Game imbalance - Look at the Unit IPC totals

@Argothair:

Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.

You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.

I am glad I was able to clarify the Italian National Objectives.  The $5 NO is very big for ‘little brother’ as that’s a 50% increase from their base income of 10 IPCs.

@Argothair:

Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16).  That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.

I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.

Along the lines of your summary below:
strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio”

If the allies do not move units into Algeria (or are not set up to do so), then the Axis do not need more than 2 turns of transports (Germany round 1, Italy round 1, Germany round 2, Italy round 2… maybe, maybe not)

@Argothair:

I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.

I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat.

A safe Axis retreat is not as difficult as you may deem.  If the odds are against you holding, play safe, fall back either into Africa further or into Trans-Jordan on the way to pressuring Russia thru Persia.  At the very least, you will now force Russian units to kill your African units.  Not a good thing for the allies (or Russia).

@Argothair:

It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything.  There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.

I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.

Hence it is very hard to accurately tally these costs/value of these units.  When we think of the Med fleet, we look at how much damage it will do when it is destroyed.  Will it cost the allies 3 planes?  Perhaps a couple of destroyers and a plane?  As the Axis, we want to make it as costly as possible, sometimes even moving a Japanese carrier into SZ15/SZ16 to help protect that fleet.

@Argothair:

What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa?  A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.

Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.

True.  You are describing the main issue that the allies are forced to overcome.  How to help the Russians as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Bringing the fight to the short lines of supply in western Europe might tie up some units, but are short term gains that the Germans can usually absorb moreso that the allies.  If Japan flies some planes (2-4 fighters) to Europe by round 3 and 4, this greatly helps German fend off the usual KGF allies strategy employed.

@Argothair:

My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early.  It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.

That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.

There are many variables at play, so strategic discussions on a grander scale often overlook some of the details you are bringing into the discussion.

WWII (and this game) was won based on mobility and reusability of resources.  So tanks and planes are better than artillery and infantry.  But you need some infantry to take the hits, so you can’t just buy all tanks and planes.  So fighting Africa with tanks, fighters and transports are the most efficient way (for both sides).  Why was Africa lost for Germany?  Lack of resources, mainly due to no control of the Med.  The European axis lost many, many men by NOT falling back via a safe retreat.  Don’t make that mistake.

@Argothair:

Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)

You’re welcome.  I love talking strategy

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

I have played both the 41 and 42 set-ups and found that the 42 is a little more balanced and the Allies usually win, but the Axis can win if well played.
The 41 set-up does favor the Axis but we have won as the Allies in a long and hard battle that takes a long time but eventually turned around. In that game UK bought a factory on India T1 and diverted resources that way to slow down Japan, and USA and Russia (a little) went after Japan right away aiding UK as best they can. Germany, Italy and Japan were making way too much money by T3, but smart decisions allowed the Allies to slowly climb back and turn things around by T7, so it can be done. China was no help at all so they are week. Victory cities is the key. Do not worry about crushing the Axis completely just getting the VC you need.
I agree that China does not start with enough and/or is not getting enough men per turn. That part alone would slow Japan down enough to make it that much more balanced. :-)
We play with the rules as is. :-D

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.

C-Sub is dead

didn’t you read the obituary?

Group Not Found
There is no group called Caspian_Sub. Please make sure you typed the web address correctly. If you have done so, the group may no longer exist.

I rolled 3 1’s on Germany’s fighters in the G1 Karelia attack once.  Nobody’s dared try it since.

Just had an 8 hour game with the 1941 setup. We played with NOs and techs enabled and I was Allies.
G starts by buying 7 inf and 2 researchers. It then attacks the CA and DD, the single DD and the 3 russian territories. G attacks Egypt with the BMR but it fails.
Russia counterattacks and retakes Baltic and Ukr. It moves 4 inf into China and masses all the inf on Bur.
J attacks EE, Borneo, Philippines, US BB and DD/TRN plus 3 chinese territories. It leaves the DD/TRN off India alone.
UK buys 1 IC for India and builds a carrier. The BB land units on Algeria.
Italy buys 1 DD and counterattacks on Algeria.
US starts building a fleet on the Pacific and gets 2 researchers.

From that moment on, the game went like this:

G and R were trading territories. G managed to conquer Karelia once but couldn’t keep it. Besides fighting G, R managed to sent some 9 tanks to help in China. J tried to attack India on J3 but failed due to the AA shooting 3 planes out of 5. Meanwhile it built some ships to counter the US buildup and had to deal with the Chinese and the Russians on China. After defending China, the UK moved to Burma and kept attack FIC. This, and conquering both Norway and Finland, securing Africa and liberating EE and Borneo (the Indian TRN went back to Australia and a US TRN moved from the Solomon) gave the UK a massive income (+50). Italy tried to attack the UK fleet off Algeria and lost big time. The US fleet eventually grew to 3 ACs, 1 CA, 2 DDs, 4 SUB. When we decided to end the game it had attacked and sunk the J fleet off Japan with the help of 8 jet fighters and 1 BMR (against 2 AC, 1 BB, 2 DD, 2 SUB and 4 FTR).

The game wasn’t really decided at the end, we stopped because of getting really tired but it was really interesting, although the Axis made some bad mistakes.

Lynxes, you are so right, bombers are such a tremendous force now that they only cost 12.
with the new system you can seriously cripple an economy with 3 bombers.

And by experience, I think it is important to invest in the pacific as USA if the japanese go for a mitghy naval force. You gotta give them a decoy to go after, and maybe try to get it to China/India to keep the huge japanese navy busy.
It will be actually expensive but might save you from a japanese invasion.

but I disagree though about the Indian IC. I guess it’s important to prevent japan from becoming too strong. with the uk fighter in Africa and the russian tanks they might spare on turn 2-3, you can possibly keep it alive if the japanese player went with some conquests in China.