to be sure, but what can they really do.  If the Allies focus on Germany and take it, Italy most likely won’t be able to do anything about it.  However, if the Allies take Italy, Germany stands a better chance of having enough units and production take Italy back.

If we lump Germany and Italy together, my point should stand that it is easier for the Allies to take Europe than it is to take out Japan.  :-)

@Whackamatt:

I didn’t really consider Italy in the equation, as they’re a minor player.  They can be effective, to be sure, but what can they really do.  If the Allies focus on Germany and take it, Italy most likely won’t be able to do anything about it.  However, if the Allies take Italy, Germany stands a better chance of having enough units and production take Italy back.

Well that’s a main reason why AAR concepts must differ somewhat when trying to use them in AA50.
Italy does contain a capital now, that has an added bonus of their income (varies greatly from 9 IPCs to 20s) if conquered

@Whackamatt:

If we lump Germany and Italy together, my point should stand that it is easier for the Allies to take Europe than it is to take out Japan.   :-)

I don’t disagree that KGF is {still} the strongest allied plan

It’s possible to take Italy first to spice things up, but France confers a bonus to both the UK and US players where taking Italy dose not.

In the 1942 Scenario, I’ve used the 3 starting US bombers to give Italy fits.  :evil:

I think it would be interesting to have after action reports after the Spring 1941 tournament
Here we are playing with a standardized ruleset: 1941 scenario, with NOs, but without Techs and in a competitive environment, with what I assume would be with better than average players

Now the game does have a bid, so I think it will change things up a little bit, but this is what I predict you will see…

1. Axis still wins majority of the time (players will likely have a tendency to underbid for Allies)
2. Most victories will be either Monster Japan getting to Moscow, or Allies conquering Germany via KGF
3. Dice will play a very large factor in deciding the outcomes  (smart players know to push their units toward their targets, UK–>Ger, Ger–>Rus, Jap–>Rus, US–>Ger)).  In these types of push games, strategic options are very limited and results often depend on dice.

Now if this is indeed how most competitive games play out, then I would say Axis&Allies Anniversary has a MAJOR problem
I think as good strategic players, we deserve better, and I think we could use the After Action Reports to maybe modify our bidding scheme to make for a much for fun, strategic, and competitive game.

I’ve alluded to this idea of a pre-placed UK IC in other threads, but if anyone’s willing to play a game (ABattlemap) and create an After Action report on what I suspect will be a much better playout, I’d be more than willing  :-D

Pre-placed UK IC
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada. 
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC.  Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)

@cousin_joe:

1. Axis still wins majority of the time (players will likely have a tendency to underbid for Allies)

Agreed

@cousin_joe:

2. Most victories will be either Monster Japan getting to Moscow, or Allies conquering Germany via KGF

Agreed to first, disagree to 2nd. In long run KGF will prove inferior as Japan gameplay improve to a more agressive and innovate way. Never Japan had so much ways of winning the game, and allies ceding one whole theater is only going to speed the process

@cousin_joe:

3. Dice will play a very large factor in deciding the outcomes  (smart players know to push their units toward their targets, UK–>Ger, Ger–>Rus, Jap–>Rus, US–>Ger)).  In these types of push games, strategic options are very limited and results often depend on dice.

Only true if both players follow the Classic approach, in fact AA50 has a great potential for strategic options, is the setup and China status that does it unbalanced

@cousin_joe:

Now if this is indeed how most competitive games play out, then I would say Axis&Allies Anniversary has a MAJOR problem
I think as good strategic players, we deserve better, and I think we could use the After Action Reports to maybe modify our bidding scheme to make for a much for fun, strategic, and competitive game.

I’ve alluded to this idea of a pre-placed UK IC in other threads, but if anyone’s willing to play a game (ABattlemap) and create an After Action report on what I suspect will be a much better playout, I’d be more than willing  :-D

In fact the IC should be at India from setup, but there are other mayor problems with China and the swarm of starting jap trannies. I think bids should be limited to Asia and Pacific, that would prevent try-ignore-Japan strats and anyway is the east the unbalanced, not the west

@cousin_joe:

3. Dice will play a very large factor in deciding the outcomes  (smart players know to push their units toward their targets, UK–>Ger, Ger–>Rus, Jap–>Rus, US–>Ger)).  In these types of push games, strategic options are very limited and results often depend on dice.

This isn’t my experience playing the game.  No KGF game in AA50 is ever the same–Germany/Italy and Allied team work make it dynamic and varied in game outcomes.  In addition, there’s no reason to think the optimal strategy has been discovered…tactics are still being worked out.  Don’t confuse AA50 with Revised–KGF in Revised was a conservative style, KGF in AA50 is an aggressive style.  I think perceptions garnered from Revised get displaced onto AA50 and that doesn’t do the game justice.

As for mods to the game to encourage Pacific action or at least provide balance, I favor a China mod where the turn order is switched up and China goes first.  I don’t know if a pre-set India IC helps Allies, as that saves Japan the 15 it would otherwise spend on that IC.

@TG:

I’d also like to see what the average range of the “correct” Allied Bid is.

I don’t know what the average bid will be in the spring tourney on this forum, but generally for 41 +NOs, it is allies get 6-9 ipc, with a one unit pr. TT limit.

And most of the after action reports say that China needs something more because Japan walks over them and the Soviets get swarmed by Japan, so the solution is to fix China by using the China mod.

And Germany didn’t have any problems with its subs, Germany had other problems like Russia and the Allies containing Italy which is Germanys can opener.

The last problem was the NO’s because they make the game more favorable to the axis and they make no sence and limit play options because they force players to play historical so they can strike it rich with more IPC.

Solutions?

Get rid of NO’s because they introduce scripted play

Fix China so that japan does not take or threaten Russia too easily

Tanks now cost 6 ( to avoid German all tank buys to beat Russia)

oh and one more common thing: Most of the games either had no NO’s and no Tech, or had both. Very few had just one.