@Black_Elk:

mmmm Burma
That is intriguing isn’t it :-D
If it comes down to a production race, that would definitely put more pressure on Caucasus.

What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?

I like your thinking.

I’ve only ever played the '41 scenario, but let me tell you… the game has changed.  Now it’s setup so that America HAS to contend with Germany and devote resources there.  Let America come, I wouldn’t even factor it into your first turn’s build.  If they come for you then you’ve already won the game, because Germany will steamroll Russia without American assisstance.

You have to look at the big picture, scaring USA off is doing a disservice to your team.

One good change I was thinking about…. it might be too much though.

Change the turn sequence.  Change England to before Japan.  The Austrailian and Indian fleet will get away to help in Egypt or against Italy, and India would be secure without Russian help.  I think it would change the game a ton… but I bet changing Japan to before England was a last minute change anyways, because it really hurts England to the point of being unable to defend anything but England itself (and Canada with USA help).

Germany
Land 171
Naval 44

USSR
Land 142
Naval 6

Japan
Land 163
Naval 106

England
Land 142
Naval 100

Italy
Land 45
Naval 51

USA 107
Naval 87

China - 22 Land

These numbers are misleading though because of Japanese ACs.  There are 6 fighters on there so take off 60 from Land and add 60 to Japanese Naval…

That gives them 213.  That’s why Japan’s such a beast.  With the USA having 1 loaded AC… really that means that Japan has just as much as England and the USA combined?  That seems way out of whack.  Especially given they have the initiative and doesn’t get separately destroyed like England.

Rolls: 1@4 1@3 1@2; Total Hits: 31@4: (4)1@3: (2)1@2: (2)

test

Well….  Japan can run wild in China but Russia can still threaten Manchuria if Japan uses too many units.

That was one person’s major beef with this version too.  He’s a historian and said that historically Japan had 80% of thier army in China in WW2.  In this game China is a speedbump and can barely defend itself.

One change we made was China gets one unit per territory instead of 1 per 2.  Haven’t played it enough to see if I like it or not, but it seemed OK.

@Uncle_Joe:

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

I agree 100%.

Taking India on J2 is the equivalent of a KEF strategy and the USA should move against them accordingly.

When I did the J2 India the USA got a ton of bonus income from national objs because I neglected to take some key points.  I think Japan focusing on England and then Russia first should mean that USA builds a massive feat and comes in early.  If Japan focuses on on the US then England should have a IC on India.

Looking at the game more, it’s just like the first AA.  If the allies want to build an IC on India, there’s nothing the Axis can do about it, you should have to do some moves to assure you get it.  With that being said, I still think it’s balanced against the allies.

Well I played it again and yea, G1 taking Egypt with the bomber is the right move.  Let England keep some fleet.

At the same time J1 move 1 AC off Burma to take out the fleet off of India and setup J2 to take India.

It’s a strong move, the only downside is when I did it I didn’t take the Phillipines J1, only the fleet, so the USA was stronger.

There was a player who heard the Axies have the advantage so we tried some ‘house rules’ that were, imo, terrible.  Non-aggression between Japan and Russia and China gets 1 army per territory instead of one per 2.  All the non-aggression did was free up more troops to take India and China while the freed up Russian troops never made it to the Russian front.

The allies can win with no mods, I think I’ve pretty much figured it out but my buddies have soured on the game already.  In A&A skill level plays a big factor so it’s just not as fun if you’re not as good.

I’m not convinced there’s a need to rebalance anything.

If so, the only change I’d make is to put a fighter on India.

Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
(counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
Japan goes…
E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
E2, build stuff on India.

Next I’m sure people will say I’ll lose Caucaus if I do that G2, well… I don’t think so…

Karelia will be safe with the extra English 2 fighters, infantry and tank.
Caucaus will have 6 infantry on it (2 from Kazakh and 4 production) for G2, I think it will hold, if not then Russia will be able to counterattack, and will still have the tank from England helping out in Karelia if they had to counterattack a Karelia G1 move.

Ta-dah!  All is right in the world, the allies should fare better now.

I want to test it out.

You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.

You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do.  It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters.  If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan.  That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.

I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone.  Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.

Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties…  If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles.  Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.

Yea, I see what you’re saying.  It might be baggage from the original AA I’m bringing with me into the anniversary version, where I should be looking at it as a completely new game so I don’t cloud my judgement.

With that being said, I relooked at the situation with Egypt.

Taking Egypt on G1 is a bad idea, much less weakening an attack somewhere else to do it.

If I was playing England I’d counterattack with 2 from Trans-Jordan and an infantry and artillery from India.  If you do take Egypt, even with using all the material available, you’ll lose it E1.

My Australian fleet would then move to SZ 39 in the noncombat round…. and I would produce an industrial complex on India.

Japan has 0% chance of taking it on J1.

If Japan moves aggressively to take india on J2, I’d move an infantry and artillery from Australia to India, and produce on India as defensively as possible.

India should stand barring Japan dumping everything possible into taking it.

Anyways…

On E1, England retakes it.

On G2, I don’t believe they’ll have a counter attack to retake Egypt.  It depends on airforce placement… there’s a good chance Germany will have fighters on Morrocco… but even then, with a really aggressive Germany, you won’t have much airforce left anyways.  I’m undecided on whether to build an industrial complex in South Africa or not… that’s what I’d always do in the original AA.  It would depend on what else was going on… if Germany looked intent on Africa in G1 I would, depending on how the G1 fleet battles went.