Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

KGF means even more axis victories. The bad news is that even a balanced strat still gives advantage to axis due their superior economic potential  :-P Lesser than in KGF, of course

I think the tourney should go a long way to settling things.  32 players, 5 rds.  IMO, the first two rds will probably just get rid of the bad strategies regardless of side, but I would think when we get to the final 8-4-2 if one side has an adv we’ll see it in those final games.

I’m just praying I get axis all rounds … but agreed, so high amount of games will show finally who has the advantage [low voice]the axis[/low voice]

I don’t know if there is an advantage yet.  As I said, the ratio is dwindling as players figure out how to utilize America and England and build up Russia.

Problem is, in this game especially, you CANNOT LEAVE JAPAN ALONE!  Even a modest effort at annoying them can save the game for the Allies.

But honestly, a highly focused, at all costs attack on Japan can eliminate them from the game as well.  They start with a strong navy, but it’s just a navy guys.  A dozen Russians supported by a tank or two and the British setting up strong in Egypt or India (depending on what happened round 1) and you can stop the Japanese dead at the cost of giving Italy 20+ and Germany 50+. (Better than Italy at 10, Germany at 40 and Japan at 80 though!)

@Cmdr:

A dozen Russians supported by a tank or two and the British setting up strong in Egypt or India (depending on what happened round 1) and you can stop the Japanese dead at the cost of giving Italy 20+ and Germany 50+. (Better than Italy at 10, Germany at 40 and Japan at 80 though!)

That’s an interesting statement.  Does that mean that you believe “Focus on Japan First” is more viable in AA50?

I agree that Japan can be forced into the defensive by a strong USA push, but US has to start right away and as strong as possible.  Add a <favorable>tech (or two) for the US and Japan can be in a world of hurt.</favorable>

@Funcioneta:

KGF means even more axis victories.

Okay, I’ll bite. I don’t see a whole lot of folks touting KJF as a primary strategy. Are you then referring to KIF, or something else? For my part, I just kind of lump Germany and Italy together and consider going after either as KEF (kill Europe first).

It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

Why?  I don’t know for sure, but I have some thoughts.

1)  Japan starts with 17 IPC.  Yes, that jumps to near 40 really fast, but it’s still like having half a pay check and one spent on transports usually.

2)  Japan takes 6 rounds to have any reasonable chance of invading Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  I don’t care what your dice were, it’s still 5 rounds to walk there and you have to get through the Chinese and Russians first.

3)  America has 48 IPC routinely.  This can be dropped to 43 IPC but not reliably if America is going strong Pacific.

4)  Japan’s basically fighting on four fronts if you go navy.  They have to keep up with you, at least to slow you down.  They have to take out China for money.  They have to deal with the Russians from the north and from the west.  And they have England from the “south” if England set up an IC in India or Australia or Egypt (I like Egypt because many Germans are not attacking it anymore and that means I can easily have 4 inf, art, fig, bmb there before Italy.)

I disagree with the you can’t leave Japan alone, and KGF (KIF) don’t or won’t work.  The more I get a feel for this game the more I think KGF is the absolute way to go, at least until you neutralize the G threat then you’re free to do as you wish.

@Cmdr:

1)  Japan starts with 17 IPC.  Yes, that jumps to near 40 really fast, but it’s still like having half a pay check and one spent on transports usually.

2)  Japan takes 6 rounds to have any reasonable chance of invading Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  I don’t care what your dice were, it’s still 5 rounds to walk there and you have to get through the Chinese and Russians first.

This is why KGF works.  Japan simply isn’t a serious early threat to Mos from rds 1-6.  You can all but eliminate the Ita (Med ships) and Ger (immediate blitz to Mos) threats in the first 3-5 rds.  At which point you are now free to either turn all three Allies against Japan, turn the US only against Japan, or finish off Europe if Rome or Berlin will fall before Mos.

@Cmdr:

It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

The problem is that I suspect that if America is going all out to kill Japan, Germany/Italy will be able to crack Russia before either Japan falls or Britain becomes a serious threat.

As Darth says, Japan can expand, yes, but they can’t seriously threaten a capital for the first 6 turns.  Germany can threaten a capture of Moscow as early as Turn 3.

I think a kill Italy first might be a decent strategy.  Having Britain use build a Bomber fleet to torment the Axis and eliminate vital forces, while America sends its navy to capture Italy could work.  It also has the advantage of flexibility.  The American force can simply capture Western Europe, Balkans, and Bulgeria if Italy turtles too much.

I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

Given that, the US’s job is to keep Japan from doing those two things. Usually if Britain or Russia can spare ANY help, Japan could struggle for a while.  I dont think the US really has the income to split her attention and I think her attention is better spent in the Pacific than in Europe.

I think people are looking for the quick ‘gimmick’ strat but it appears that this edition of A&A has done a REALLY good job of denying that. That might change in the future, but at the moment, I just dont see either ‘all out effort’ in a theatre to be as productive as fighting in both.

@Uncle_Joe:

I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

Agreed with balanced approach being the best. But is still a lesser evil: UK and soviets are no match for western axis because of west axis economic advantage from round 2-3, they need a bit of USA aid. And USA simply cannot beat the superior income of Japan from round 2-3 even without sending aid to Europe and spending all the money in Pacific ocean

Flawed game design. And China is the key, they should be able of at least stopping Japan in Asia, but in OOB rules China is the patetic shadow of a sparring.

[Praying for axis against tcnance]

I guess I just dont see a Germany/Italian econ advantage over UK/USSR IF the US and UK minor forces are preventing Japan from romping. Its not hard to deny Italy her bonus(es) and Russia outproduces Italy straight out most of the time. Germany DOES tend to outproduce UK at some point, but if the US is putting pressure on Japan, its not THAT hard to give Britain at least one of her bonuses as well.

If you go with a UK IC in South Africa, they can even make it very hard for the Axis to piddle in Africa. With Africa more or less intact, UK’s econ is usually OK. In any case, I dont tend to see some massive Axis advantage in econ UNLESS the US doesnt keep Japan pinned down.

Best approach i’ve seen is have the US harrass Italy and focus on the south pacific.  Turn 1 buying subs/destroyers and sending air plus carrier group toward the south pacific and trying to work with UK to get extra troops into europe.  Taking finland/norway really helps fix the economic hit UK takes and puts a bit of hurt on germany as well.  As does keeping a very real threat on france as letting you trade france will put your income as the allies back where it belongs.

While japan is huge you must remember the quantity of fronts they must fight.  South Asia, Northern Russia, China, and all the south pacific and Japan.  China dies fast but can make a comeback just as fast with Russian help, India can be taken but it diverts part of there fleet, Japan trannies can bridge but must be defended, stretch Japan out and then break her.  I like to do this with US navy/air, and Russian annoyances.  And the best part, any headway you make against Japan helps the UK fight Germany.  I’ve found the key is UK’s income, if it is high enough you will win, if it drops too low you lose.

@Funcioneta:

@Uncle_Joe:

I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

Agreed with balanced approach being the best. But is still a lesser evil: UK and soviets are no match for western axis because of west axis economic advantage from round 2-3, they need a bit of USA aid. And USA simply cannot beat the superior income of Japan from round 2-3 even without sending aid to Europe and spending all the money in Pacific ocean

Flawed game design. And China is the key, they should be able of at least stopping Japan in Asia, but in OOB rules China is the patetic shadow of a sparring.

[Praying for axis against tcnance]

hmm still praying for the axis ??

It seems to me your losing that game  as the axis

heaven forbid ?

Well, I got allies and finally I’m starting to have advantage (killing that big japanese fleet aided me a lot)

That game is not won yet, but is totally convincing me about axis having advantage. Axis should not be able of hold so much time when USA has such advantage in Pacific, UK conquers Africa and soviets still buy about 10 units a round.

Now I feel as americans in last stages of Midway battle: I sunk a big japanese navy, but I want that last small one also sunk  :lol:

It’s possible for both sides to win.  I believe the game (with National Objectives and no other optional rules) boils down to who is the better strategist and less on what side you play.  Lucky dice are still lucky dice, so I’m discounting them for the purposes of my belief.

I won more games with allies w/o NOs than I lost, but I have also lost some games, and before I started playing online I also lost some AAR games with allies, with no bids. This doesn’t prove that AAR is balanced, or that AA50 w/o NOs are biased or balanced.

The statement: Axis have advantage in AAR could be true if you’re not an experienced player, same goes for AA50.

Now we know that in AAR axis needs a bid, we will also know if allies need bid in AA50 -41 with NOs, or if axis needs bid in AA50 -41 w/o NOs.

At least all discussions on this subject should include weather we’re playing with NOs or not, because this alter the game balance to the extent that a bid for either side is probably needed.

It is also possible for axis to win in AAR w/o bid, both in LL and regular dice. It has happened, and I don’t think I’m the only one who has been an AAR noob, before I learned how to play.

I can go back to the Classic days. the first few games we didnt know what we were doing, then axis started winning because of the Japanese IC + tank rush to Moscow. Then after more games we finally learned how to KGF and coordinate the allies, and then we ended up with allies winning all the games.

Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

1941:
Allies - 6
Axis - 19

1942:
Allies - 8
Axis - 2

But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.

@ogrebait:

Baloney…. I’ve proven on multiple occasions that I can lose no matter which side I play.   :-o

here here, i’m with ogre.

In the normal world, full of casual players…

There is NO WAY the Allies can win in 1941 with NO’s… NO WAY!

FACT!

(note that the exclamation marks make this all fact… FACT!)