How to achieve balance

Ok, I stand corrected on the JTDTM issue, I didn’t read the rule book  :oops:

Then the playtesters and game designers missed one aspect of the intentions of AA50, but they managed to get the balance as good as Revised, and for me this more important. But I agree that it would be better if the most effective strat was not to have Japan take most of Russia to win the game. As for the KGIF, this is according to history, but the JTDTM is not, so that means AA50 didn’t succeed with the pacific theater balance, but it’s still a better game than Revised.

@Subotai:

It also possible to win a KJF, or a balanced strat both in Revised and AA50…

Not sure I agree that KJF is doable in AA50.
Perhaps with Tech…

@axis_roll:

@Subotai:

It also possible to win a KJF, or a balanced strat both in Revised and AA50…

Not sure I agree that KJF is doable in AA50.
Perhaps with Tech…

Maybe w/o NOs, and no bid? I haven’t tried, I always use the most effective strat to win.

Edit: Assuming the premise for this thread, +NOs, I think maybe KJF is only doable in the same way as sealion is doable in Revised, it happens, but only with an experienced player against someone who don’t know what they’re doing  :-D

This poll is flawed. It needs a baseline choice of NO Balance needed as a choice. Its already assuming a problem exists so its slanted.

For a number of games, axis will win most games if both players are experienced, b/c axis will not be slammed by bad dice more than 50%, as for Egy, it’s about 60% with 1 German tank left.
Now, assuming both players are experienced, axis should not win all games, but that is b/c of bad dice for axis rnd1, and mistakes, which also happens. As for bad dice, I hate it as much as I hate ADS, but ADS is part of the game, even if I prefer LL, the number of axis attacks in the first rnd is part of the equation, a part of AA50, for good and bad. Still better than Revised, even with some new flaws.

The balance of AA50 is not written in stone like Revised, and if allies can’t win, then it’s b/c the allied player is not experienced, but axis are favored pretty sure, even if there is small possibility for this to change.

Coming back to the balance debate…has anyone tried this?  UK gets a bid of one industrial complex, to be placed in India.  Then play game as normal…

Does this IC have any chance of holding (I’m assuming, of course, that the Russians will push at least 3-4 inf on Persia immediately to help out)?  Or will the strain of taking it slow Japan down enough to win the game for the Allies?

Japan can take the IC pretty soon and easy, probably round 3 as much. I think it’s more a advantage for axis than for allies

However, a free IC at saf could work. Another option is simply giving UK improved industry for free

I guess this is one of the problems with giving Japan 7 fighters (sigh).

I wonder, has any strategy besides KGF proven effective in this game?  I mean, against a good Japan player, is there any point in doing stuff in the Pacific?  Frankly, unless Japan makes mistakes, it’s hard for me to see how USA has a chance of competing in this theater.  I suppose if USA goes full-on, then Japan will at least be forced into a naval build-up and won’t be able to threaten Moscow with much besides a token force.  So if Germany/Italy don’t take Russia, then Russia could perhaps keep building enough inf until Moscow is untakable….  The problem is it doesn’t seem like Uk and Russia should be able to hold off Germany/Italy without some help from USA…but maybe with the Egypt/Karelia bid this strategy has some hope.

@Zhukov44:

I wonder, has any strategy besides KGF proven effective in this game?

That’s a very good question. I think KGF is not viable anymore mainly because boosted axis economics and swarm of starting trannies making Polar Express pretty easy. However, many think the opposite. Time will say who has the reason

@Zhukov44:

I mean, against a good Japan player, is there any point in doing stuff in the Pacific?  Frankly, unless Japan makes mistakes, it’s hard for me to see how USA has a chance of competing in this theater.  I suppose if USA goes full-on, then Japan will at least be forced into a naval build-up and won’t be able to threaten Moscow with much besides a token force.

In my FTF group, whe build USA’s Pacific fleet 100% of times (saving the only time I tried KGF in Revised just for sake of triyng, and that was an exception). Even with USA going Pacific 100%, Japan has enough income to send more than a token force. Usually 4-6 land units can be sent against USSR from Tokyo or asian ICs, hardly a token force (it’s more than italians can send)

However, if Japan makes a catastrophic error with fleet and loses badly (or suffers dice hate), there is a chance of USA arriving at time. The chances are so slim that we decided shift to 1942 scenario

@Zhukov44:

So if Germany/Italy don’t take Russia, then Russia could perhaps keep building enough inf until Moscow is untakable….  The problem is it doesn’t seem like Uk and Russia should be able to hold off Germany/Italy without some help from USA…but maybe with the Egypt/Karelia bid this strategy has some hope.

USSR and UK can hold against western axis alone. They have enough income (and building saf IC is pretty handy). The problem is when those 4-6 japanese units arrive at Moscow’s backdoor. Axis has a easy strat in case of KJF: hold Europe with west axis, hold Pacific with Japan and use those 4-6 additional japanese land units to break the balance against USSR

Conclusion: KJF is not a viable strat in AA50, 1941 scenario (opposite to Revised). If Polar Express or even JTDTM prove too powerful, there’s no way for allies for winning the game unless crappy dices or crappy axis play. Again, I don’t think allies can hold even against JTDTM: axis has more income, southern path (India) is not much longer than in previous versions, and you can simply SBR USSR and London (with jap bombers) until the Stone Age if you feel you need extra speed

I think a KJF is viable, although IMO it is not necessarily a true KJF since it is very hard for Russia to commit much.  Infact it is usually pretty hard for the UK to lend an extensive hand but they can help out.

But I do think the US can go toe to toe with Japan and keep them in check.  It really isn’t that hard to get an early massive US fleet to HI or Sol, the key is what can you do after that.  You’ll often need blocker DDs to help you pick off some islands and the UK trn/DD with 1 inf, 1 rt can also create trouble.

You can actually trade or retake Aus or take Car and reinforce with the US or use the US to block J fleet movements.  The thing about Car is once you take it with the UK (or US) in order for Japan to retake they’ll likely have to move a large portion of their fleet into range of a ton of US subs and US fleet.  The US can still commit 2-4 units to Afr or Europe while spending the reamaining 36-42 ipc on the Pac.

Ideally you can force Japan into having to protect 2 fleets b/c early on they are often so spread out b/c they need to expand so much in rd 1 and 2 and this limits there overall counters in the first few rds to US fleet moves.  So an early large scale investment by the US followed by a rd 2 or 3 move to Sol can cause some problems.  At the very least you can prevent any Japan involvement in Africa and even can retake India via your starting UK units and maybe a spare Russian troop or 2.

You can also get the US earning well into the 50’s pretty easy depending on how you want to play it out, but the US has the potential to take any one of these in the first 2-3 rds: Alg/Lib/Nor/Fin.  Usually it works out to where the UK can take one set and the US can take the other.  And if Russia happens to take both Fin and Nor, then great they’ll be able to aid in Per with the added income.

Regardless of KGF or KJF you want to take Fin/Nor in Rd 1 and 2 so you can immediately focus on getting Russia her big NO.

@DarthMaximus:

You can actually trade or retake Aus or take Car and reinforce with the US or use the US to block J fleet movements

Retake and hold is OK, but trade is a really bad idea: supply lines are way longer for allies than for Japan (in fact, virtually non existant in case of UK) and if you “trade” with USA (saving phi and 1 IPC jap islands), allies will get no money because Japan will retake them before UK can collect money for them

Some players build Eind IC with Japan. That makes a nightmare trading or taking Pacific Islands and also it’s a great spot to build ships there in case you need defense

True.  But it really depends on circumstances.  It is really only a 1 time trade b/c you’re right, Aus is far away, but sometimes that one time trade is worth it, if you are potentially playing a delaying game with Japan.

As the Allies it may be worth it to see Japan have to go back to Aus for a second time instead of sending the units to Asia.  It really depends on your overall strategy, but coupled with a US Pac strat you might be able to make an opening for yourself.

Perhaps in Japan’s attempt to retake they need to move part of their fleet to the Coast of Aus, maybe this moves some capital ships or ftrs out of range of your US fleet that can move somewhere in the Northern Pac.  Or Maybe J’s counter of Aus would put their ships in range of US subs/air.

That 's one thing about the Pac, there are so many sea zones it is very hard to plan for every contigency particularly when you really need to look 2-3 turns ahead.  Too much can happen in the mean time that makes long term planning (other than I want to move to Sol by Rd X) very hard.

I’ve seen the EInd IC work both for and against Japan.  Yes you can get ships in the water, and easily get to Aus, but if the US does use a more northernly apporach, you run the risk of having a divided fleet.

I do agree that trading with Japan in the Pac is really hard but what isn’t as hard is amassing a fleet and making an initial move with your UK units (initially from Aus) and then backing them up with 2-4 US units and the US fleet.  Depending on how the US builds their fleet (better Def numbers with lots of ACs and ftrs and a few DDs) it may be to their adv to invite a J attack.  Typically the attacking fleet, if it survives is open to a counter so it comes down to the question of, is Japan willing to lose its BBs/AC/Ftrs/CAs for the US fleet of AC/Ftrs/DDs and its counter.  A good example would be the US fleet at Sol.  Maybe US has some subs/DD/AC/Ftrs at Sol and buys 5-6 subs and has its 2 boms in Wus.  Does Japan really want to attack the US fleet at Sol?  Can it even attack?
If it does can it survive the counter, and who ultimately benefits from the mutual destruction?
If it can’t attack then the Allies have a pretty good position to be really annoying and will probably end up holding Aus for good within a turn or two and may be able to push on Car where more reinfocements from Sz 56 can arrive.

Assuming 1941 setup and using NO’s, here are a few minor, simple, yet helpful setup changes to the board.

1.  Exchange the sz4 Russian sub for a Russian destroyer.  In Revised, Russia had an 8 IPC, 2 attack, 2 defense unit which could block ships, so give it back to them.  This both helps Russia and Germany, because if Germany wants to, it can hit it.

2. Exchange the sz56 US transport for a US cruiser.  This seems to make Japan’s opening moves a little more clear and it means that the US cannot immediately take a Pacific island on its first turn which helps Japan, but having a capital ship, helps the US as well.

3. Add 1 Chinese infantry to Yunan.  I know that many people want more than this, but I think that this would force Japan to be more careful with its first turn moves, but I think that Japan could still do just about everything that it wants to.

These changes actually give the Allies 10 IPCs worth of unit/unit upgrades, and with all of the talk about the Axis having the slight advantage, maybe these changes would help.