WORLD CHAMP G40 Tournament! single elim + prize $50 amazon gift&adoration.

I have played something like 80 games face to face and 7 on Triple A

IN SOME SITUATIONS.

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

USA only makes 17 on the pacific map alone.

I think Japan can take it.

Hey Jen, I know what you mean about those fluky AA Gun successes.  I once had a Sealion go very bad for me because of that.  I went in with 2 fighters, 3 tacs and 1 bomber.  The dang British AA Gun killed 1 fighter, 2 tacs and the bomber.  2/3 of my airforce whacked out just like that.

So the way you guys play Japan is more or less as fodder for the Allies so less pressure is on Germany/Italy so that they might win in Europe?  You don’t try to have Japan win on the Pacific side?  Some people have said that if USA goes mostly for Europe, then it is somewhat easy for Japan to get their 6 victory cities and win the game for the Axis.  If USA goes all Pacific, then Japan is probably doomed anyway and best choice would probably be to try and tie up US forces as long as possible so Germany can take down Russia.  However, if you see US going heavy in the Atlantic, don’t you want to try to win with Japan?

@Gargantua:

I was in a group game, where we were winning, and my “allied” UK partner, got wiped from the game, after the germans rolled a last ditch fluke shot on Paratroopers, and took the London Capital.

It was all downhill from there, as no one was in range of taking it back immediately (Blocked)  and he was able to build off of U.K.

But would you say that this actually enhanced the gaming experience?

This is exactly the reason I don’t like the R&D rules, it is a bit too much based on luck and once earned changes the entire (delicate) balance of the game.

I hear this from the previous posts, though I would be very interested in how and why R&D deserves a place in the game based on long-term strategies…

(I can remember from the original setup it made strategic sence to invest in developments, but the game back then was less complicated and less delicately balanced)

you have to balance the Japan opening w/the European side of the board.    J1 attack was great in Pac40 as we all know, but do you really want to put the US to 80 IPCs on US1?  Ask the Nazi next to you if HE wants you to do that.