How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)

[DarthMaximus]

I have not found a single person in about 100 games that does not play with Tech in Anniversary. 

 

I currently play AA50 without tech if possible.  My main reason is b/c of the newness of AA50.  I want to try and figure out where the balances/unbalances are.  I feel I cannot do this with tech.  I'm not opposed to playing tech games but I know at some point strategy (the ability to carry info learned in game 1 and use in game 2, 3, etc.) is thrown out of the window, and not for the times where people get a great tech in round 1 but more b/c several powers will likely get 2-3 techs each.  It is simply impossible to find the best openings/counters with tech.  HOWEVER, once you play without tech and find the best openings (ie should Ger do Egy, should the do Kar, what about the UK BB, etc?) it is much easier to then go back and account for playing with tech.

For Example, I know you like to hit Kar on G1.  Which is fine but with Tech is your success based on the agressive attack and opening or b/c you ended up getting a G Tech in rd 1, 2, 3 or 4?

I find tech strats similar to LL in this regard, what works in LL will work in ADS and will work with Tech, but the reverse - Tech -> ADS -> LL is not guaranteed to work.  First eliminate as much chance as possible, then grow your strategies from there.  Once you do that it is much easier to adapt.  Just my opinion.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I never buy tech in the first round with any nation.  I used to buy a die with Russia in round 1, but that stopped too.

I like to hit Karelia because it gives me that 3rd NO and the return on investment is huge! 

1)  Russia HAS to attack it, good or bad odds does not matter.
2)  It's worth 7 IPC to Germany (2 for Karelia, 5 for the NO)


Technology in this game seems to be a way to get the coup de grace in a game you are already winning.

[DarthMaximus]

I like the idea of investing immediately in round 1 (all countries), b/c
1)  the longer you have the tech the better
2)  you never lose that roll

With UK I may go two rolls and try for the increased factory.  I forget which chart it is on but with the +2 I think it makes a Per IC very possible which could spell doom for the Axis.  I'd probably go 2 rolls with the US as well.

[alvn78]

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I'm seeing). It doesn't mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn't want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don't start speaking about KGF, it's dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you'll have proven the game can be balanced.

I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one ��� trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I'll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.

I am not yet convinced that it is unbalanced yet either. 'Simple maths' does not take into account strategic consideration. An axis IPC advantage maybe. Consider that though the UK is rarely under the threat of attack, allowing them to use most of their IPCs offensively (at least once they secure the strait). The simpler route of America in attacking Germany than Japan on America especially with the way the US is set out. As well as the many fronts of Germany. While yes the pressure is on the allies to succeed, it just means the onus is on them to reduce the significance of IPCs.  Plus in your analysis, while fairly standard, is axis with a bit of luck (not too out of this world). So usually it won't be as bad IPC wise as you place it.

Well thats just my 2 cents 

[Funcioneta]

Consider that though the UK is rarely under the threat of attack, allowing them to use most of their IPCs offensively (at least once they secure the strait).

UK gets massive attacks round 1 in all the globe: Egypt, Hong Kong, Dutch East Indies and Atlantic fleet. It gets severe damage and needs each one of her 43 starting IPCs just to start building ICs and fleet. UK will be on defense the first 3-4 rounds. England itselt is also threatened because of paratroopers tech. Round 2 is not good too: probably India, Australia and trj or Sudan will fall. Fail to build saf IC and you'll see how UK will struggle to mantain even 25's, collecting even less than Italy  UK will not secure the strait if Italy plays well: it's very difficult sink italian navy before axis reach economic advantage

Many still think that USA can send all to Germany as if we were still playing Classic, but that is as play hara-kiri for allies, with JTDTM or with Polar Express (Japan campaing on Alaska and Canada), simply because axis economic AND military advantage, greater with KGF than with a balanced strat.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I've seen a couple games where an all out attack on Germany has worked.  But it's very rare.

An all out attack on Japan's worked more often. (Russia holds the front against Germany and stacks up to help with China/holding Japan back while England puts down ICs in Africa/Asia Minor and America blitzes in.)

Why is this more successful?

1:  Easier for England to hold the Imperial NO (where you need like 70 billion territories to get it)
2:  Any Orange territory captured is +5 IPC to England (that includes Carolines)
3:  1 NO for America if they have the Eastern Pacific
4:  1 NO for America if they have Philippines
5:  -1 NO for Japan if they don't hold the entire Western Pacific
6:  -1 NO for Japan if they cannot get and hold at least India or Australia (and if you have a moderately strong position in India or Japan was not in position to unload gobs of troops into India on J2, this is reasonable.)  Australia can be readily liberated by America since they will fast out pace the Japanese in naval assets
7:  If Japan is not careful they could be down a NO because they lost part of NE China



Europe is much harder.  For one, there are two nations back to back with each other.  For another, Russian NOs are darn near impossible to get, happens, but not very often, and definitely not happening if Germany went Blitzkrieg on Russia.  Also, hitting France is not that easy, neither is getting Balkans.

Basically, going Europe is the same as giving the Axis 6-8 National Objectives (30-40 IPC a round) and losing 3 or 4 Allied National Objectives (15-20 IPC) for a total of 45-60 IPC benefit to the Axis.

[axis_roll]

An all out attack on Japan's worked more often. (Russia holds the front against Germany and stacks up to help with China/holding Japan back while England puts down ICs in Africa/Asia Minor and America blitzes in.)

Maybe this is why Japan is so strong?