The Mid-Game KGF Dilemna

Amen Brother…  Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.

Honestly Func, you haven’t tried to play KGF if you think its boring.  It’s true it would be boring if the Allied opponent simply regurgitated Revised strategies, but that’s not how you play KGF in 41–KGF in 41 requires aggression and timing and closely coordinated attacking.

It’s true that KGF is harder for the Axis to play against, because Axis has to think hard to anticipate the 1-2-3 attacks and coordinated movements.  But I don’t mind the challenge…it’s more interesting to fight a KGF then to win an inevitable economic victory or quickly stomp Russia if the Allies divide their focus.

What I can say with certainty is its lots of fun to be Allies when executing a KGF strategy, especially the sort of aggressive KGF strategy that Gargantua is talking about above.   It’s more exciting to be Allies in AA50 then in any previous version of AA, partially due to the challenge involved, and partially due to KGF being much more exciting and diverse with the inclusion of Italy.

One of the big questions is “How Easy is it to Hold France”?

With my friends, we play with Dardanelles closed and I gotta say that this limit Italy alot and gives Russia the opportunity to counter attack without fearing the Italian troops. Yes, the Italians can still clear a path, but it’s much harder with their ground troops (Italy have little tanks, and little infantry)

With Dardanelles closed, the Allies certainly see their chance of winning increase.

That said, with or without the Dardanelles closed, I believe this game to be fair for both side. I’ll give a slight advantage to the Axis simply because of their strong start.

Right now, we just discovered 42. We feel it is more balanced than 41 (for some reason, and maybe it is really more balanced).
Personally, I’d say this : If you want to balance (if it isn’t) 41, just remove some Japanese transports (I don’t believe in the “add some Chinese units”). 42 shows how Japan is weaker in the first few turns because it lacks transports. Like force them to take 1-2 more turn in order to take the free 8 ipcs in East Indies/Borne or something, or prevent them from sending that many ground forces in their first turn. From there, you will see how it limits Japan’s capabilities.

Robert

Depends though, how long can you hold off the allies from threatening Italy from the sea if you purchase boats?  Honestly I wouldn’t buy a fig and a carrier though, if your going that route go all the way and let the Germans and Japaneses lands planes on your carrier for you.

Look at it this way, by the end of J3 there could be a fleet of 2 loaded carriers, 2 cruisers, a battleship, and a destroyer or two.  That is 11 hits, 5 @ 4, 2 @ 3, and 1 @ 2.  I doubt the allies have the air power on turn 3 to take that out, and if they do they don’t have many trannies to push afterward.  The allies also must be careful at that point of splitting there fleet and Italy suicide into the US’s boats if the UK moves her boats.  Can be very effective against an all out push from the allies on Europe.

@Subotai:

It’s an interesting concept. Other alliances would be tempting to play in revised, if not AA50 was released.

We did that in classic, I don’t remember if Germany + Russia worked for a good game, but Germany + US was pretty even, almost like the original teams.

US and Japan in AA50 is much too weak.
Also, NOs can’t be used when changing alliances, b/c the NOs are specifically built around the original alliances, while any territory with an ipc value can be captured, NOs are different.
I’ve already been thinking about other setups in AA50, I haven’t tried any other than the original teams yet, but Germany and Italy + Russia would probably work fine. I don’t think any other teams can work, except if Italy is an enemy of Germany, Germany will then capture Italy rnd1, this will slow down Germany, but Germany will then be stronger from rnd2 than if Italy is on the same team as Germany.
Maybe Germany and US could work in AA50, also original teams could work with the exception of Italy is teamed up with allies.
A team change that is interesting to try out is: Germany owns all of Italy and Italian units, not only to play different setups, but also to determine if it is an advantage for axis to “split” Germany, I think axis are stronger if Germany got the possessions of Italy including the Italian units. I also think if we just removed all of Italy and Germany had to capture Italy and eventually build in the Mediterranean, Germany would be stronger than in the original AA50.

I have been tempted to experiment to see if Italy is advantageous as its own seperate entity.  I am inclined to agree with you that an “uber Germany” is probably preferable for the Axis.  The only reason why I have any doubt though, is the nasty nasty potential for a double hit on Russia (and sometimes even a triple hit).  It really does seem that if Italy has a decent presence in the Russian theater, Russia can only defend against two fronts after about t2 and can no longer leave a 1 man inf defense.  That alone can tip the favour to the Axis.

Played this out this weekend

Result: Turn 7 ended the game as Axis had more production +50% and more units on board…

Allied Strategy was a KGF + a token resistance in the Pacific…

What shall I say - Italy Killed a S and UK fleet twice in the Atlantic (turn 3+4 after securing the Med including Gebel al Tarik…

Germany was constantly harrassed by the Soviet and lost Scandinavia early to the Brits…
(Turn 7 all western russian territories were in Russian hands, (Stalingrad was held by
Germany)

Territories east of Moscow were almost all in Japanese hands.

japan ignored SU and China for 3 turns (mostly only put enough Inf to discourage an attack)

Japan spread into the Pacific (I must admit a little gamble- it put 9 ships 3CVs+5ftrs vs 7 ships 2Cvs+4Ftrs and won because of some real great rolls (IIRC it lost the fighters, but nothing else - maybe a DD).

BTW crusiers seem to be better than we first thought - if DDs absorb damage they are excellent units)

Italy once captured Canada! (shortly after thrown out by the US, but this and constant invasions to Alska prevented the US to build up a naval fore after the Pac and AT fleets were sunk)

Uk quickly lost all Pac+Asian posessions and Africa was slowly eaten by Italy (which really shone this game - a few early fleet builds (CA+Tr + a few dds) while ignoring the SU.

Both sides made some serious blunders (Japan only seized an empty borneo at turn 5, Russia maybe waited to long to attack German tank forces - maybe an attack a turn earlier and hoping for a few 1s would have turned the tide)

US should have built up MORE pacificx sea units and waited a few turns (1-2) before it attacked IT/GE…

UK - NO more ICs in the Pacific/India - Japan can muster enough force to capture them even if it holds it with ONLY 1 unit - UK can’t get it back…

UK did bomb GE, but repairs were quick to follow…

In the End JP had 3 Fleets - a large off Alaska

A small DD fleet in JP proper to defend against possible bomber threats. and a medium south pacific fleet (AU was conquered on turn 6 - with an IC UK could hold it and even pose an potential threat with a small DD+TRP fleet)

Germany focused on Stalingrand and never came to attack to Leningrad as UK went to Scandinavia (I will do it again) and so Russia could build up before Germany could strike - UK even amph landed at the baltic states…

An observation - If any nation went after lone Transports (it sunk them) - the Ftrs would have probably decided another battle in this nations favor - so my advice - use a few subs for thios duty…

So my solution - KGF is dead - Japan grows too fast - Japan soon had no markers left for occupied territories…

NO favor the winning side ;)

@Subotai:

Another fact is that with a global war game which takes 3-9 hours to finish, it can never be even semi-realistic, or else it would be a very boring game which no one would want to play, and then only the balance could be realistic. The other option is to do this in a sophisticated computer game.

I think we should rather complain about the gameplay issues, rather than AA50 being to a-historical.

But there are some exceptions, as some rule changes are both easy and historical, as closing of the Dardanelles, but then all the other straits should have the same rules, as according to history.

I think you may be referring to the scope of the realism of the game.  All the AA games are semi-realistic to begin with as they ‘abstractions’ of the war.

What is complained about though is how so many people seem to go after Europe first as the Allies.  The fact that they did this historically is true.  But when it happens in the game, it’s what is derided.  That’s all I was saying.  We don’t like how the Axis win by a-historically sandwiching Russia but we also don’t like how the Allies historically win by surrounding Germany/Italy.  We live in a funky world of ideas, and possibly not sure which side is up.

What’s strange is that it is considered that the Axis have the advantage in '41 and it takes the Allies working together to win so when we ask, ‘why has the game turned into KGIF?’ it’s possibly because it’s the only way to win, it’s desperation.  KGIF is more viable because of the proximity of the Allied powers to the Euro theater of the game.  If Germany/Italy had the ability to stalemate the Allies on their income alone the game is way out of whack, but generally speaking in my experience, they don’t and have to use their advantage early to win before the Allies get into full swing.