Allies lose every game.

@dondoolee:

@Subotai:

It seems like the game designers thought that if every axis attack goes as planned then they would win…and succed to conquer the world……which might have happened in the real WW2.

But for the game balance using NOs, just give the allies 2 units and place them in Egy and Karelia, from rnd2 the allies need to strike back, attack and repell, and keep the production advantage. If axis don’t get superior economy from rnd2 or rnd3, the allies will win, just like a typical Revised game w/o bids.

That is certainly the most irksome thing to me about this game.  The amount of high probablity attacks the Axis can make and win on T1.  If most succede the Allies are doomed.  This probably happens to the allies in my game 1/3 - 1/4 of the games.  Makeing that many games a virtual moot point after J1.  I wish there was a way to design an AA without being so T1 heavy (at least for opening moves, maybe not purchas), but I fear that may be an impossabilty due to the mechanics of the game.

Should be possible. Just remove all units outside the capitals, give all nations a fat wallet to begin with, and have everyone start their campaign of war the way they like it. This would require a whole lot of long term planning, action/reaction to what the other bought…but no decisive first round battles, as there are no battles untill turn 3 or 4.

Sure…might not be the most exciting 3 or 4 first rounds, but it could make for an interesting game.

Allies can win, and I think it all boils down to what America does after seeing how well Germany and Japan do in round 1.

If Japan got mauled, then a fast hit in the Pacific can really screw up the Axis.  Otherwise, a shuck into Africa is a good way to start, followed by a shuck into Scandinavia/France with doubled up Transports.  Heck, transports are CHEAPER now and you have MORE money than in Revised, and we routinely had 10 to 12 transports with America in the Atlantic there, so why can’t we here?

I have thought about using russia to kill the Italy fleet before, but I would buy a plane on round 1 and move the starting sub in that direction, then buy another plane and a pair or trio of subs R2.  Might work with a large allied fleet ready to follow it up.

UK1: 2 ACs, 2 transports
US1: 3 transports 2 inf/2 art/ 1 arm
UK2: bombers? move to SZ 12
US2: another AC?  Bombers in EUS hoping UK takes and holds Balkans for big hit on Italy?

Could Italy defend against a US drop of 4 inf, 3 art, 1 arm, 4 figs, 6 bomb on US3?  Would it be worth it?  Then again could they defend against a UK drop of 3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 2-3 figs, 3? bombs on UK3?  Could the allies hold it?

…So how bout a $5 (unit bid) bugoo, to scared  :roll:, you probably beat me more than 50% in the past…!!!  :|

I’m not kidding, abut my proposal, but this duel is serious indeed, imo, for effective strats and players, theres’s not any extremely high bid that is needed. But do you feel threatened with a less  then a 2 unit preplace bid???  :roll: :evil: :-P :lol: 8-) :-D :-)

I just need to get some what sober first… :roll: :evil: :-P :lol: :? :-) :-D

No!  Russia has 30 IPC, you must buy 4 Submarines (max you can build in SZ 16) then buy fighters, POWN THE WORLD! Mwuahahahah!

@Cmdr:

Heck, transports are CHEAPER now and you have MORE money than in Revised, and we routinely had 10 to 12 transports with America in the Atlantic there, so why can’t we here?

Two reasons:

• First, axis also has more money. Much more
• Second, and more important: now trannies doesn’t defend. So you need much more escorts than before

@Funcioneta:

@Cmdr:

Heck, transports are CHEAPER now and you have MORE money than in Revised, and we routinely had 10 to 12 transports with America in the Atlantic there, so why can’t we here?

Two reasons:

• First, axis also has more money. Much more
• Second, and more important: now trannies doesn’t defend. So you need much more escorts than before

In regards to number 1; they also have more need for ground units so they effectively have less punch, in my opinion.  I rarely see Germany going heavy navy to attack the Allies and in order to hit SZ 4 or SZ 2, you’re going to need a lot of bombers, don’t really see it happening.

In regards to number 2; yes, they do not defend, but why can’t America’s navy sit in SZ 2 and England’s in SZ 4?  Now you have your shuck going on (England’s 4 Transports and America’s 5 Transports in SZ 4 and America’s other 5 Transports in SZ 2) and you are defended?

There are problems, of course!

1)  Russia does not have the 5 IPC NO. (Russia has 13 units a round coming in from the allies, but they don’t have their 5 IPC NO.)

2)  America has lost a second NO in the Pacific (Control over their islands out there.)

So the allies are down 10 IPC (11 IPC) (depends if Japan takes Hawaii or not.)  But again, Russia’s sitting on a lot of extra defenders.

Recently found the boards, love them.  Currently our group is playing AA50, alternating between 41/42.  We also had experience with AAR and Europe.  However, it is only amongst our small group of friends.  I have a few questions if some of the more experienced players could help, or anyone for that matter  :-D.

1)  What is a ‘bid’, as mentioned in previous posts in this thread?
2)  How does Germany defend Norway/Finland if they choose not to go after Karelia?
3)  Does anyone actually use Japan through China, I usually ignore China and put pressure from the North and India.  If you do use China, please explain your strat.  I usually let China build up to an enormous army and we can all laugh at the uselessness of them.

Also, have not played with NO’s yet.  I am assuming that is the optional play where you get extra IPC’s for owning ‘said’ territories.  I think we should start this though as I am guessing it shortens the games a bit.

I look forward to some feedback.

As with every incarnation of this game to date, just give up, you are not keeping Finland/Norway if the allies want them.  Good news is that you don’t need them for the national objective.

@scampb:

Recently found the boards, love them.  Currently our group is playing AA50, alternating between 41/42.  We also had experience with AAR and Europe.  However, it is only amongst our small group of friends.  I have a few questions if some of the more experienced players could help, or anyone for that matter  :-D.

1)  What is a ‘bid’, as mentioned in previous posts in this thread?
2)  How does Germany defend Norway/Finland if they choose not to go after Karelia?
3)  Does anyone actually use Japan through China, I usually ignore China and put pressure from the North and India.  If you do use China, please explain your strat.  I usually let China build up to an enormous army and we can all laugh at the uselessness of them.

Also, have not played with NO’s yet.  I am assuming that is the optional play where you get extra IPC’s for owning ‘said’ territories.  I think we should start this though as I am guessing it shortens the games a bit.

I look forward to some feedback.

1. A bid is a handicap for a certain side.  For example if you think the allies are at a severe disadvantage you would bid on an extra amount of IPC’s to play them.
   2)It is next to impossible to efficiently defend Norway/Finland after T3 if the Allies want it.  More importantly, sending resources there can usually be wastful than helpful as it is out of the way from where German troops need to be.  There is more money to be gained elsewhere for Germany.
   3)Did you know China can take Manchuria, Hong Kong, and Kiangsu?  Did you know that you can completley obliterate all Chinese forces T1?  Plus by going through China you are taking a shorter more valuable route to Russia than through heading through the Russian North.  This means that the Russians are essentially defending on not worthwhile land for the allies and are not able to make more determined defenses on more valuable routes.

While you may not have to kill China off completley, I would think it would be wise to kill off her forces on J1, then do whatever you want with Japan.

Oh, an IC in Norway would hold Scandinavia for a while. (Move the AA GUN from Germany and build a new one to replace it on Round 1 should mitigate any SBR from England.)

Dunno how long you can expect to keep it, but you should have it for at least 5 rounds I would think.

I have not gone Jenn’s route of the IC but I have occasionally built a fleet for the purpose of landing in Norway/Finland/Karelia. Plus while the Allies will eventually destroy it they have to take the time and equipment to do so.

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

Also consider that while yes the US and UK can gang pile Norway it will take a couple of turns and divert Allied forces from other areas such as Africa or the Pacific.

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

@axis_roll:

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it.  That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it.  That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Chic logic.

Please read what you wrote, it doesn’t make sense.

Let me explain.

@Cmdr:

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, …

OK, you’re with me, yes, I give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.  They recognize I am employing a sub-optimal strategy.

@Cmdr:

…they have to do something to counter it.  …

OK, yes, I have to agree with you here Captain Obvious.

@Cmdr:

That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, ….

Woah!  Estrogen based thinking alert!  How does them realizing you are employing a sub-optimal strategy FORCE the opponent into a counter that is sub-optimal?  Assuming you know what ‘sub-optimal’ means, now the allies should be able to easily handle the Axis move, because, by definition, it is NOT the best move for them to make (again, the benefit of the doubt is giving to the opponent).

@Cmdr:

…hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Ah yes, the crux of your post.  I make a sub-optimal move… but I will win because I hope my opponent will screw up (too).

Chic logic.  Explained.

I think you are getting too focused on the “optimal” move thing.

For arguments sake let us assume that the UK and US dog piling France every turn is the “optimal” Allied strategy. By forcing the UK and/or the US to deal with a reinforced Scandinavia either through an IC, transported units, or paratroopers, the Allies now have to deal with this instead of their preferred strategy.

It is less of I made a bad move and hope my opponent makes one. It is more of dictating the terms of the fight. Refer to Sun Tzu on that one.

As far as when I may employ such it depends mostly on my mood more than anything else. I have also found that opponents that do not like tech tend to be formulaic. In other words on turn X do Y. In tech games by turn X, Y may be a bad decision. Players that play tech tend to be much more flexible and responsive so they are harder to “throw off”. That said even then I may use such against such an opponent to see how I know someone that will react well to it handles the situation they have been presented.

@a44bigdog:

I think you are getting too focused on the “optimal” move thing.

I was going off your post.  You choose the word ‘sub-optimal’.

@a44bigdog:

For arguments sake let us assume that the UK and US dog piling France every turn is the “optimal” Allied strategy. By forcing the UK and/or the US to deal with a reinforced Scandinavia either through an IC, transported units, or paratroopers, the Allies now have to deal with this instead of their preferred strategy.

It is less of I made a bad move and hope my opponent makes one. It is more of dictating the terms of the fight. Refer to Sun Tzu on that one.

Assuming that piling into France is the best allied move, then a Scandanavian IC certainly is not going to slow down the allies dog-pile strategy… in fact, it will only make it more efficient as German units/resources are tied up in another area of the board (Scandinavia/sz5)

I understand what you are trying to say, but your example doesn’t quite fit.

Perhaps you intended to say

“Sometimes doing the unexpected thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.”

@a44bigdog:

as far as when I may employ such it depends mostly on my mood more than anything else. I have also found that opponents that do not like tech tend to be formulaic. In other words on turn X do Y. In tech games by turn X, Y may be a bad decision. Players that play tech tend to be much more flexible and responsive so they are harder to “throw off”. That said even then I may use such against such an opponent to see how I know someone that will react well to it handles the situation they have been presented.

So, against tech-haters, you will try to use different strategies because they tend to be more rigid in their game play.  I can see that logic.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you about non-mainstream game plans.  Novel plans tend to catch players off-guard and CAN lead to wins.  Just looking for some insight as to when the best time to use them might be, as in poker, when certain ‘tells’ indicate a higher probability course of action.

an allied win in 41 can be tough.  my strategies always depend on the axis turns. my first turn with russia is almost always a regroup, defend, attack type thing.  for me russia doesnt go on offense till her 4th turn usually.

if jap has bad J1 in pacific,  then i try to use USA in pacific mostly, with a UK IC in SAF or (sometimes not often) AUS, the allies can really slow down japans march towards russia.

if germany has a bad first turn, then its off to the atlantic.  i like to let the UK take NOR and FIN just for the extra 5ipc, they need it.  with US, i will usually go towards ALG. bmrs for the US is a must.  how many?  depends what else you need. at least 1 to send to UK.  keep sbr ger and italy.

i love it when ger buys boats.  usually pretty easy to sink, and that means less arm towards rus.  try to build up the UK navy and keep the fleet together with americans if possible.  i usually let ger take kar first turn.  no sense in letting all the russians die for it.  move the ruskies to fin or arc for counter attack.

if ger and jap both have a good first turn…well good luck, i usually dont win those games. :-D

I see the confusion, let me clarify:

If you employ a sub-optimal tactic, you are hoping that your opponent’s method of countering it is more ineffective than your tactic is.

Example:

America goes nuts buying submarines every round putting down 3-5.

Japan counters buy building 4 destroyers a round.

Who gets hurt more?  They are both sub-optimal strategies, but the way your opponent is countering (because he is inexperienced or whatever) is less effective, thus, your strategy is more effective than a straight and narrow campaign. (Presumably because your opponent is more accustomed to it.)

Not saying it’s a great idea, just explaining the mindset behind it!

A typical UK1 move involves ending with atleast 3 trannies within range of norway/finland.  Defending that factory is gonna be difficult unless you take Kar hard, fast, and early with a huge stack.