Too balanced?

the first few times i played it was exactly just like that :D
but now the game goes one way or the other depending
on the players luck and strategy, most of the time
just a couple of battles decide the game or how the us player
does to help his allies
but the game is pretty balanced overall, although the allies should still
win most of the time

Minor victory: Axis should win
Major victory: well balanced althought Allies should win if Axis isn’t agressive in the first rounds
Total: Allies all the way

capture 2 VC… usually Leingrad and Calcutta

Youve prolly been playing with yer friends for too long, same thing happened to me. Then I went to the #triplea channel and hooked up with some ppl online - it was crazy how fast games can be over. As the axis you hold the power to how fast the game goes. Try buying all tanks for the first few rounds as germany, get ready to surrender w.eur, and go for taking moscow with the help of the japs of course - or just go play some ppl online and youll see what i mean…

Hello ppl. This ii my first post. My congrats to all that are concerned with this site and greetings to all.

Now to cut to the chase. In my opinion, the rev AA is not exactly balanced. The problem is that the axis now has more chances to win than the allies. TO get things clear, i amno counting it in terms of IPCs. So far, i have played with my budies about 20 games,maybe less.I still cant remember more than 2-3 times that the allies won.Maybe it is in my group that this happens only but thsi is what i see.

There are 2-3 strategies that the ais can follow.Each different than the other and all of them are so effective. The allies are left with little choice to fight back though.And it al happens in the first round.The most interesting part to play in the game is still ger with the final outcome of the game depending on its efforts.

While in the old AA the USSR was the key to axis victory, now UK is the key. If pounded correctly by both axis members the allies lose.It is as simple as that.And the bad thing is that the allies can do little for that.

To explain myself.If one uses the invade uk 1st turn strategy with the long range, the only way that the axis loses is if it doesnt hit a 4 in 8 dices.Difficult,and it has happened only once to my group.If though ger invades uk the game is over.Even if the us takes it back,it still is lost again when ger plays.In the meantime

Now if one uses the strategy of ger taking over the atl than the game is again over.(only really bad dice on gers behalf can stop it).All airforce is focused on eliminting ships and all ger ships too.Neglect ussr as the ground forces are enough.In this case a buy of 2-3 fighters is necessary with the initinal buy and the rest in tanks.The new plane will continue pushing the uk left ships in 2 rounds.Eliminate the uk bb ship in med with bb and trannie and fighter and in the next turn uk is alive and isolated in its island.just use all air and ship to blockade europe and thats it.nothing cans stop the gers from kiling gradually the ruskies.if the japs do their thing and establish on coast asia-game over again.

anyway, i might have said things very confusing but in general terms this is it for me and my group.the new aa is all about ger.and it is NOT balanced.!!!axis wins all the time.in my group the fight is about who takes ger so that he may have more fun.

waiting your opinions…

greekgeneral

Well, I think the game is not perfectly balanced, and thats ok like that. To be perfectly balanced, it should be 3 players against 3 players with the same income and the same starting troops… Lets play Risk then ! If ur playing AA, its because you like different theaters, different games, and different strategies. You cannot play Ger like you play US, but you can play Blue troops like Red troops (Risk). So in fact, the game is lot more balanced than AA3ed, but cant be perfectly balanced, as explained above. And its fine like that.

Its sure that if the players always do the same strategies, and the dices are barely the same, no games will be different, like if u play with the same players controlling the same countries (im not saying u doing this).

GreekGeneral, i dont understand y u [always, often, sometimes, almost never…] try to invade UK on Ger 1st round. If the winner of the game is decided on Ger1, whats the fun to play? Lets play dices then, or any games that u can win with a single die or luck (roulette russe … russian roll? dunno… Or “who draws the higher card in the deck !”). Seriously i hope that u arent doing that often, but im not here to tell u how to play.

So, the game is fine, its really fun, so enjoy it and try different strats !!!

To explain myself.If one uses the invade uk 1st turn strategy with the long range, the only way that the axis loses is if it doesnt hit a 4 in 8 dices.Difficult,and it has happened only once to my group.If though ger invades uk the game is over.Even if the us takes it back,it still is lost again when ger plays.In the meantime

Now if one uses the strategy of ger taking over the atl than the game is again over.(only really bad dice on gers behalf can stop it).All airforce is focused on eliminting ships and all ger ships too.Neglect ussr as the ground forces are enough.In this case a buy of 2-3 fighters is necessary with the initinal buy and the rest in tanks.The new plane will continue pushing the uk left ships in 2 rounds.Eliminate the uk bb ship in med with bb and trannie and fighter and in the next turn uk is alive and isolated in its island.just use all air and ship to blockade europe and thats it.nothing cans stop the gers from kiling gradually the ruskies.if the japs do their thing and establish on coast asia-game over again.

First, get the LHTR rules

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701

They’re in the forum on this site. This has updated official rules released by the game designer (Larry Harris, his name is in the rulebook first page).

Note that one of the major changes is that techs are applied at the mobilization phase, instead of immediately. This means the techs you rolled this round won’t apply during your combat/noncombat phases. This means it is impossible to invade UK with all your fighters first round, and you cannot end the game that soon. So take that off your mind.

Germany cannot take over the Atlantic unless the UK is a stupid player. Uk should attack the Germany fleet with his 2 fighters and bomber first round. Although you can lose 2 fighters in some bad circumstances, you usually will lose just one while Germany loses his 2 subs, trans, and dest. A smart Germany will stack his fighters in western or norway, but the UK should just hide his ships in sea zone 3 until he thinks he has a big enough fleet to challenge Germany (build carriers and fighters). Germany can’t hit sea zone 3 unless they land all their fighters in Norway. If they land their fighters in Norway, you can see that and immediately move your fleet away during UK turn to sea zone 2. If Germany rolls for long range aircraft, which usuallly takes a lot of IPCs, Russia should take the advantage to take territories since Germany didn’t purchase units to reinforce, and UK should immediately dump out a carrier and as many fighters as possible. A loaded carrier can cause havoc on air fleets. You have to see that the initial Baltic fleet can’t attack your UK fleet in one turn, they have to move up or you have to move up. That gives you the chance to strike at it hard.

Germany can do stuff like beef up his navy first turn, but then UK should just be glad and hole up with infantry while Russia takes the opportunity to drive into Germany. Germany has to use most of its resources to sufficiently threaten Russia, since his factories are farther from the front lines. Even though Germany has superior production, Russia can more quickly reinforce his lines unless Germany is going for a full tank build. In any case, Germany cannot do both threaten UK and threaten Russia at the same time. React to what he does. If he tries to threaten UK, which takes a massive amount of resources with carriers and transports and troops, then Russia should find itself an easy time crashing his lines.

Germany doing a full tank build is fairly scary, especially if he’s smart enough to use their 2 movements to threaten many different Russian fronts. In that case don’t have the UK build a factory in India. Just concentrate on building a couple of carriers and load them up, then prepare transports to invade his coasts. Germany will eventually slow down with UK and Russia hounding him. At this point US should really try to put the brakes on Japan by building up a massive fleet. US produces more and Japan is focused on getting land troops so you should outdistance his navy and prepare to island hop.

One of the best moves I think for UK to do first turn is to move his Indian/Australian fleets and meet them on the west coast of Australia. This forces Japan to kill that fleet and leave Pearl Harbor alone. If he doesn’t kill this fleet, it can invade his islands easily. If your African fighter is still alive land it on the carrier as well so you can inflict maximum damage when the Japan navy comes to you.

Yea, I dont know how the majority of ppl see the India/IC purchase, but in my mind its dead. The UK should just concentrate on taking Berlin~

But if you dont try to stop Japan in India, Russia will fall before UK can land in France.

Damn, this is a good game!

The Indian IC is only a good idea if the US is going to focus entirely on a navy in order to occupy Japan (indeed I think this is one of the best Allied moves; US can easily outmuscle Japan in a few turns considering it produces more IPCs as well as can focus entirely on a navy while Japan has to muster land forces to invade Russia.)

If you just build an IC in India without a very large deal of US support, you basically just give Japan a complex. Japan can run India over very early on if he uses all his 6 starting fighters and 2 bombardments from the battleships.

OK, have to try this sometime!

@trihero:

The Indian IC is only a good idea if the US is going to focus entirely on a navy in order to occupy Japan (indeed I think this is one of the best Allied moves; US can easily outmuscle Japan in a few turns considering it produces more IPCs as well as can focus entirely on a navy while Japan has to muster land forces to invade Russia.)

If you just build an IC in India without a very large deal of US support, you basically just give Japan a complex. Japan can run India over very early on if he uses all his 6 starting fighters and 2 bombardments from the battleships.

Have to say you are so wrong!!! Japan will never reach India with any coastal bombardments in the first turn if UK does not want it, UK can easily block those possibilities!!! The destroyer in India would also hunt one of Japans transport down to block any kind of reinforcemnt that way as well! And more over when Japan can strike UK with six fighters then India will have like six fighters too (2 from Soviet) and dont forget about the AA gun!!! No boy you and all other who thinks India is not possible to hold better think again!

I have never lost India, but was very close ones! I have played against several players and noone were able to take India from me when I choose to put up an IC there. If Japan would be succesful to take India it would cost them almost all of their fighters, its simply too expensive if UK choose to hold it!

First, I never said that India can be taken first turn. I said early, which to me means like 2-4.

Second, I never said that India can’t be defended. I just don’t think it’s worth defending unless you have the US supporting it, either with his Sinkiang IC or a navy. I don’t think the Russians can afford to send his fighters down there with Germany breathing down his neck.

Third, I don’t believe you’ve seen Japan build an IC or 2 on the mainland. If the US is not threatening Japan, I always build 2 ICs on the mainland within the first 2-3 turns and dump out 6 tanks per turn. Your Indian IC isn’t looking good at all then. In fact, thanks for setting it up so I can eventually use it. UK alone is not a good idea to stop Japan. I will quickly ream India and send tanks up Russia’s rear end. This can happen more quickly than the amount of time it takes for the US to gear up into Germany.

The AA gun is really pretty crappy defense against 6 fighters and I forgot to mention the one bomber Japan starts with as well. Rolling ones on the first turn isn’t going to help very much unless you score many hits, and in that case it is luck more than strategy.

I don’t think you’ve seen what a good Japan player can do to India if Japan has the freedom to do so. You’ve never seen a Japan player with 1-2 ICs down, or really using all his fighters and bombardments and troops like turn 2-4 which can really weaken you. He also has a lot of stuff he can ferry with transports. In my experience I’ve never been able to hold India as UK if I’m the only one investing over there. It’s silly to think that your one IC producing 3 units can hold off the entire Japanese nation for the whole game without some extra support from the US navy (or some weird support from Russia which can really only come after a few turns if the US chooses to go after Germany). It makes me cry to hear you suggest Russia supporting India when he needs every man he can get his hands on to hold off Germany.

It might seem “too expensive” for Japan to take the IC there, but he should do it anyways if UK is the only one actively producing units to stop you and as early as possible. When Japan takes the IC he has gained 15 IPCs there. He has also forced the UK to spend a lot of IPCs there. The UK has gained nothing for his side except some time, which is valuable yes, but he hasn’t taken any territories or threatened the viability of Japan.

And the one transport you sink with your destroyer isn’t that important IMO in the long run. I always start buying 3 transports, which can quickly reinforce Indochina then grab some fodder infantry from Indies and such and meet up with a large invasion force in India.

I agree India is not that hard to hold, but it’s not based on the UK’s effort alone. You need some distractions from US/Russia.

And in case you haven’t yet, get used to not counting on your fighter in Anglo-Egypt. A good Germany player can easily take that position first turn (use 1 inf 1 tank from libya, 1 inf 1 tank from transport sending your bship and 1 fighter to take out the destroyer guarding it, then also 1 fighter from balkans into anglo, one bomber from Berlin into anglo will easily destroy UK’s 1 inf 1 fighter 1 tank there) leaving you one fighter down that can’t be sent to India.

How aggressivly do you play that IC in India? Britain can be pushing Kwangtung pretty hard while Russia menaces Manchuria with the Eastern infantry, and if America just puts down 10 IPCs a turn on this front, say through your suggested IC in China, Japan would be hard pressed to maintain it’s own mainland ICs. Plus with the transport off Australia, you’ve got a fairly decent chance (50% plus) to take one of thier 1 IPC islands.

Plus, it’s not really necessary for the IC in India to hold out forever, as long as it lasts long enough for Germany to be brought to heel. At that point, Russia can reverse its defenses and continue play much as it has this last age, with a few extra resources from eastern europe.

@trihero:

First, I never said that India can be taken first turn. I said early, which to me means like 2-4.

Second, I never said that India can’t be defended. I just don’t think it’s worth defending unless you have the US supporting it, either with his Sinkiang IC or a navy. I don’t think the Russians can afford to send his fighters down there with Germany breathing down his neck.

Third, I don’t believe you’ve seen Japan build an IC or 2 on the mainland. If the US is not threatening Japan, I always build 2 ICs on the mainland within the first 2-3 turns and dump out 6 tanks per turn. Your Indian IC isn’t looking good at all then….

No you are right when it comes to that you never said the first round and that you never said that India cannot defend succesfully when there is help from US or Russia. Right!

But you are wrong about that I have not played against a Japanese player who builds 1 or 2 ICs. As you mentioned US could help a lot by building another IC in China and I do belive some help frum US will be is necessary too! But it doesn´t mean that US need to choose either Japan or Germany at ones.

What I mean is if US build an armada in western US turn 1-3 with a few transports. Then I would like to see Japan goes wild about those 1-2 ICs in main land you are talking about. Imagine then that this armade has back up of some fighters and a bomaber at Alaska and moves to the coast next to Alaska. Then Japan must build defens or strike. If he attacks that armade he will most likely loose his fleet of fighters and ships or at least most of them if is lucky. But if he just build defens US can round Canada and go for Europe in the very next 2 turns or reinforce Russia!

Your idea about start building 3 transports in turn 1, as you always do, and 1-2 ICs and then 3-6 tanks will not leave any economic space to build any more ships or defens during the first 2-3 turns! And as you know when US starts building an armada Japan will most likely not stand a chance if not trying to counter it with some defensive navy builds!

So simply in plain english, India will not fall within the first 5 turns if US and UK use such an strategy. If not having very bad luck and a crazy one who play Japan. This startegy means KGF by putting presure on Japan then go for Germany, just to force Japan go defens for some turns and Germany feel safe so it will be spred out when one change the rute for the armada and goes for either western Europe or Southern Europe. Or perhaps first retake Africa and Scandinavia, since these territories most likely have fallen into German hands by now!

Another counter strategy against Japan goes wild and crazy in mainland is to let US go for heavy bombers and bring 2-3 bomabers and 2-3 fighters to Russia to ruin Japan on IPCs by SBRs and if possible hack slash its navy! These bomabers will be followed up be even more bombers heading for Europe! In such a strategy UK should simply bring an IC in Australia and build some fighters and subs ther just to force the Japanese think defens! An IC in Australia is simply not worth it for Japan if protected by 5 infantry and 2 or 3 fighters!

You seem to think that Japan needs to build a navy in the first few turns, if at all. Japan’s navy is plenty strong as it starts. The US needs to lug a lot of transports and other fodder to blow past 2 battleships + 2 loaded carriers. As US I built a straight armada (I even had the Pearl Harbor fleet alive since Japan was busy with a combined UK fleet in Australia first turn), and believe me even though you have the equivalent bulk of Japan’s navy in the first turn (build 1 carrier and 1 battleship which makes for a total of 2 loaded carriers and 2 battleships equivalent to Japan’s force), it takes 3-4 more turns to get enough forces to actually overwhelm his fleet as well as have the transports and such to invade. I usually just wait for the transports from the East Coast since I’m busy building offensive naval units on the West coast.

The thing about the war between Japan/US is all about who forces who to attack. Loaded carriers with some fodder provide ridiculously good defense, so it’s a question of forcing the other guy to attack you. Japan has no need to build more naval units for the first few turns anyways because he already starts quite strong in that department while the US has to catch up. Japan can just take that time to wipe out India/china/sinkiang.

I’ve never seen a US player put pressure from the coast of Alaska, so I have no idea how well it works. It would take a great deal of resources to get enough transports and troops to threaten mainland Japan.

I admit I’ve probably never seen anyone play exactly the way you do so you’re probably right. But from my experience playing Japan I have very little trouble running over India before the US fleet can get there. The US players I play against usually try to island hop instead of going up from the north off of Alaska.

@trihero:

You seem to think that Japan needs to build a navy in the first few turns, if at all. Japan’s navy is plenty strong as it starts. The US needs to lug a lot of transports and other fodder to blow past 2 battleships + 2 loaded carriers. As US I built a straight armada (I even had the Pearl Harbor fleet alive since Japan was busy with a combined UK fleet in Australia first turn), and believe me even though you have the equivalent bulk of Japan’s navy in the first turn (build 1 carrier and 1 battleship which makes for a total of 2 loaded carriers and 2 battleships equivalent to Japan’s force), it takes 3-4 more turns to get enough forces to actually overwhelm his fleet as well as have the transports and such to invade…

Hmmm… Ok lets start with that US during the first turn will reinforce his fleet on the East Coast with 2 destroyers (from sea zone 10 and 20) 2 transports (from sea zone 10) then on the first turn US buy 1 AC and 1 BB.

Next turn (turn 2) the Japanese player move his fleet away from Hawaii if his not braindead! On the second turn US use his fighters in Eastern US and Hawaii to land on the newly build AC. Moreover US buy 1 more AC and 1 transport and 1 destroyer and 2 artillery. Move 2 infantry to Eastern US from Central US and the fighter in Western US to Eastern US. Also the bomber lands in Alaska. Next turn will be no 3!!!

In that turn US move his fleet to Alaska with 5 inf and 3 art. The fleet is:
2 BB, 2 AC (loaded with 3 fighters), 3 DD and four Transports. During this phase US buy at least 1 fighter and 2-3 subs to kick Japan if attacking Alaska! If you think that Japan has conqured India already in turn 3, you better think again. I say no chance If I am playing UK and put all my money in that land with some temporary reinforcements from Russia! Russia can spare these extra fighters or tanks four just 3 turns IMO!

So my Q is: Since you (Japan) have bought three transports and most likely lost 1-2 of them already and also spent a lot on building 2 ICs and some 6 tanks during turn 3! And you would not have spend any IPCs on your navy except for those transports. Just as you said. Would you feel bad when you see an US armada next to Alaska whithin striking distance of your home land? I guess you would build some defence and gather your hole fleet around Japan. But still you would not feel safe since when you bought those transports, you did shuffle all your infantry and artillery and tanks from Japan to mainland. I guess Japan does not have more than 1-3 infatry and 1 bomber at most! You would buy infantry or bring a lot of your units back from mainland to Japan, just to be safe. Or what would you do?

Wait you’re not being smart. If you send your transports/destroyers immediately west, then who’s to stop Germany from landing in Brazil? I always send the east coast troops into brazil before I send the transports west, otherwise you get sneaked upon by Germany’s mediterranean fleet. That’s 3 IPCs you hand Germany. You would have to spend more to dislodge him because he probably he has his battleship lurking around too so you need to not only build a transport and troops, but a battleship or destroyers of your own if you ran away from brazil the first turn.

Even with that sort of fleet, would you honestly attack a defending force of 4 transports, 2 battleships, 2 fully loaded carriers, and probably the destroyer that survived Pearl Harbor? Even if you won, which you just might, your navy is in absolute shambles. You will have no transports left (hopefully you didn’t load them) and probably missing some fighters/carriers. You have no chance in hell of invading Japan without transports (which you will have to rebuild), while I spend minimal IPCs boosting it with inf each turn so by the next 2-3 turns before you can get there again, you can’t invade it. I don’t care if I lose my fleet because I have my 1-2 complexes down on the mainland. You have to spend many turns getting enough ground troops after our fleets get trashed which takes forever using transports.