Quick thoughts

@DarthMaximus:

Also a lot of the early Axis gains are spent on infrastructure.  Japan often buys at least 2 ICs and Germany needs a 2nd if they can’t take Kar.  The Allies can simply buy units all game long and need no additional ICs.

Do you not consider the allied Atlantic navy an infrastructure cost?

This amounts to more than $45 in ICs for the axis….

@axis_roll:

@DarthMaximus:

Also a lot of the early Axis gains are spent on infrastructure.  Japan often buys at least 2 ICs and Germany needs a 2nd if they can’t take Kar.  The Allies can simply buy units all game long and need no additional ICs.

Do you not consider the allied Atlantic navy an infrastructure cost?

This amounts to more than $45 in ICs for the axis….

Good question.

Yes, I guess I would, but it helps that they Allies start with a 113 to 58 ipc Adv in rd 1.

It’s a good point though, so if we assume both sides do infrastructure in rds 1-3 and you hit rd 4 and the Axis only have a 5-10 ipc lead, I’m not sure if this is enough to turn the tide (or play for a long game).  I think the Allies versatilty (trns + inf + planes) can help draw the game back to close to parity.

I’m generally not worried about a 5-10 ipc deficit, that just a matter of a dice roll here there, a SBR or two.  Basically I’d put that in the margin of error, now if the Axis routinely have a 15-20 ipc lead then you are asking for trouble.

As for SBR and the SBR interceptor rules, this is slightly better than removing SBR attacks completely.

With interceptor rules you must have some ftrs on TTs which contains ICs, this can probably be even better than to buy AA guns to place on ICs that are built during the game. Russia doesn’t start with ftrs, so US/UK may need to land some ftrs in red TTs, or Russia should buy own ftrs to protect from SBR attacks.

As for the balance of the game, it’s not very easy for axis to win against good allied players, or maybe I’m just bad at playing ADS games. If someone thinks allies are favored with NOs, use LL  :-D

I still won more games with axis then I lost, but it’s too soon to judge game balance now, assuming NOs are on.

In many of the games I played, and I usually play axis, US often have some navy in the pacific, even if its a minor force, this helps allies keep some of their NOs instead of loosing all pacific NOs in rnd 2.

Mazer:

You where able to ignore Japan? :-o
What skill level was the Axis player?

@axis_roll:

Yep, Germany turtles up with ftr support from japan, Japan wins the game (just like the old days)
except it’s a LOT easier for Japan these days.  Easily over 70+ IPCs per turn… Godzilla she is!

Tsunami is also a good Japanese word to use as an analogy. Especially if the Allies completely turn away their attention.

The ratio of strength of air power to naval power is much higher in AA50.  Perhaps too high.
Battleships should get additional anti-aircraft capability to make their purchase worthwhile, like an AAA shot or something.

Not neccessarily. I think that it is one of the ways that Germany can defend against mass Allied SBR campaigns. You aren’t going to be building bombers for SBR’s if you can’t land units to take advantage of them.

I understand the need for the Allied Atlantic fleets to be properly defended against Axis air power but, if you alter the rules to make it easier for one you may be just tilting favor to the other side which you will then have to fix by adjusting the rules again.

@Mazer:

But there are a few things I’m sure of:

• Without some mod, SBRs should be done every round to maximum damage.  Bombers are very cheap, the ROI is excellent, and once a power is taken out they supplement other attacks.

But here’s the thing: SBRs are the element of the game with the least skill and the most dicey outcomes.  If SBRs are good then you should always do them, and then there is just a questions of who gets lucky.

That’s a lame strategy game.

The fixes I’ve heard just make SBRs more gimmicky.  The escort rules detract from strategic game play because with expert play people will either park ftrs on an IC or they won’t.  It won’t be an interesting strategic element.

SBRs should be disallowed.

Yes, SBR’s are profitable. I believe that it is roughly 5 IPC’s per bomber purchased. But there are things that offset the benefits to one side or the other.

SBR’s work both ways. And both sides have countries that can spare the income to conduct SBR’s. If the Allies are building bombers against Germany and Italy, what is stopping Japan from doing the same to Russia?

And Germany has a large enough initial income to have a large aircraft purchasing plan. While maybe not being able to make advances, they can at least keep the Russians at bay. If the Allies are building for an SBR campaign, then they could have problems trying to keep control of Africa because their shipping is at constant risk. And once it finally gets to the point that Germany is unable to maintain the air purchase plan then they can also shift to using their bombers to start SBR raids against UK or Russia.

I have always been a proponent of modifying the rules as a last resort. As much as I would like to find ways to keep bids to a minimum, if the game is unbalanced, then lets just go with a bid. At least that way there is potential for variety due to bid placement and then we don’t have to go and do things like sh*tcan entire sections of the rules.

• To say Italy can be reinforced from France is not to say it is “easy” unless you consider weakening France to be a good thing  :-D

Now, why would the Germany player leave himself in a weak position in France when moving units into Italy? You are making an assuption that the Germany player is not smart enough to replace the units that moved from France to Italy. If Germany has to reinforce Italy to prevent an Allied landing, then it isn’t usually France that will suffer a loss of units, it’s the Russian front. And if it ever comes down to the point where reinforcing Italy forces Germany to leave France in a weak position that is susceptible to attack, then lets work from the assumption that the Germany player will simply abandon France altogether.

And that’s my point: there are 4 critical invasion zones in this version of the game: Italy, France, NW Eur, Berlin.  That stretches the Axis mighty thin and wreaks havoc with NOs.

In this case, defending Italy, France, and Germany is identical to Revised. If the Allies are splitting their landings between Algeria and Europe then all 3 territories are defended and if the Allies are focusing in one direction or another either the units normally in Italy are used to bolster the Germany/France defenses or the Germany units are added to the Italy/France defenses. In any of those cases, the number of defending units doesn’t change, it’s their position relative to how much the Allies can land and where.

The exception is NWE. But, NWE is never defended. It is just traded if the Allies land there. And the Allies rarely have the opportunity to gain a foothold in NWE in the early portion of the game so it’s a moot point. NWE doesn’t become a problem until Germany starts collapsing in the midgame against a KGF, but that is simply the natural progression of the game and by then Russia is usually coming under heavy threat from the Japanese.

• I’m expecting to be a KIF player.  I haven’t played a lot, but that sure looks like the weak link in the Axis chain.  You can SBR them into oblivion and threaten them with significant force round 3 or 4.  That’s gonna be a problem for the Axis.

That is one way to do it. I prefer to neuter the Italian fleet and reclaim Africa but then move on to Germany once that is accomplished.

• Spending US money against Japan is almost surely a waste.  How much navy do you need to counter Japan?  Certainly a lot.  How much does it protect?  Certainly very little.  You can’t really stop Japan, and I don’t think that with a focused Japanese player you can even slow them down very much.

I never said that the US should spend money against the Japanese. Personally, I think that the majority of resistance to the Japanese in Asia should come from the Russians and the Russian supported Chinese.

An infantry here and there or an armor or 2 with aircraft based in Cauc or Russia to support both fronts can go a long way to slowing down or even temporarily halting a Japanese advance in one avenue and then be gone to threaten another while the Japanese are moving to reinforce the first position.

@DarthMaximus:

@U-505:

I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.

I’d agree, but wouldn’t necessarily limit it to J casualties.  A poor Ger showing can also give the freedom to the US to go Pac immediately if they want regardless of how well J went.

Yes, but that lends itself more to KGF to take advantage of Germany’s misfortune.

@DarthMaximus:

I find ignoring Japan early may be the best approach.  Barring bad dice or just plain terrible moves there is very little the Allies can do to stop their intial expansion (rds 1-3).

I disagree. I think that any units the Russians can spare from the German front from the beginning of the game should be immediately allocated toward stunting Japan’s growth with mobile units like armor and aircraft being especially useful. Since Russia is the hub by which all avenues of the game radiate, like I said before, it is easier for Russia to shift their focus to areas where the Japanese are weak and then be gone to threaten other areas once the Japanese have wasted enough time working to break that Russian roadblock.

@Funcioneta:

You cannot ignore Japan now, it’s a no-brainer strat invade Alaska with 5 starting trannies unless USA defends Pacific with some boats, and if Japan makes a solid foothold in American mainland, it’s game over

I have always said that the US doesn’t neccesarily have to build any navy in the Pacific and I’m still sticking to that belief. With a properly set up troop train from W US through WCan, it becomes more expensive to the Japanese than the US to implement the Polar Express.

@DarthMaximus:

I think Germany needs to take Kar early and hold, hopefully they can hold in rd 2 (rd 3 at the latest), otherwise I think you might stall out a bit too soon, which ultimately allows the Allies to box you in and then make it 3 on 1 vs. Japan.

I wholeheartedly agree. Germany must make an effort to claim Karelia from the beginning of the game and Russia must make it their number one priority to prevent this for as long as possible. If Germany makes it’s mind up to take Karelia, it will happen, but the longer the Allies can keep Germany from taking and holding Karelia, the better off they are. Even trading is acceptible, as long as germany can’t build there. Holding Karelia just opens up far too many income opportunities for Germany.

I think what many of us are doing, myself included, is sitting in our own isolated niches and developing strategic ruts that we can’t see past. Fresh eyes can often see things that focused eyes can’t. I think we need more cross breeding of strategies to improve the strategic gene pool before we can make many definitive statements.

Some things have not changed from revised, to contain Germany is still the most important goal for allies. Europe is worth more than other geo-strategic regions on the AA50 map.

The question is, is Russia and UK enough to contain Germany and Italy. If the answer is yes, then US should attack Japan in the pacific. If UK + Russia is not enough against Germany and Italy, then the most effective allied approach is a US Euro-strat instead of a US pac-strat. Africa is also important in AA50 as it was in revised.

I have also lost games with axis when Japan was ignored, probably due to bad luck and/or bad play.  It should be mentioned that its much easier to play axis in LL then ADS.

U-505, that post is one of the best so far on these boards.

I am one of the players that has played over 50 games. What I have seen so far is that people play a few games, generally against the same opponents(.ie same strategic tendencies) and jump to all kinds of conclusions.

I would say at the end of the year with league play we would have a much better idea where we stand but I am afraid the decision to go with bids has probably tossed that out the window.

The question is, is Russia and UK enough to contain Germany and Italy. If the answer is yes, then US should attack Japan in the pacific. If UK + Russia is not enough against Germany and Italy, then the most effective allied approach is a US Euro-strat instead of a US pac-strat. Africa is also important in AA50 as it was in revised.

I honestly can’t see how UK+Russia can match Germany+Italy if you play with NOs. You desperately need BOTH an invasion force in the Scandinavia/Karelia region AND in the Africa region. And UK doesn’t have enough IPCs to do both=> US help needed. But that doesn’t mean zero IPCs off the West coast. I actually believe the game has been carefully designed so as to FORCE US BUYS IN BOTH THEATERS OF WAR. And that is a good thing!  :wink:

AA50 is much more complex than revised, so it will take longer make safe conclusions. There are still some players who think there’s no need for bids in revised. But even if AA50 is as balanced as revised, its much easier to make big mistakes and lose games b/c of ineffective playing strats.
Its actually difficult to lose against axis (w/o bids) in revised if the allied player wants to win. This issue can be much more complex in AA50, b/c the game is more advanced, and it’s more difficult to know the most effective ways to win.

The last days I’ve seen several players not using bids in the lobby. So maybe more players are starting to learn allies better, which could mean that in the end a bid will be needed for axis…  :-)
Also, I’m not using bids when playing ADS.