That would be nice, but hes my tourney partner :-)
We do have a lot of people to play against but unfortunately they’re all good.
Game Reports 122, 123, 124: Bid Goes Higher and Higher
-
Hi A&A community,
I’m new to this board and wanted to share my thoughts about the imbalance of this game. I believe it has less to do with the units and their placement on the board, but that it is rather a logistical problem. The general consesus seems to be, that everything revolves around capturing Moscow for the Axis and saving Moscow for the Allies. So from a logistical viewpoint, the goal for every power is to get units to Moscow.
I compared four A&A games with regard to the problem of achieving this goal for both the Axis and the Western Allies (UK & US): Classic, Revised, 1942 1st Ed, 1942 2nd Ed
The general perception is, that Classic greatly favors the Allies, 1942 2nd greatly favors the Axis while Revised and 1942 1st are largely balanced. When looking at the supply lines for each power from their main production facility to Moscow i noticed the following:Classic:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Karelia-Russia = 3 turns
UK: Karelia-Russia = 2
Japan: Manchuria-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Karelia-Moscow = 3Revised & 1942 1st:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Archangel-Russia = 2
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-UK-Archangel-Russia = 41942 2nd:
Germany: Poland-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 4
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 5What can be easily seen is, that the most balanced games are the ones where the supply line to Moscow for Germany, Japan and USA are all the same. The game where the supply line for the Americans is shorter than one of the Axis powers heavily favors the Allies. The game where the supply line for the Americans is longer than for both Axis powers heavily favors the Axis.
In 1942 2nd Edition the Americans could cut their supply line by one turn by dropping units from Finland or Norway directly into Archangel through transports. But that would require another large fleet of warships and transports on part of the Allies, which they cannot afford. So for me the solution to the imbalance seems to be, instead of pre placing several units across the board, to give the Americans the means to build such a fleet through either more income or a larger starting navy.
A better solution in my opinion would be, to have Iceland touch both SZ 2 and 3. Then the main Allied fleet could sit in SZ 4 and the American supply line would go: Eastern Canada-Iceland-Archangel-Moscow = 4. This would however require a reprint of the map. But other than that, i believe there is nothing else that can balance this game other than a large bid that completely alters the starting setup.Pretty interesting comparative analysis.
It opens a totally different approach on Balance issues.
However, I’m not sure that looking for the path to reinforce Russia via ground units is they key.Fight the enemy where he is weaker.
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.Also (your approach make me think about this) , may be you can make a rough approximation of many IPCs can land per Turn over the time. Example, assuming 1942.2 India need 3 units (2 Art and 1 Inf), this cut 31 UK to 20 available per game turn to land on Russia. So, at best it is going to be 2 Fgs in 1.25 turn to reach Moscow. For USA full KGF, it means roughly 2TPs 1DDs 22 IPCs per turn which cannot be land unit, hence 20 US IPCs per turn left for ground to reach Europe. Again, it can be 2 Fgs in Moscow assuming a Carrier in Easter US as a launch pad and via Iceland, it takes 2 turns to reach Moscow.
Maybe there is some way to compare and see how the money (here 1942.2 2*20 IPCs per turn) reach Russia.
Also, there is no India IC before 1942.2, so in a full KGF, it may reveals more fund goes to Russia, IDK. -
I agree with grapesoda’s assesment completely.
This is essentially what I was trying to point to in the past when discussing the strategy of center control in A&A, and the lack of American shucks in 1942.2 relative to previous editions.
Also Japan’s drive is actually more extreme than grapesoda’s analysis would suggest. The northern route now takes twice as long as previous editions (grapesoda forgot Evenki when giving the numbers, so the northern route is actually 5), but that doesnt matter, because the central route is now one turn faster relative to previous editions! The shuck out of sz61 from Japan to Yunnan is one move. And then it is only two spaces that separate Yunnan from Moscow!
What’s more, sz 61 is in range of India as well (which in this version has the Achilles IC). So it’s a pretty bad scene as far as Center control goes for the Allies contra Japan. Meanwhile Allies don’t have a way to catch up on the Europe side, because of the way the Atlantic sea zones were drawn (esp. around UK.) So you have a situation, exactly as grapesoda stated, where the Axis route to the center clearly outpaces that of the Allies.
My proposed solution to this problem, which I won’t dwell on here for fear of seeing yet another thread moved to the HR section, is finding a way to get the Americans more purchasing power at the start (to offset their continuing logistical challenge), or alternatively to address the logistical challenge directly, such as by looking at the transport unit, or even revisiting the captial capture dynamic on Moscow itself.
None of those is going to be satisfactory for a play group that is only interested in using a standard bid to address the issue.
The way I’m looking at it the US needs almost a full two rounds worth of starting TUV to overcome the movement gap. This is unacceptable for most players using a standard bid process, because it’s much cheaper (in bid terms) to simply destroy Axis starting TUV instead, or stack ground at the center, rather than giving the US what they’d actually need to bring it across the ocean.
I agree that the core issue is mainly with the game map itself.
-
@Baron:
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.I’m often tempted to capture and hold France or NWE if Germany allows me to do it. But I almost always regret it. I end up stacking France only to be in a stalemate with Germany while Japan takes down Moscow and there’s nothing I can do about it. Of course at some point I will take France to open up another front for Germany. But only after I have secured Russia and the surrounding territories. The problem with this is, when my opponent knows that I don’t like stacking France or NWE early, he can just leave those territories empty and throw everything toward Moscow.
Also Japan’s drive is actually more extreme than grapesoda’s analysis would suggest. The northern route now takes twice as long as previous editions (grapesoda forgot Evenki when giving the numbers, so the northern route is actually 5), but that doesnt matter, because the central route is now one turn faster relative to previous editions! The shuck out of sz61 from Japan to Yunnan is one move. And then it is only two spaces that separate Yunnan from Moscow!
You’re right! That happens when I count out the spaces in my head instead of actually looking at the map. :oops:
What’s more, sz 61 is in range of India as well (which in this version has the Achilles IC). So it’s a pretty bad scene as far as Center control goes for the Allies contra Japan.
I believe the creators gave the Allies the India IC for them to have a production point near the center, in order to mitigate their logistical disadvantage in the Atlantic. However to me it’s more of a liability than anything else. In previous editions, giving up India just meant + 3 IPCs to Japan. Now you’re handing them a free IC. India is also more difficult to reinforce for the allies, because the African route is also one space longer than in previous games.
Anyway sooner or later the Allies have to give up on India. My rule of thumb is to retreat once the Japanese can either take it with 2 transports + units from Burma, or when I anticipate the Axis can stack either Caucasus or Kazakh. When the Japanese need 3 or more transports to take India I’ll make a stand because I think it puts them too much out of position. I also don’t like trading Burma with Japan, cause it just wears down my units that I ultimately want to send to Russia so I just let them stack there. -
Regarding India, that is what the USA ic on China helps with. You can kill the odd unit if Japan ignores the USA, and you have to. If Japan comes after China, the roles are reversed.
-
Regarding India, that is what the USA ic on China helps with. You can kill the odd unit if Japan ignores the USA, and you have to. If Japan comes after China, the roles are reversed.
I don’t think that an IC in China would ever produce a single American unit. Yunnan and Anhwei fall on J1. Szechwan and Sinkiang fall on J2, espacially if there is an IC on either one. Regardless of that, i don’t believe that an IC on a 1 IPC territory would ever be worthwile.
-
I’m actually doing some playtest, I will try to produce 1 Inf.
It is possible to protect it with some Russian Inf on first and second round, at least.
-
That is exactly right.
You should do so.
If you win the sz37 battle with a fighter remaining that also helps defend India j1. And China j2.
-
Some thoughts on the map design of China in 1942.2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39104.165An IC in China isn’t something I would bet the farm on, but I will say that playing against Magic Q demonstrated to me how a committed Allied player can make a play for this region if they’re willing to commit some Russian ground and an obscene number of British fighters hehe. That guy was Chinese so I think he had a special attachment to the area, but it certainly caught me off guard. In that game I opened rather poorly as Axis, so he had an opening, and used to be particularly annoying in China.
:-DStill, in most my games, Japan puts the whole area on blast J2 or J3 with really no way to stop them.
-
In my first test, I lost a US Fg due to Fg escort bomber.
The only unit I built was a US Fg.
I put a lot of Russian Inf, 6, and 2 Us Inf, 1 Fg.
Cannot stop, 1 Art, 6 Inf and 2 Fg.
A bit unlucky, but it is part of the game…
Russia fall, India fall to Germany (I lost my last japanese ground unit on India, instead of Fg).
Reboot today… -
There’s also up to 3 USSR tanks in Caucasus after strafing Ukraine. Perhaps not if the Turkish straits are open though.
Moving the Kazakh inf to Szechwan is normally enough to deter the attack there. Can still be defeated but only if some other attacks are foregone. At least it makes it relatively costly.
-
There’s also up to 3 USSR tanks in Caucasus after strafing Ukraine. Perhaps not if the Turkish straits are open though.
Moving the Kazakh inf to Szechwan is normally enough to deter the attack there. Can still be defeated but only if some other attacks are foregone. At least it makes it relatively costly.
You only keep a defensive stance with Russia?
You let Germany enter USSR without any counterattack?
That way you can temporally spare tanks for China?
I got 2 Fgs, 2 Infs, 5 Russia Infs but doesn’t change the outcome.
7 IJN Infs and 1 Art and 2 Fgs get ride of these armies IJN3.
Other US Fgs were in Soviet Far East or Evenki at best.
Was it your usual combat situation? -
I defend West Russia and attack weak spots from there. If you can hold WR and the Caucasus you are doing ok in Europe I reckon. I try to prevent units being produced in Karelia but it isn’t always possible.
I’m sure I move a few USSR inf to bolster China. Prevents the Japanese from running through the centre easily. USA and USSR need to block the top too. UK blocks the bottom. The top is probably the most important to block because otherwise you can’t fly in any more planes.
Been a while since I’ve played this map so I’m not 100% sure exactly what I did. I think I might have used a bid to strengthen Egypt.
-
One of the other things I can recall the Allies needing to do is take the money islands of East Indies, Philippines and Borneo from Japan. If Japan can’t hold these they can’t push that hard into Asia because they can’t afford it.
Moscow falling G4 seems a bit fast though. Aren’t you flying UK fighters to defend West Russia?
Also, I can’t see much talk of Egypt. I think I would bid at least an inf there (probably an art) and now that I think about it I’m pretty sure I was building an IC there. A TT can bring two units to India every turn.
-
2b) what that’s leading to is me putting all my UK$$ in india. All of it. Since there are only 3 spaces, I’m buying fighters for Moscow, almost every time. That’s why I’m not buying the recommended amount of infantry; I basically get 3 placements of 3 units before India and/or Moscow are about to die
I just noticed this, didn’t catch it on the first read. Is your standard purchase/build with UK 3 fighters in India during the first round? Or even more extreme, purchasing 3 fighters in India for 3 rounds in a row? If so, I think this is a major reason why your Allies can’t find a way to survive past the 4th round. That build is just unsustainable. It eliminates any possibility of a fighting withdraw from India, or propping up the Russians at the center. And when Japan finally comes crashing into the South Asia, the center collapse would be practically instantaneous, rather than developing over a couple rounds. India needs to stack 3 ground ASAP, or I don’t see any serious way that the Japanese push can be stalled for long enough to do anything as Allies. You’d have no way/time to bounce fighters back and forth between the Eastern front. Sz 36 coverage doesn’t get you as much, because you can’t really deadzone it and preserve a landing spot, if Japan just pushes ground out of sz61, and then comes heavy into Burma and Sz36 at the same time. Then what is UK to do, if it takes a hit on the IJN it has to return for landing and then won’t have enough fodder to sustain a serious combat (Japan can trade infantry/art for fighters, since they’d have the numbers advantage.) So I’m guessing you have to both run away with the fighters, and risk seeing any ground in India just get trapped. Even a move to Persia would be impossible, if Japan has their transports ready to roll, and a gang of Japanese aircraft and bombardments already in line. I don’t know, best I could recommend is to try the 2 art, 1 inf, India, and 2 fighters out of UK. Or 3 tanks in India, and 1 fighters out of UK (and just send your tanks to Russia if you have to)… or something along those lines, because I just can’t see how 3 fighters in India works out. Even in full KJF conditions India still needs a gang of fodder. No way for the US to get an edge, if Japan knocks India out with a quickness.
Or maybe this was just the one game? I honestly think bombers can be interesting if you’re trying to just hunt the IJN with UK and aim to either lose India to somehow smoke the Japanese fleet, or else fly the bombers over from UK. But still gotta stack the ground at India as much as possible.
-
Hey BlackElk,
There isn’t a reason to put anything on the UK home square. I cant keep any navy alive up there. I cant fly planes over from London because there isn’t a safe landing space anywhere.
This is just leading to putting the highest possible value units on India. I only get 3 turns of build no matter what it is before Japan comes in to destroy me, whether that’s 9 extra infantry or 9 better units, it still falls. The threat of the planes actually allowed me to attack an isolated BB that came down to attack me.
Eventually, the planes could go to Moscow, but again, it doesn’t really matter what is in Moscow or what buys took place, Moscow falls on G4 every game. No mix of USSR or UK buy changes this outcome. This with a higher bid than most players are using.
Think the only solution is to play you and Argo on AAA and see how your play differs in the first 4 turns.
There has got to be something different going on in your guys games that the Allies even last 6+ turns or have any choices. I don’t know what the Allied moves are that change the calculation, but after playing a couple of games of G40, I’m getting tired of this edition in any event.
-
There isn’t a reason to put anything on the UK home square. I cant keep any navy alive up there.
Hi taamvan,
I know I’m late to this party but…if you put a carrier and two destroyers in SZ 7 and land the two fighters you start with onto that carrier at the end of England’s Turn 1, Germany is able to achieve all of its other highly desirable objectives for it’s Turn 2, destroy your navy, and not have the Luftwaffe completely devastated as a result?
-
Seems like a few subs and all his air would come to the party with me having only 5 hits, but its worth a try, maybe it gives him too many things to do (seems like sinking the fleet would be highest priority for him)
-
What Germany built?
Only Tank or Infantry and Artillery?You need to invest into Atlantic as soon as possible, so Germany have to commit and loose Fighter on UK’s boats and Fgs.
US Fighters and ships will help, when ready R3/R4 to throw all you can in water.
My UK India is minimal (Grounds only).
-
In your next game 22 bid game and in addition to this move as the UK, you might spend the bid on 1 fighter and 4 infantry for Russia (all placed in Caucus). Russia Turn 1 all Caucus forces move into Ukraine along with your other fighters and all the tanks that can get there. Everything else that can make it moves into West Russia (except for 1 infantry which stays in Leningrad to prevent German blitzing). England does what was described above for its Turn 1. The US builds an East Coast carrier (and puts its already built fighters on it) along with some other surface ships and transports. Assuming England’s navy is not destroyed, it moves it’s fleet to Morocco’s coast Turn 2, joined by the US fleet on America’s Turn 2. Both England and the US build more surface fleet and transports Turn 2 because they will be separating their fleets and need to be able to operate independently on Turn 3, with England focusing primarily on the North and the US focusing primarily in the Mediterranean.
-
It’s clear that something is up with the management of the Eastern Front. Need to fix that issue before trying other stuff with the bid for UK etc.
When you say there is no safe place to land fighters built at UK, this the first thing you need to address.
Try this, bid 12 for Russia.
1 inf in Karelia, Arch, Russia and Caucasus
West Russia is then 12 inf, 2 artillery, 1 tank =100% odds to the attacker with an average of 12 units remaining. (Plus 2 more hitpoints from your aaaguns on non com.)
Note, that there is no need to leave anything behind in Karelia, as the factory itself is a blocker.
Ukraine is then 4 inf, 1 artillery, 3 tanks, 2 fighters = 99% odds to the attacker with an average of 6 units remaining.
If you do that there is no sensible counter attack for Germany against W. Russia on G1, even if they’re trying to lose the entire luftwaffe in the attempt. Defenders odds (vs everything the Axis have in range) are still 90%, with an average of 7 units remaining.
You can then continue to stack W. Russia again the following round with 7 more hitpoints from Russia and 2 more from UK fighters (plus the Flying Tiger, or British Pacific fighter if desired). There is no way for Germany to break that on G2, even if they bought nothing but tanks on G1. So you are free to land fighters from UK again. You do this every round, until Germany has enough hitpoints and attack power to overcome your stack. No point in withdrawing prematurely, since the fighters from UK will overcome Germany for several rounds, until Japan can threaten the rear.
Everything else should really be secondary to the Eastern Front, but if you have a bid of 18 or more, that gives you plenty to add another hitpoint to Egypt or India or Szech etc. to shore up your position elsewhere. Or if you don’t trust in the overwhelming odds above, then add artillery and tanks instead of infantry to the Russian bid. It will be a total blowout in W. Russia, with a clear advantage to the Soviet defender afterwards to hold the tile.
I really think you need to try this approach before messing around with UK ships, because all those bids assume that the Allies are able to manage the W. Russia defense.
UK should not be considering ships so early in the game. You need a minimum of 2-3 rounds purchasing fighters in UK and ground for India before anything like that is on the table for Allies, because the US will not be ready to do anything of consequence in the Atlantic until the 3rd round.
There are of course other options for the Eastern Front depending on what bid rules your group uses. The suggestion above assumes you are restricted to 1 bid unit per territory/sz, and only in spaces that already house a unit belonging to your nation.
Ps. Think about it like this…
4 additional inf and 2 additional fighters from the Allies each round, is enough to back down 6 additional tanks from Germany at roughly 50/50 odds. The newly purchased Allied units are only 1 move from the territory in question, whereas German tanks are 2 moves away. This means you have time to see the Germans coming and match them with whatever is required. As the defender you really only need 1 extra hitpoint to ice it. For example…+5 inf and 2 fighters = 7 hitpoints, with 18 defense power, worth 35 ipcs
+6 tanks = 6 hitpoints, with 18 attack power, worth 36 ipcs.The defendinf infantry+fighters will win against the attacking tanks 3 times out of 4, with both fighters remaining. Only a reckless Axis player would try to press those odds. So it’s just a matter of adding enough extra hitpoints each round to overcome the tank drive and you can just sit there, staring them down.
I’m assuming it’s tanks you’re facing? Because if it’s artillery then it should take twice as long for Germany to get in position. Takes 2 rounds for German artillery (purchased the previous round) to even reach the border of W. Russia.
Suggested Topics
