Why the Allies have the upper hand

I take issue with a lot of things you’ve suggested. For starters:

@Cow:

As tempting as it is to use your SZ35 transport for asian conquest.

What SZ35 transport? That thing is a must-kill for the Japanese on turn 1.

I think in your case the Allies have the upper hand because you’re much better than your opponents.

Cow:
it seems like a very nice strategy overall… only that it’s just KGF again

and I’m just tired, annoyed, pissed, and bored of playing KGF over and over again since classic
If this is the best strategy, I want my $100 back

1941 is an almost sure win for axis. Japan can toast chineses round 1  :-o Axis can reach economic pairty early. And IL says soviets have few chances of surviving Barbarossa (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

KGF is dead. Assault on America is so easy with a so rich Japan that is a no brainer. Why attack USSR when western axis can do better and faster than Japan? The problem is KJF also dead.

Play 1942 or mod 1941

Cow: did your Grand Strategy actually worked? (aka: did you win a game using it?), or is it just theory?

Funcioneta:
Excuse my ignorance:

@Funcioneta:

And IL says soviets have few chances of surviving Barbarossa (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

who’s IL?

@Funcioneta:

(having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

and still having a sub on the artic sure don’t aid anything either – unless that sub is for Stalin run away to Cuba when Moscow falls down … oh! wait! it’s WW2! Batista is in Cuba! … the sub is useless

@Funcioneta:

Play 1942 or mod 1941

what’s mod 1941?

But can America churning out men result in an Allied victory?  Or will America’s attempts to stop Japan from taking over result in the Axis winning?

IL = Imperious Leader
Mod 1941 = modding 1941, giving more units to China and free movements as first priority, ICs to UK in ind, aus or saf as 2nd priotity and figs to USSR as 3rd priority

Good joke that one with Batista and Castro  :-D Karma +1

@Cmdr:

But can America churning out men result in an Allied victory?  Or will America’s attempts to stop Japan from taking over result in the Axis winning?

I’d bet the second. USA will not be able of reinforce UK and soviets if they have to defend American mainland. I prefer fight USA in Alaska and Canada than in Middle East or Africa

@Funcioneta:

Mod 1941 = modding 1941, giving more units to China and free movements as first priority, ICs to UK in ind, aus or saf as 2nd priotity and figs to USSR as 3rd priority

I agree that UK needs a 2nd IC. They can be pretty well decimated after the first 2 rounds and without a complex I don’t see any way for them of sustaining any kind of income. A N. Atlantic navy and or bombers can’t hold ground in Africa, Middle East, and S. Pacific. I wouldn’t suggest a mod just yet however. I think UK can get away with placing an IC in any three of the territories you mentioned with support from their allies.

I’m liking the idea of an Australian IC because the S. Pacific is actually pretty IPC rich when you factor in the NOs.

Cow, I would really love to think that you’re right and that the game is balanced… which is the first things every AA player wanted to see for AA50

but there’s something that bothers me about your strategy
If I may bring up something you wrote in another thread (China Wall):

@Cow:

Although I got to be honest. I sacrifice moscow to japan so I can take berlin . I always go all out.  I know in end game uk / usa > Japan.

All of this is very nice if you’re playing 1 vs 1… what happens if you’re on a multi-player game and you happen to be the Russian player?
your game can be summarized to “let’s see how much can I hold Moscow until they take me out of the game… or the Americans come to rescue me… if they get to late doesn’t matters because, hey! I’m here to be sacrificed anyway! Moscow may fall but the Allied will prevail! Hurray!”  :roll:

The entire Allies strategy for a ‘balanced game’ seems to be KGF (again) with a few variations…

and since a more versatile game, where KGF were not the only-game-in-town was the second request most AA players have, well, if we’re not getting it, with all due respect for Avalon Hill, screw that.

@Cow:

I know people complain about KJF not being a totally kickass strategy.  Whatever.

The idea is you shutdown italy and japan and fight germany. I mean you probably won’t take Italy ever with just UK. usa probably won’t take over japan but you should be able to take the islands but taking japan over is kind of harder then taking his money.

I don’t mind that I don’t take Tokio, or that KJF is not a kickass strategy… what I do mind is that KGF seems to be still the only strategy.

what about having to fight both Berlin-Rome and Tokio at the same time for a change?

I don’t know… I only played two games, one with the allies and one with the axis… in one of them by turn3 Japan had become Gotzilla on esteroids and there was no point for the USA to even try on fighting them… on the other one Japan become just Gotzilla, but again, the USA couldn’t go after Japan or the South Pacific, even though in both games USA had been spending most if not every penny on the Pacific

I still have to try that strategy suggested by a forum member about getting a big fleet of subs for the US in the Pacific.

but so far, AA50 1941 scenario seems to be un-balanced for the Axis, or yet another KGF game with Russia playing as the poor-lady-lady-in-distress and Italy and China to spice up the game.

I don’t know if the Allies have the upper hand (or the Axis for that matter, I just have seen enough games played.
I also don’t think KGF (or KIGF) is the only way to go.

I think it is a standard default given Classic and Revised (for the most part) and people will try what they know first.

You can’t really plan a KJF until you find out what the “standard” G1 and J1 turns are.  Both have a lot of attacking to do and that means 1 or 2 or more battles may not go as planned.

I’m in my second game (just started) and already I’ve seen 1 dd kill 2 or more units.  (Game 1 - UK dd survived and killed 2 J ftrs, Game 2 UK dd in sz 6 survived and killed multiple units).

The US can easily send only 2-4 inf to Afr per turn and spend the remaining 35-40 ipc or so on the Pac.

UK is not weak.  They lose a lot of IPC early but is still takes roughly 3 turns (At least for them to lose the Pac stuff and Ind) and that is with no reinforments.  UK can spend 43, ~30, ~30 in their first 3 turns and only has 8 placement spots.  That is prime for early capital ships and air.  You only need to earn about 18-24 ipc to make UK viable assuming you have air, trns and capital ships already on the board.

Also Germany can earn 60 but the still can only place 10 units (12 if they take Kar and can hold).  This is a BIG deal considering Russia can drop 8-10 units for the first few turns and UK can all but match by Rd 3-4 with 8 ground units per turn. 
Japan also can only place 8 and needs more ICs within the first few turns.

This all leaves the US as the wild card.  They can spend 40, mid 40’s, mid 40’s the first three turns.  I’m fairly convinced if you commit 75-80% to Pac spending you can give J a run for their money while providing minimal backup to the UK.

I agree, it’s way too early to talk about balance.

I remember in the first AA, everyone who I played with thought that the Axis had an advantage but then once we learned how to play it was clear that the Allies have the real advantage.

In 2 months time people might be saying the same thing.

I think the game is more balanced then people believe.  The allies work well when they work together, the axis work well independantly so it doesn’t matter.

England starts with a butt load of fighters on England, move them onto Karellia after fighting the German fleet on it’s first turn = Karelia isn’t takable by Germany r2.  I don’t know why people overlook this.

I do agree a KGF strategy might be best though… but in the original a KGF?  Are you kidding?  You haven’t played it enough.

@Alair:

England starts with a butt load of fighters on England, move them onto Karellia after fighting the German fleet on it’s first turn = Karelia isn’t takable by Germany r2.  I don’t know why people overlook this.

[/quote

One reason not to do it, if you are playing with NOs, then you have just cost Russia 5 bucks…

That’s one way of looking at it…. but that doesn’t take into account the whole picture.

Karelia on it’s own is worth 2… so by having the fighters on Karelia Russia loses 3 production (fighters mean $5 less but keeps Karelia’s $2 production)… plus keeps another factory.  That factory is huge for Germany.  Germany has problems supplying infantry to the front, so not letting them take it is big.

Plus, Germany gets $5 for taking Karelia or Caucassus.  So the real calculation should be:

Russia - loses $3 and keeps Karelia, isolating Finland and all that area off from the rest of Germany meaning America/Britan can take it easily.
Germany - loses $7 and stays at one factory… where they only start with Germany itself.

To me it’s a no brainer.

Something else, I looked at it again.  If Germany attacks the BB off Iceland then they will lose airforce, so 2 fighters will suffice to keep Karelia.  If not, transport a tank and army off England along with the 2 fighters into SZ4 just north of Karelia.  That’s what I’m going to try my next game.

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

@Uncle_Joe:

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

I agree 100%.

Taking India on J2 is the equivalent of a KEF strategy and the USA should move against them accordingly.

When I did the J2 India the USA got a ton of bonus income from national objs because I neglected to take some key points.  I think Japan focusing on England and then Russia first should mean that USA builds a massive feat and comes in early.  If Japan focuses on on the US then England should have a IC on India.

Looking at the game more, it’s just like the first AA.  If the allies want to build an IC on India, there’s nothing the Axis can do about it, you should have to do some moves to assure you get it.  With that being said, I still think it’s balanced against the allies.

IMHO the 41 scenario (Tech / no NOs) is balanced with neighter the axis nor the allies having the advantage. Sure, the first round germany and japan are almost unstoppable, but in turn 2 and 3 the tides turn. Earlier or later the germans stick in russian mud with his royal navy bombarding the western territories and the japanese forces wear thin in China while the United States Navy regains combat strengt. I played about 6 games in the 41 scenario, and both sides had equal wins.

I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn’t buy any, Germany’s basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.

Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.

Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California’s door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

@Cmdr:

I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn’t buy any, Germany’s basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.

Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.

Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California’s door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

I  basically agree with the above said.

Russia building only infantry in round 1 is asking for problems -
Russia has to develop offensive capabilities as well as retain the advantages of numerical solid defense - what IMHO calls for a mixed infantry-artillery-tank buy. I also like aircraft, but i belive that mobile (tank-) forces wich can conquer territories have a better early- and mid-game payof than aircraft.

America cannot ignore Japan -
I believe that japan should never try to attack the american continent - it just is not economical and there is no gain in it. Better conquer all the islands and force the american to invest in expensive naval units. The USA do not have to be afraid of some land units landed in alaska. Thats units transported in expensive transports occupying expensive fleet operation time only to be destroyed by cheap US land forces and aircraft the US will have to build to deal with the japanese navy anyway - killing of landed units is just not a problem. I prefer taking every british IP island and mainland territory.