• Perry, with an Indian IC in place, UK will only be at 50% (or even less) strength vs Germany and Italy.

    I have serious doubts whether that will be enough looking at the games we played. Africa needs attention as well and Russia is a sitting duck vs a marching German army + Italy landing in her belly countries.

    And you won’t win the game this way since Japan can defend her countries with her fleet + land forces while Germany slowly tightens the screws on Russia……

    IMHO it’s almost KGF for sure to make an Allied win possible the way we stand now.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Driel310:

    Perry, with an Indian IC in place, UK will only be at 50% (or even less) strength vs Germany and Italy.

    50%?

    I was thinking a build of either 3 inf OR 2 inf + 1rtl/arm turn. Thats a cost of 9-12 ipc/turn.
    After UK looses SUM+BOR+Their 1 NO they’ve got at the outset,  they’re at 30.
    Losses in Afr is amended by capturing NWY+FIN, imho.

    So we are talking about a UK with approx 30 ipc income, right?

    But even so, yes I agree that it is tough/impossible for UK/Russia to match Germany/Italy on their own.
    But my point was, that if you want to Counter JAPAN, you need to do all of the following three:

    1. UK IC
    2. Russian strengthening of UK IC
    AND
    3. US Pac Fleet builds

    Yes, you will get trouble in Europe, but me, for one, would like to try this out a couple of times, before throwing the entire strat on the Scrappile.


  • @cousin_joe:

    This is my biggest fear with the game… A UK stand in Asia or Pacific not being viable.

    I have the same impression that if Japan wants India, they can get it.  This means there is no point for UK to even build an IC in India as it will fall so easily.  The only alternatives then become a full-tilt US Pacific campaign, or the dreaded KGF.

    I am hoping the true setup will have a pre-built India IC from game start, as this is the only way to keep UK there.

    With China sparring status, there is no chance for UK keeping indian IC, starting or not. With BGG “setup”, from round 2, chineses are no more and Japan can focus on India, even if USA build some fleet. Revised indian IC worked with Sinkiang IC, not alone.

    China needs more infantery, fighter killed or not

    Seems axis won 2 games of 2, the third still playing, and Godzilla Japan 70 IPCs appeared, sent to soviets twice (Alaska path needs 8 trannies, maybe 10 with improved industry, that should work). A capital trading will mean how about? 90 ? 100 IPCs? Not Godzilla: super-saiyajin level 4 Japan, and allies need 2 axis capitols this time, Rome and Berlin, funny if Mussolini is still alive and Hiro-Hito can save him  :-P Sure, boys, axis needs a bid with this “setup” :roll:

    I’ll pick Japan in my first … eeer … all 6 players game if this is the setup  :wink:


  • About techs, random tech in fact means the player must cover more circumstances when thinking strats: what if this guy gets long range?, so in fact a better strategist is needed playing random tech than no techs. A good strategist will beat a lucky tech shot, because a good strategist will have a counter on his/her sleeve.

    Probably techs are balanced, but or you love tech or you hate tech, so Larry made optional this time for preventing bad moods and such.


  • @Lynxes:

    Thanks JohnBarbarossa for sharing your test games with us! I’ve been playing a bit with a friend of mine (Perry) over the internet and we will be writing up a report soon.

    One thing, and this also answers Cousin Joe’s fears, is that there is a possibility to reinforce India with Russian troops and then an IC build IS VIABLE. We tried this in one game and it worked out fine, although Russia was of course slightly weaker. In that game, the Allies balanced the Russian support for India with UK attacks vs. Leningrad. So, while that Scandinavian push might be felt to be a bit ahistorical, game-balance-wise it works out well I think.

    A caveat of course is that a maximized anti-Indian Japan strat must be tried out vs. this Allied strategy, and also maximum German and Italian pressure vs. Caucasus. I think the jury is still out if this is possible to pull-off as the Allies without losing Caucasus, which, if not retaken, usually means losing the game.

    Hi Lynxes,

    Yes, I am aware the Russian reinforcement is an option, but a few points…

    -Those Russian INF in Caucasus are needed to counter the G1 hit on Ukraine which is a must on G1

    -Russian INF supporting an India IC is even more ahistoric, and shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.  UK should already have the initial setup or resources to support the IC on it’s own.

    -If Russia goes to Per R1, I would send maximum pressure I1 and G2 to get the Cau IC (or at least setup for a G3 takedown)

    -As Japan, if I see the Russians moving to Persia R1, then India becomes priority one over everything else.  Japan has enough stuff to take out the Russian reinforce if they bring the kitchen sink on J2.  The IC will not be able to build anything until after J2 (which comes before UK2)

    -on US1, the US will be seeing Italy going after Russia, and Japan ignoring the US in favor of India (which has a good shot of taking India).  With minimal incentive to stay in the Pacific (no Convoy Raids, few IPCs, and the need to help Russia) then Atlantic builds would seem the more reasonable approach.

    Overall, the Russian reinforce + UK IC + US Pacific Fleet strategy is just too risky from what we know of OOTB so far.  Strategically, I would much rather take my chances with the KGF race vs. JTDTM.  And in that case, the game is still highly flawed like it’s predecessors.  Global conflict should be the goal, not races to Moscow & Berlin.

  • 2007 AAR League

    John Barbarossa:
    Pardon the french, but how the heck are you supposed to counter the UKR on R1  :? :? :?

    Three games down the road, this is what I’ve found in UKR, after G1:

    Game 1: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
    Game 2: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
    Game 3: 3 inf 1 rtl 2 arm

    To counter this we’ve got ‘all’ the units of EUK (1 inf), CAU (4 inf) and the 1 Arm of MOS.

    Conclusion: You can’t counter EUK as Russia on R1! Or what am I missing?  :?


  • @Perry:

    John Barbarossa:
    Pardon the french, but how the heck are you supposed to counter the UKR on R1  :? :? :?

    Three games down the road, this is what I’ve found in UKR, after G1:

    Game 1: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
    Game 2: 2 inf 1 rtl 2 arm
    Game 3: 3 inf 1 rtl 2 arm

    To counter this we’ve got ‘all’ the units of EUK (1 inf), CAU (4 inf) and the 1 Arm of MOS.

    Conclusion: You can’t counter EUK as Russia on R1! Or what am I missing?  :?

    Uhhh, I don’t recall mentioning anything about countering Ukraine… simply because you can’t.
    In G1 you should take Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine (also for the bonus). Since Russia is low on attacking pieces they can only take one back, which is the Baltic States. They should take that back to prevent an attack on Karelia on G2. You cannot take back Ukraine so you have to stack Caucasus instead.

    In our first game when I was Germany I used no armour in Baltic States because of this counter. I used 3 arm in East Poland and 3 arm in Ukraine. Both East Poland and Ukraine could not be taken back by Russia.

    In our second game Driel310 as Germany spread his units slightly different. He massed all of the 6 armour in East Poland (which I thought was a really good move). In this way he pressured Karelia and Caucasus with 6 arm at the same time. What went wrong is that I (playing Russia) failed to take back the Baltic States. I was unaware of this armour threat and tried to strafe Baltic States (which also failed due to the dice). So I did not send in enough and was forced to retreat. From that point it was going down hill for Russia.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Hah, sorry JB! It was Cousin_joe that talked about countering UKR  :-)

    So, Cousin_joe , what do you have to say for yourself  :-)


  • A question first. How valid is the map and setup?

    Often an inf or two more in setup makes a world of a difference…

    Second: In defence of Random Techs…

    IMHO its “historical” to invest money to research - what you get is often not determined by your goal, but by pure luck.

    Best example - when they wanted to make gold they found Blackpowder ;)


  • Yes, we are using the map version of Bluestroke. Not the R12 version, but the R9, but since the changes are merely cosmetic that is not really an issue.

    So it seems like we are still missing a few pieces? Can we conclude then that the setup of Bluestroke is right, but just need additions? Or are there units that need to be removed completely or moved to a different zone?

    Since we all have to wait 4 weeks more on the game maybe as a compensation we can get a little bit more info on the setup.  :-D


  • @Perry:

    Hah, sorry JB! It was Cousin_joe that talked about countering UKR  :-)

    So, Cousin_joe , what do you have to say for yourself  :-)

    4INF Cau, 1INF Euk, 1ARM Mos (as per BGG setup - which we now know is wrong, so actually may be even more) *** modified  8-)***

    If you don’t hit back in Ukr, you expose Caucasus to being attacked by whatever’s left in Ukr + potentially 7ARM (Blitzing through a German owned Ukr) + potentially 4FTR + 1BMBR + whatever can be brought in by sea (1INF + 1ARM)

    For me, that’s a must


  • @cousin_joe:

    @Perry:

    Hah, sorry JB! It was Cousin_joe that talked about countering UKR  :-)

    So, Cousin_joe , what do you have to say for yourself  :-)

    4INF Ukr, 1INF Euk, 1ARM Mos (as per BGG setup - which we now know is wrong, so actually may be even more)

    If you don’t hit back in Ukr, you expose Caucasus to being attacked by whatever’s left in Ukr + potentially 7ARM (Blitzing through a German owned Ukr) + potentially 4FTR + 1BMBR + whatever can be brought in by sea (1INF + 1ARM)

    For me, that’s a must

    I am sure you mean 4 inf from Caucasus.  :wink:

    However, the blitz to Caucasus is always present, because Italy can take Ukraine as well by sea allowing German armor to blitz through.

    Another point, what if Germany attacked Ukraine on G1 with 3 inf, 3 arm? You will have a hard time taking it back with 5 inf, 1 arm……


  • @Craig:

    A few points up front about the playtesting:

    Most of the time we spent playtesting was done under constantly changing maps and rules.  As such, we actually only did a small portion of our work with the final map (which then changed a bit after that), the NOs were a bit different from what they are now, some of the rules changed slightly, and the tech was not like this at all.

    What I would say is this- If you are trying to figure out what is and isn’t balanced, DO NOT PLAY WITH THE TECHS!

    As Cousin Joe has proper pointed out, since tech is random, you can’t depend on what you will get and that means you can’t plan appropriately.

    The techs are too uncertain a factor to try to figure into the equation when trying to find the balance in a scenario.

    I’m glad to hear that the Tech situation was thrown in there last minute as I can’t possibly see how any playtesters would think that random tech is a good thing.  I’m sure it’s in there just for the kiddies to get those miraculous victories with HB when they’re clearly beat or to laugh at their opponents misfortune when they get Super Subs  :-)  It would have been nice though, to get some Tech rules suitable for competitive play right OOTB, especially since I don’t see too many kiddies shelling out $100 for this game, and the fact it was meant to be a deluxe version.

    I guess, as always, we will need some sort of tournament rules fix.

    I do agree though, if you really want to assess game balance, you should do so without Tech.

    No matter what, there is going to have to be a lot more game play before we can make a proper assessment as to what is or isn’t balanced.

    Also, I would ask those who are playing the '41 scenario- What set up are you using?  If it is the one from the GCI pic and is on the R12 map of Bluestroke’s, then there are a few things that are wrong.

    Now I don’t know if that is on purpose or just a mistake.  Larry may have just been busy and missed a few things when setting it up or he may have left out a few things to actually mess with the picture takers.

    I believe that it is the former since it is just a few things missing.  If he were trying to throw people off, then a bunch of things would be out of place and/or missing.

    I will try to talk to him to see if I am allowed to clarify the info for you.

    Craig

    I hope one of those things that are missing is a pre-built UK IC and perhaps a few extra US naval units in the Pacific

    From what I’m hearing and seeing, Japan is basically able to explode over the whole map as the Allies are too weak to stop them.  This basically leaves KGF as their only strategic alternative.

    I would like to do some playtesting, but I’m waiting until we get word of the official setup.  It would be nice to have it before the release…

    If the game truly is balanced, there will be a lot of positive feedback, and thus more support and free advertising for the new game.

    If the game is not balanced, at least people will have some house rules or tournament rules available to fix it a lot faster (as playtesting will have been done in advanced).

    Both of these would help boost sales.  I really don’t think you’ll lose sales by showing the setup online prior to the release (It will definitely be up after the release  :-)).  Hardcore gamers will buy it regardless (most likely on the release date  :-)).  Non-hardcore gamers will probably wait until after the release date, and by then, they would have seen the true setup anyways.

    October 23rd would be a nice date to release the true setup… as that’s when it was supposed to come out originally  :-D


  • This is the setup I’ve been playing with:

    http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aa506075dg5.png

    Without NOs allies have advantage, so maybe thats why I thought the BGG setup is not correct. As with AAR, 2-3 units can be enough to balance a game, but then again, NOs seems to favor axis….


  • About the Caucasus situation I think on G2 the best defence is to amass a counter-attack force in Moscow which can retake Caucasus if Germany goes all-in. The Germans actually don’t have that much of a second wave and Italy should hopefully be occupied in Algeria.

    This news about the set-up is great, I start a new thread right away and then we’ll maybe get there quicker!


  • @Lynxes:

    All this seriously changes the game in the Allied favour, but play-testing with the GENCON set-up really has shown the Axis to be very much stronger than in all earlier editions of A&A and this is not what was intended I think.

    I have only been playtesting without NOs, you and others have been using NOs, and I suspect Axis will be stronger with NOs than allies, compared to not using NOs.

    It should not make a biig difference though, as NOs are optional rules, game balance should not be influenced by NOs.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Actually, I was quite happy to read that we’ve been playing the wrong setup!
    I had expected to play one new AA game, when AA50 hit the shelves.

    Now it will feel like I’ve got to play two new games 
    First one game with the wrong setup, then one game with the correct setup :-D

  • Official Q&A

    And don’t forget the '42 scenario!


  • And don’t forget the '42 scenario!

    so then what is the set up for it?

    how bout a nation at a time?

  • Official Q&A

    As I’ve said before, I’m not at liberty to go into detail about setups.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts