Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

[ogrebait]

Baloney…. I’ve proven on multiple occasions that I can lose no matter which side I play.  :-o

[tin_snips]

played yet another game tonight where the axis won. definitely not slanted heavily in-favour of the allies

[tcnance]

of course the axis can win, im just saying i think i will win 65 to 70 percent of the time if i play allies

[allies_fly]

@tcnance:

of course the axis can win, im just saying i think i will win 65 to 70 percent of the time if i play allies

How many games have you played as the allies against how many different axis players?

[I like Ike]

@Stoob:

4 games, all 1941 scenario.

3 of 4 games were with N.O. – 1 without.

If we play with N.O., the Axis have won 2 times.
1 time the Allies won with N.O.
The 1 game without N.O., the Allies won.

That’s my experience.

I always play with NO and Tech.  So just out of curiosity, the game where the Allies won, were dice a factor?  I mean did the Allies had favorable rolls?  And the 2 games where the Axis won was it a somewhat easy victory even without favorable dice?

[wodan46]

Those from Boardgamegeek report that Axis wins most games.

This is due to the fact that excluding Russia and China, the Allies can’t reinforce Eurasia directly, instead they have to build a fleet of transports with escorts, overall costing them money and time.  As a result, by the time Britain and America start getting their act together, the Axis conquers all of Eurasia, nabbing a bunch of NOs and VCs in the process.

[Unknown Soldier]

The Axis SHOULD be winning more than the Allies right now imo. Axis playout is much more linear (relative to the Allies), and requires much less coordination. The best Allied strats simply take longer to “figure out” than the Axis ones. In time, the Allies will no doubt look stronger. I’d be worried about play balance if the Allies were already winning 50% of matches.

[I like Ike]

@Unknown:

The Axis SHOULD be winning more than the Allies right now imo. Axis playout is much more linear (relative to the Allies), and requires much less coordination. The best Allied strats simply take longer to “figure out” than the Axis ones. In time, the Allies will no doubt look stronger. I’d be worried about play balance if the Allies were already winning 50% of matches.

Huh…interesting take US.

[Jennifer]

Right now it seems the axis are winning more often than the allies, about 2:1 but that is dwindling as allied players learn to conserve and focus their energies.

Right now the idea is to ignore Japan.  This has been great for me, I’ve always loved the Kill America First strategy and with America totally ignoring me, I get to employ it over, and over and over again with impunity!

[Uncle_Joe]

Ignoring Japan vs a good Axis TEAM should result in an Axis win more often than not IME. It really doesnt come as a surprise that people are thinking the Axis have some sort of advantage if the Allies are still trying KGF…

[Funcioneta]

KGF means even more axis victories. The bad news is that even a balanced strat still gives advantage to axis due their superior economic potential  :-P Lesser than in KGF, of course

[DarthMaximus]

I think the tourney should go a long way to settling things.  32 players, 5 rds.  IMO, the first two rds will probably just get rid of the bad strategies regardless of side, but I would think when we get to the final 8-4-2 if one side has an adv we’ll see it in those final games.

[Funcioneta]

I’m just praying I get axis all rounds … but agreed, so high amount of games will show finally who has the advantage [low voice]the axis[/low voice]

[Jennifer]

I don’t know if there is an advantage yet.  As I said, the ratio is dwindling as players figure out how to utilize America and England and build up Russia.

Problem is, in this game especially, you CANNOT LEAVE JAPAN ALONE!  Even a modest effort at annoying them can save the game for the Allies.

But honestly, a highly focused, at all costs attack on Japan can eliminate them from the game as well.  They start with a strong navy, but it’s just a navy guys.  A dozen Russians supported by a tank or two and the British setting up strong in Egypt or India (depending on what happened round 1) and you can stop the Japanese dead at the cost of giving Italy 20+ and Germany 50+. (Better than Italy at 10, Germany at 40 and Japan at 80 though!)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

A dozen Russians supported by a tank or two and the British setting up strong in Egypt or India (depending on what happened round 1) and you can stop the Japanese dead at the cost of giving Italy 20+ and Germany 50+. (Better than Italy at 10, Germany at 40 and Japan at 80 though!)

That’s an interesting statement.  Does that mean that you believe “Focus on Japan First” is more viable in AA50?

I agree that Japan can be forced into the defensive by a strong USA push, but US has to start right away and as strong as possible.  Add a <favorable>tech (or two) for the US and Japan can be in a world of hurt.</favorable>

[ogrebait]

@Funcioneta:

KGF means even more axis victories.

Okay, I’ll bite. I don’t see a whole lot of folks touting KJF as a primary strategy. Are you then referring to KIF, or something else? For my part, I just kind of lump Germany and Italy together and consider going after either as KEF (kill Europe first).

[Jennifer]

It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

Why?  I don’t know for sure, but I have some thoughts.

1)  Japan starts with 17 IPC.  Yes, that jumps to near 40 really fast, but it’s still like having half a pay check and one spent on transports usually.

2)  Japan takes 6 rounds to have any reasonable chance of invading Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  I don’t care what your dice were, it’s still 5 rounds to walk there and you have to get through the Chinese and Russians first.

3)  America has 48 IPC routinely.  This can be dropped to 43 IPC but not reliably if America is going strong Pacific.

4)  Japan’s basically fighting on four fronts if you go navy.  They have to keep up with you, at least to slow you down.  They have to take out China for money.  They have to deal with the Russians from the north and from the west.  And they have England from the “south” if England set up an IC in India or Australia or Egypt (I like Egypt because many Germans are not attacking it anymore and that means I can easily have 4 inf, art, fig, bmb there before Italy.)

[DarthMaximus]

I disagree with the you can’t leave Japan alone, and KGF (KIF) don’t or won’t work.  The more I get a feel for this game the more I think KGF is the absolute way to go, at least until you neutralize the G threat then you’re free to do as you wish.

@Cmdr:

1)  Japan starts with 17 IPC.  Yes, that jumps to near 40 really fast, but it’s still like having half a pay check and one spent on transports usually.

2)  Japan takes 6 rounds to have any reasonable chance of invading Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  I don’t care what your dice were, it’s still 5 rounds to walk there and you have to get through the Chinese and Russians first.

This is why KGF works.  Japan simply isn’t a serious early threat to Mos from rds 1-6.  You can all but eliminate the Ita (Med ships) and Ger (immediate blitz to Mos) threats in the first 3-5 rds.  At which point you are now free to either turn all three Allies against Japan, turn the US only against Japan, or finish off Europe if Rome or Berlin will fall before Mos.

[wodan46]

@Cmdr:

It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

The problem is that I suspect that if America is going all out to kill Japan, Germany/Italy will be able to crack Russia before either Japan falls or Britain becomes a serious threat.

As Darth says, Japan can expand, yes, but they can’t seriously threaten a capital for the first 6 turns.  Germany can threaten a capture of Moscow as early as Turn 3.

I think a kill Italy first might be a decent strategy.  Having Britain use build a Bomber fleet to torment the Axis and eliminate vital forces, while America sends its navy to capture Italy could work.  It also has the advantage of flexibility.  The American force can simply capture Western Europe, Balkans, and Bulgeria if Italy turtles too much.

[Uncle_Joe]

I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

Given that, the US’s job is to keep Japan from doing those two things. Usually if Britain or Russia can spare ANY help, Japan could struggle for a while.  I dont think the US really has the income to split her attention and I think her attention is better spent in the Pacific than in Europe.

I think people are looking for the quick ‘gimmick’ strat but it appears that this edition of A&A has done a REALLY good job of denying that. That might change in the future, but at the moment, I just dont see either ‘all out effort’ in a theatre to be as productive as fighting in both.