Allies Balance

[Holy Roller]

Great info and suggestions, taamvan and Private Panic!  I was worried that the basically 48 bid might be too much.  I wish that I could get excited about 1941, but it looks like it would be frustrating with so little IPCs to purchase new units.

I checked out the House Rules section, and I really liked Black_Elk’s idea to have the US go first (with the exception that it can only participate in non-combat moves).  It seems that it would get the US involved earlier, have less Ally navy crushed in round 1, and balance the game.  Now I am getting more excited about purchasing 42.2.

[Private-Panic]

Oh - and a warm welcome to the forum Holy!

Lots of the A&A addicts on these boards will agree with you about 1941.

Let us know how your first game goes.

[Wolfshanze]

@Holy:

I wish that I could get excited about 1941, but it looks like it would be frustrating with so little IPCs to purchase new units.

As Private Panic mentioned, a lot of people on this forum despise 1941, but there are a few of us that support it for what it is… the cheapest, fastest, shortest version of Axis and Allies, and good for getting people introduced to the base mechanics of the game.

In regards to the shortage of IPC income to begin with, there’s a couple of “quick/easy” fixes you can house-rule to give 1941 more income to play with.

1. Simply double the income of every territory that gives income. Its a quick and easy fix that’s easy to remember and hard to mess up… doubling of the income actually gives each nation an income close to the Classic/Original version of A&A.

2. Try a “War Bonds” option for each nation… during income collection phase roll 1D6 or 2D6 (depending on how much you want to add) for added IPC income to each nation to show “home war support” drives.  This will not mess with the printed income on the board, but gives each nation an income boost that once-again gives you more money to play with each turn.

Mind you, added income to 1941 adds length to the game in playing time… but it does give people more money to have fun with.

[taamvan]

1941 board took the gargantuan strength of a 2 year old to rip in half (its literally the only thing he’s ever destroyed under my watch).

[Private-Panic]

I actually like 1941 as it is: faster and simpler. In a funny sort of way that makes it more strategic with less attrition and a need to make bold moves maximising the use of the war material you have.

Strangely I don’t regard the ability of a game to withstand the destructive attentions of taamvan’s 2 year old as a key purchasing criteria!  :-D

[Wolfshanze]

@taamvan:

1941 board took the gargantuan strength of a 2 year old to rip in half (its literally the only thing he’s ever destroyed under my watch).

The 1941 board is of the exact same build and quality as the 1942SE board is.

Also, none of the Axis and Allies games are recommended for unsupervised 2 year olds… so that one is on you.

[taamvan]

He was fascinated by the WW1 teams, boxes and pieces at that age.

I gave him the board to look at, turned back to my computer for 30 seconds, and voila;  1941 Pacific and 1941 Europe, for only $20.  I got 2 games for 1.

[Black_Elk]

Haha at least easier to move two sections around I guess. World domination rip  :-D

I don’t know, I think it would be fun to play a game with a moderate bid as Allies, but with the agreement that Axis have to take Washington to win, and Allies have to take both Axis capitals. Total Domination. Just for like a 30 round slog-athon, so the deep end game has a chance to really materialize hehe. The best games are the ones where Allies trade Moscow for an Axis capital, when the territory possessions start resetting and income sacks have occurred. Sure it doesn’t happen very often (Allies gotta catch a lucky break somewhere for that to ever pan out), but many will just bail when the first capital falls. I think a certain degree of masochism is probably a pre-requisite to take Allies on this board.
:-D

Easier to do on the machine probably, for a match like that.

[Panzer V]

The axis can almost always take Moscow (the exception being really lucky rolls for the allied player and really unlucky rolls for the axis player early on). If the allies can hold Moscow past round 5 and not lose a bunch of UK/USA fighters defending it, then they have a good chance to win it even after losing Moscow.

I think with this game the allies have to play the pacific in a big way.  Losing Moscow is not a loser for the allies, you just need to have USA IC’s on the big three Japanes islands when that happens.  Obviously there are other things the allies need to do too but this seems to be the key to defeating the axis.  Games go long……

[innohub]

IMHO a Russia Bomber addition make it a pretty balanced game.  In other words, 12 Bid( or 16 for more variety) is enough.  It’s totally fine for Allies to lose all those Sea Force at R1.  This is 1942, the peak of Axis :-D.

[innohub]

And I purchased a 1941 copy to my cousin and play once.  I actually find it a fun game to play even it has less option.  With this said, 42 2E is a more solid purchase IMHO as it provides more strategy and variety, plus the sculpt are nicer as well

[taamvan]

We’ve played more like 30-40 times now, and I’ve kinda changed my tune, this version is fun, there are simply a lot of moving parts.  A bid is still appropriate, for multiple reasons but there are very specific things the allies can do to increase their chances of winning it just takes a while to figure them all out.

[TheBeninator]

Would adding the house rule that transports can be lost as fodder (and 1 defense) help balance? It is a pretty null point for Germany (depending on the build) and Russia, but would really help out the allied Atlantic fleet from a German air raid. This would also cripple the effectiveness of G1 sub strikes, and the UK1 hit on Japan’s transport. Overall I feel like it would be a boost to the Allies.

[taamvan]

Yeah, you don’t want that.    Transports are too cheap and also are better as specialists rather than gamey cannon fodder units to dump after they dump their troops.  The updated rule as of 2012 is much more fun and forces you to treat TTs as fine china.

[Wolfshanze]

Transports were cannon fodder in the Classic A&A… and it was bad… you’d have fleets with a carrier, a battleship and 30xtransports as a fodder shield… it was bad, it looked bad, it played bad… the rule change away from that was deliberate and for the better…

[baron Münchhausen]

When I played 1942.2 with TPs A0 D1 M2, 1 hit, C8, things were simpler.
In opening Atlantic naval, I add 1 U-boat because TP could be taken as casualty before bigger target. In opening G1, TP were sunk before Destroyers and UK’s Battleship.
On UK1, Cruiser in Baltic was taken last.
After, DDs were still bought because of their firepower and Anti-Sub and used as fodder before TPs.

Things are more nuanced than with Classic but when only Cruisers and Carriers and BBs remain, TPs were fodders before these costlier warships.
Rules are simpler with owner choose his own casualties all the way, it helps with beginners (Subs, planes and TPs interactions OOBs can become messy).
But, you get some unhistorical situations in Pacific mostly, between US and IJN when TPs are protecting warships and not the reverse when it is the decisive naval combat.

And yes, Allies wins because in KGF, Luftwaffe and Subs have to kill both warships and TPs 1 by 1, air attrition is a real factor. I would say it tips things Axis 30% vs 70% Allies, if you consider OOB Axis 70% vs Allies 30%.

After, I played with 1 stack of TPs rolls 1 dice @1 but each TP worth 1 hit. It makes 3 and more TPs feel less dangerous for aircrafts but not helpless at all. No auto-kill is better IMO. And fit better to balance 1942.2

Der Kuenstler is playing on his hybrid AA50 map and setup like this with TPs A0 D1 C8, 1 hit for a long time and him and his team saw no issue because now Destroyers exist and Subs are much cheaper. In Classic, there was only 8 IPCs TPs and Subs, so there was a big stack around warships Carriers (18$) and BBs (24$) and Subs were broken against planes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108069#msg1108069

HTH

[dajokr]

Interesting discussion on this topic over the last few days (involving Larry) over at the Harris Game Forum:

https://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=18945

[innohub]

I just looked through Larry’s thread.  I’m interested to see how this goes.  if any one is interested to set up a 42 2E game with Larry suggestion please ping me :-D

[Wolfshanze]

Sounds like the “fix” to make Germany not favored is to completely ruin any chance the Axis ever has of winning… I think Larry gave way too much to the Allies.

[taamvan]

we’ve played 42.3 twice.  It doesn’t really address the core problems in the middle of the map and how easy the $$ is for the axis to get the money, regardless of what the allies do.

It does make the atlantic play possible, with all the US and UK forces converging by T4, Germany is under some serious pressure.  Still, there isn’t much they can do to actually stop German attacks on Russia, as usual they tear at the edges ($6 lol) but they cant stop the money from going to Axis.

I usually have 3 strat bombers and 7-9 fighters at that point, so sinking one of the detached fleets isn’t too difficult and it has the same problems as any KGF–all $$ has to go to warships, not transports, and everything has to stick together, which means its not flexible on the offense.

seems pretty clear that LH already has his own ideas, which were pretty firm before the public comment period began.

without further changes it just feels wobbly, USA still has to commit to one direction or the other.  as smorey considers, a bid will still be necessary, but exactly what bid may be up in the air