Game imbalance - Look at the Unit IPC totals

See I view the problem as being in Europe more than in Asia.  The simple fact of the matter is the allies have too many places they have to fight.  If they allow Italy to keep Africa for more than 2 turns making 20 IPCs europe will be a nut that is impossible to crack with the dozens of Italian infantry holding the beaches, not to mention there fleet can become very difficult to kill.  Combine that with how defensive Russia is forced to play in the early rounds due to the can opener threat, and the inability of the UK to do much harm to the G/I machine on her own, and it is very difficult for the allies to win.  Even a simple surge strat will dismantle Russia so fast it is not even funny, by that I mean G 1 buy 9 inf, 1 art, all following turns 10 tanks.  Let Italy deal with France.  And lastly, the bombers killing transports makes this even worse.

If the US does not devote a good amount of money to Europe, you will see Germany buying a bomber or two a turn.  This means the UK has to constantly purchase more boats to cover her transports, boats she cannot afford if she wants to put men into Europe.  Combine that with Germany’s income of 50 and Russia just cannot keep up, even with germany buying planes out the wazoo.  Then add in the can opener threat, and Russia cannot defend Moscow and Caucasus after turn 4 or 5.  And lastly, taking and holding france is nearly impossible for the allies, with the G/I factories right next door.

All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.

All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.

The imbalance is that USA doesnt get enough income to fight in both the atlantic and pacific at the same time. The game should be rebalanced around the idea that the Allies will inevitably win if the Axis doesnt kill Russia by Turn X. That was the only reason Japan agreed to join the Axis powers in 1941 and had a non-aggression pact with Russia because the swift defeat and assimilation of Russia by Germany was assumed.

Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.

China was somewhat of a sideshow for Japan. They wanted to conquer China or at least parts of it as a means of becoming an Imperial power and gaining respect from the West for being an Imperial power.

Their primary reasons for going to war were raw resources which Japan lacks. Primarily oil, tin, and rubber. The Japanese Army wanted to seize Russian oilfields in Siberia, even after its defeats by Russia, and the Japanese Navy wanted to seize the oilfields in the East Indies along with other resources there.

Unlike Hitler Japan wanted to carve out an Empire in the east and then sue for peace. As lopsided as it is I think the original Axis and Allies Pacific portrays this well with the Victory Points. The idea was to seize the resources in the Dutch East Indies and then build up a ring of outer defensive Islands. The Japanese knew they could not defeat the US and UK but hopped that they could make the cost of taking back what Japan had claimed too prohibitive for the Allies to undertake.

Also along historical notes I think China should be able to send units into Burma and FIC as they did do this in the Actual war.

I haven’t given any thought in Anniversary but I thought in Revised the Australian and New  Zealand forces should have been US as they were under US command.

Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.

No it was more because Japan had its hands full with China and expanding southward and didnt want to deal with fighting the Russians too. It wasnt in Russia’s best interests to fight Japan either so they both just kind of agreed to leave eachother alone. Unfortunately China doesnt present much of an obstacle for Japan. China’s military strength along with the USA’s industrial/economic strength are completely lacking from the '41 scenario. Not only is it historically inaccurate but its not even balanced as a hypothetical scenario.

@akreider2:

In the Revised version, after the first Russian turn, the Allies would typically have a total unit value of 75 more than the Axis.

In 1941, at the start, the Allies have only 4 IPCs more of units.

I did a statistical study of the Revised version and found that each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9% (see http://www.campusactivism.org/blog/node/189).  Territory held is also important, but I think the territory balance is similar in the two games (the Axis starts out with less). Typically if an Axis player’s units would equal the value of an Allied player’s then they would have won the game in Revised (I’d guess 95% chance against a player of equal skill).

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges.

AA50 has many changes compared to revised:

number of territories differ
play sequence differs
The European Axis forces are split into Germany/Italy
Unit costs and abilities have changed
Base dollars for countries has changed.

Therefor, your revised research correlation of ipcs to winning most likely can not be the same in AA50

I guess I am wondering what kind of comment(s) you are looking for regarding your statistical analysis.  Are we supposed to theorize the new ratio applicable in AA50?

I’ll take a stab at it  :lol:

AAR: each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9%

AA50: each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 5.1%

It seems to me that once a side has an advantage (especially with NO’s in play), that advantage increase is not linear, but accelerates rapidly.  Not so extreme as a logrithmic manner, but perhaps exponentially.

@axis_roll:

It seems to me that once a side has an advantage (especially with NO’s in play), that advantage increase is not linear, but accelerates rapidly.  Not so extreme as a logrithmic manner, but perhaps exponentially.

I was thinking, too, that statistical analysis considers only total IPC values and incomes and whatnot and not the position of the units on the board.  I don’t think stat analysis can boil down what side has an advantage and by how much.

I think the starting setup is fair enough.  I think much bigger factors are what strategies your opponent will use, what the dice do to you, etc.  I think you smart stat guys should spend your time and energies developing a really good battle calculator instead of analyzing the starting setups.  I have a good calculator, but it could be quite a bit better.  Let us know when you make something useful.  :lol:

@akreider2:

Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.

The power of statistical analysis is that you can something down into main causes. And I think Unit IPC value is a primary cause of the game outcome (whereas I think the changes you listed are less significant).  I guess people don’t like talking about it because it is more fun to consider all the possible strategies.

I think everybody who agrees the game is unbalanced also agrees Axis starts with too many units/too much unit value.  For example the complaints about Japan starting with 3 carriers, 9 figs, and 5 transports in 41.

The complaint that Axis have the economic advantage in the long-game is also related.  It’s much easier to weak down Russia than any Axis power.

The sort of game people are used to is where Axis attacks Russia and must take Moscow before Allies muster their economic edge.  In AA50, the long economic game favors Axis, so it’s Allies who have to take risks and attack.

Thanks, ak, but I’ve seen those and prefer the one I’m using over those.

Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.

That may be true, but the economic disadvantage is non-existent by the end of round 3. Two turns of economic advantage for the Allies is simply not enough to balance the game.

In fact, economic advantage from round 2 is marginal for allies, if still is any. You only have real advantage with the starting cash and round 1. In Revised axis could achieve economic parity, but only after 4-5 rounds if allies played well

Yep, I count China using the dudes they popped as base. 1 dude means 3 IPCs, 2 dudes 6, etc

But in 1941 China should not be able of producing more than 2 inf the whole game, and that if Japan failed some attack J1 or didn’t do in first place (the most usual should be pop only one inf the whole game). And one or 2 dudes at chi are irrelevant for the game. In 1941 scenario, China is more a puppet and a boost for Japan than some sort of aid for allies

In 1942 they may be a factor if Japan uses the India Crush and takes India J2 because then Japan will need spare the life of the ACME fighter at Yunnan, but losing India J2 is even worst than losing China J2

The economic advantage partially depends on if and how you count China.  Should their countries count as 1 IPC value (because normally the Chinese army isn’t that worthwhile), or 1.5 IPC value (1/2 of an inf) or some other number.

For instance, if Japan is normally getting China down to 3 countries - then China produces 1 inf - value of 1 ipc/country.  When I play Japan, I try to get China to round down.

Theres no advantage to China economic or otherwise. China is useless. Its completely wiped out on turn2 by any competent Japanese player.

The Allies dont get an economic advantage over Axis past turn 2. However if all three Allies gang up on Germany they still have an economic advantage over Germany. Thats why KGF is really the only strategy that works. Usually the game is decided by turn5 or turn6. If allies arnt close to winning by then Japan will be unstoppable.

I would love to see a custom scenario where allies have the economic advantage and Axis is pressured to kill russia quickly before the USA’s economy catches up.

@Khobai:

Thats why KGF is really the only strategy that works. Usually the game is decided by turn5 or turn6. If allies arnt close to winning by then Japan will be unstoppable.

The problem with that is that Japan can start a full assault on mainland America and force USA spent money against Japan … is not so difficult with such economic power Japan has and those 5 starting trannies … anyway a tradicional approach with some SBRs can toast allies also

You know, I keep hearing that but never seen a Polar Express work.

The US is just the bit of force that tips europe to the allies, typically even in a full on KGF they are better off around turn 4 ish to start putting something in the pacific.  If a polar express is going on that is even better for the US to drain japan resources.

The simple fact is the economics of the game.  You CANNOT stop japan from making alot of money, you CAN stop germany and italy from making alot of money.  You can get alot of money for the allies in Europe, you cannot in the pacific.

@Vareel:

The simple fact is the economics of the game.  You CANNOT stop japan from making alot of money, you CAN stop germany and italy from making alot of money.  You can get alot of money for the allies in Europe, you cannot in the pacific.

That’s not totally true: you can prevent Japan taking aus, nzel, haw and Alaska and you can also conserve two NOs for USA and at least one for UK (sometimes two if Africa went well). Dutch East Indies and Philippines are there to take for the allies, and they are pretty rich

A wise Japan can see a full KGF from a kilometer and set a quick attack on mainland America. They start with 5 trannies and is not rare they buying other 2 J1, Polar Express or not. Even if the yanks manage hold the invasion, is enough for axis because for the time USA can restart the KGF, Japan tanks and bombers will be near to Moscow. The problem is Japan has enough money to attack both America and Asia at the same time, specially if yanks abandon the Pacific. And Japan is way quicker than USA