Posts made by Khobai

ANZAC would be really boring to play if its IPCs were realistic. And Canada is a part of the board that sees very little action thats why its not worth very much.

My normal R1 buy is 2inf, 1art, 2arm, and 1ftr. I usually like having 2 fighters or 1 fighter and 1 bomber with russia because it makes trading territories much more efficient. Otherwise russia ends up wasting a lot of artillery and armor when making trades. The trick is to buy the planes early so you get enough use out of them to recur their cost. Although if Germany is super aggressive with an all tank buy then I usually skip the fighter and go with 2 extra tanks.

Not sure about Epl. Certainly its great if Russia can hold Epl but I dont think its a reasonable goal in most games. Its too hard to hold Epl against a good Germany player and if Russia is ever able to hold Epl it means Axis are on the fast track to losing.

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

Thats the WHOLE point of LL. It makes the game more like Chess.

The only problem with LL is that it heavily favors Axis. So in LL games I feel Allies deserve a much higher bid (9-11). Bid 10 seems to be increasingly more common on TripleA as it becomes more and more apparent the advantage Axis has.

yeah you cant stop japan from taking india. japan can easily put 8-10 units and 5 fighters in india on round 2.

The US can force open the south pretty quickly. A strong southern approach as early as US2 forces the Japs to turn around, and gives the mainland to the British.

not really. the japan fleet just moves to east indies factory and reinforces there while building subs in japan seazone that usa planes cant attack. japan doesnt have to turn around at all.

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.

I think this strategy depends largely on the UK player. An aggressive UK player that quickly builds transports and ground troops could easily make Germany pay for being overly aggressive against Russia.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah you can still take Yunnan probably. But if you take Yunnan its less troops in India. It all depends how hard Japan wants to smack India.

Perhaps the greatest thing about not taking Phillipines round1 is that it gives the USA a false sense of confidence to go Pacific. Tricking the USA into going Pacific is a great way for Japan to take pressure off of Italy.

Curious, what does Japan leave open/untouched on J1 to accomplish this?

Phillipines and Yunnan are typically skipped on round1. However it gives Japan unstoppable impetus when it comes to taking India/Persia/Transjordan/Egypt/etc… so I feel the tradeoff is well worth it. A strong southern push means Japanese ships can come through the suez on turn3 and japanese fighters can quickly reinforce france and italy to free up Germany’s units.

India IC is fail. Period. Anyone who thinks the India IC works has obviously never seen Japan roll into India with 11 ground units and 6 fighters on Round 2.

Bottom line is the long game seems to favor Axis regardless of the strategy deployed.  Axis will make gains in whatever region the Allies choose to ignore (and they can’t contain Axis everywhere).  As Allies, I don’t see the logic in trying to attack all 3 Axis at once….Germany will get so big and strong that no ally will be able to challenge Berlin, while Japan cannot be stopped on the mainland, and will still have a large income even if USA wins the naval war.

Japan is the real problem. It starts out with way too many transports. The whole point of adding so many new territories to the board was to SLOW japan down. But when you give Japan that many transports that can move 2 spaces each it defeats the whole purpose of adding new territories to tarpit japan. Because they just use the transports to rapidly move troops to india/persia rather than getting bogged down in china or eastern russia. Japan should really only start with two or three transports at most in '41. I think that would sufficiently slow Japan down and make an India IC much more viable.

Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.

Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Its purely a concern regarding game balance. Axis is favored to win most games because Japan is overpowered. Japan shouldnt be able to wipe out China completely on round1. Japan shouldnt be able to attack India with 10+ ground units and 6 fighters on round2. Japan shouldnt get all three of its NOs every single turn without even having to work for them. Thats just poor game balance straight up.

And if were looking at the game historically, then yes Japan should start out with a larger navy and airforce, however it should NOT be outproducing the USA on ANY turn of the game. Japan should eventually succumb to the USA’s economic might if the Axis doesnt knock Russia out of the picture by a certain turn. Afterall, Russia’s swift defeat to Germany was assumed when Japan entered the war in 1941. An undefeated Russia is what turned the tides.

I feel that Allies should set the pacing of the game rather than the Axis. The burden should be on Axis to win by a certain turn and not Allies. Japan shouldnt be the force that draws the game towards its conclusion but rather the USA should be. That would much more closely resemble the true dynamic of WW2 where USA was Godzilla and not Japan.

The problem is that Japan is overpowered. Japan starts with too many units, Japan has no major opposition in Asia or the Pacific (even if USA goes 100% Pacific its no real threat to an experienced Japan player), and Japan doesnt cap out on income until the mid 70s while everyone else caps out in the 50s.

To balance the game, Allies need a stronger presence in China, India, and the Pacific. China should have its fighter moved and gain 4 extra Infantry. UK should get a starting factory in India as well as 1 infantry on both Borneo and East Indies. And the US should start with a fighter and a submarine at Phillipines as well as the southern pacific carrier being moved up to protect west coast fleet. If Japan wants those islands or India it should have to FIGHT for them they shouldnt simply get them automatically by round2.

If youre going by TripleA ladder rules than its not a legal bid. You can only place one unit per territory and you can only place units where there are existing units.

I always felt allies were stronger in both scenario. You just have to know how to play Russia agressively.

Definitely not. Allies are at a huge disadvantage in 41. Although Axis is at a huge disadvantage in 42. Its unfortunate that neither scenario is balanced.

Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific.  Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.  
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways

• can pump some inf, etc to china quickly
• can establish flexible zones of control with air
• can stack the Cauc/ Per easy with inf.  more importantly, tanks stacked in the Cau create a presence without actually commiting to Japan.
  The UK
  -can unite her fleet with the US at SZ 12 and send all that gear towards Persia/India
  -Send fighters to a US carrier and use them in conjunction with the aussie tranny
  -Send the bomber to Asia to bomb IC’s/ harrass Jap shipping/use in conjunction with Aussie fleet

In the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little

The problem is that allies cant direct all their energy towards stopping Japan’s outrageous expansion of the mainland. UK and Russia dont have enough options for fighting a second front against Japan. Yes they have some very limited options but not enough to stop Japan from turning into Godzilla.

ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but  why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!

UK sub in 35 is something Ive seen a few times on TripleA. It slows down japan a little since it stops them from taking east indies first turn (which also means japs dont get that NO). However without the bid in Egypt you can almost certainly expect Germany to pulverize Egypt and Japan move into the mediterranean by Round3. Axis control of the suez with an east indies factory is a very tough situation for allies to beat. I dont think id do the sub bid unless you can also put 1 infantry in Egypt (for a total bid of 9). Bid9 is a pretty big bid but I feel allies are at enough of a disadvantage that they need at least a Bid of 8-9 to balance the game.

There are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.

There are official bid rules for ladder matches. Its one unit per TT and you can only place units in a TT that has existing units belonging to your country.

OK, no one disagrees that it’s crazy the Japan starts with 9 fighter planes, 3 carriers, and a battleship and a cruiser.  But you shouldn’t say “can’t” loosely, when every battle is decided by a dice roll.  I have lost 4 out of 5 planes as Japan to AA fire when trying to take India.  Australia also has an AA gun.  In the first round, when annihilating fleets and such, fighters are often lost.  I don’t take a person seriously who says something “can’t be done” in Axis and Allies, where every battle is decided by dice.  I have attacked 3 tanks with 13 tanks before, where I didn’t get a single hit in round 1, and the defender hit all 3 tanks in round 1.  With dice, my friend, all things are possible.  So be careful with that word “can’t”.

Luck isnt really a quantifiable advantage. Luck is unbiased though and Japan has just as much of a chance of getting good dice rolls as USA does. However when it comes to quantifiable advantages Japan has a MAJOR advantage over the USA in Pacific when it comes to starting forces, economy, and fleet reinforcements. This is not mere conjecture but rather plain fact. If allies have to rely on “getting lucky” to beat Japan in Pacific then something is very wrong with the way the game is balanced.

In any event, my criticism of the game is more related to China and UK than the USA. I do not believe China succeeds at all in its intended goal of slowing Japan down (it fails quite miserably in fact). I also dont think UK is able to exert enough force in the pacific to adequately help USA contain Japan. It almost seems like the game was designed with UK building an India factory in mind yet the amount of force Japan was able to exert on India starting round2 was somehow completely overlooked during playtesting.

Granted that Dard closed is closer to historical accuracy, but it’s also true that historical accuracy would forbid UK/USA boats in the Baltic as well.

Its not a matter of making the game more historical. Its a matter of making the game more balanced for allies. Dards closed with allies recieving a small bid (3-5) sounds about right to me.