-25 bid challenge: conclusions


  • First time posting here.  Sorry if this idea has been considered and rejected earlier.
    My thought would be to use the same starting pieces for China as in 1942 AND have China play FIRST.  The turn order would be China, then Japan etc with the US last. 
    This would allow China to move the fighter out of the way and get a turn of reinforcements under its belt before getting hammered.

    Just a thought.


  • I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game, also, holding to revised strats will make you loose.  In a strong KGF Russia has to come out swinging to help lower German income to a reasonable level.  Also, protecting the US against Japan is easier than it looks if played properly.  One other important thing is the relationship of Germany and Italy in this game. The can opener threat can really stall Russia.  Also, the fact that Italy can easily stack around 10 units into france by turns 3 or 4 if allowed to gain a large income counteracts Germany only building 10 units a turn, as nearly all of those units get to swing at Russia.  Also of note is the extreme importance of holding Persia.  I have found that abandoning India and moving to Persia UK1, followed by Russian inf reinforcing turn 2 along with other allied units moving that direction threw Africa is the best way to hold Japan in the south.  You cannot loose Persia.  I also feel it is important in a KGF setup that the allies have two fleets, one to hold in northern europe, and one in the south.  This forces G/I to protect more territory than they can.

    It also seems KGF is the only viable strat, and any pacific strat is limited in scope to holding onto a few NOs and distracting Japan a bit.  There is no real way to bottle Japan up early before her income soars while containing G/I as well.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  Japan just plain has too many transports and carriers for the US to even try to face them alone, and no one can afford to help.


  • @bugoo:

    I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game,

    Also for a series of games? Axis will have Africa for several rnds in over 60% of all games.


  • Btw Func, I wouldn’t mind playing you in your -25 bid challenge if you play without tech.  With that setup I might not even ignore the pacific.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @bugoo:

    I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game, also, holding to revised strats will make you loose.  In a strong KGF Russia has to come out swinging to help lower German income to a reasonable level.  Also, protecting the US against Japan is easier than it looks if played properly.  One other important thing is the relationship of Germany and Italy in this game. The can opener threat can really stall Russia.  Also, the fact that Italy can easily stack around 10 units into france by turns 3 or 4 if allowed to gain a large income counteracts Germany only building 10 units a turn, as nearly all of those units get to swing at Russia.  Also of note is the extreme importance of holding Persia.  I have found that abandoning India and moving to Persia UK1, followed by Russian inf reinforcing turn 2 along with other allied units moving that direction threw Africa is the best way to hold Japan in the south.  You cannot loose Persia.  I also feel it is important in a KGF setup that the allies have two fleets, one to hold in northern europe, and one in the south.  This forces G/I to protect more territory than they can.

    It also seems KGF is the only viable strat, and any pacific strat is limited in scope to holding onto a few NOs and distracting Japan a bit.  There is no real way to bottle Japan up early before her income soars while containing G/I as well.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  Japan just plain has too many transports and carriers for the US to even try to face them alone, and no one can afford to help.

    Good post, this is pretty much how I feel about it.  The only thing I disagree with you on is the bid–I’d say that in a nt game, without some kind of bid Axis will have the advantage.  It may not necessarily have to be as high as 6, but probably at least 3.  With tech, it seems pretty even.

    Also, I’d add that the strat you are advocating is pretty close to the Revised KGF strat–ie 2 Allied fleets, focus on Germany, USA goes to Persia while UK goes thru Karelia…pretty much the same strategy…just different map dynamics and Russia has to attack.

    1 inf to Egypt changes the game fundamentally (ie the ipc difference if Germany doesn’t take Egpyt is massive)–if you add another inf to Karelia then the Allies probably have a slight advantage.  Without those bids, Allies need some dice to avoid getting beat up bad on G1.

    I’d like to play you sometime by forum though I’m sure I’d be at a disadvantage due to your experience.


  • Eh, a G1 Karelia and G1 Egypt leaves the UK BB alone, and gives you two battles that you can get diced on HARD.  It is, in my opinion, the same as going for the tech G1 revised sea lion.  Sure you can do it, and make it so you have a huge advantage, or a huge disadvantage, but in the end it is pretty foolish.

    And yes, the only thing that has changed is without interceptors a heavy US SBR campaign is extremely effective and viable.  And the dynamics of using Russia and Germany are a bit different.  But honestly, the map is not that much different from revised, the units didn’t change much, why should the effective tactics?

    What is truly different? More territories, a bit more IPCs, couple of small cost changes in units, that is about it.  Yes it is harder to defend your fleet, but not that much because of how much harder it is to keep fighters in a position to hit fleets.  Yes germany cannot build as many units, but italy makes up for that.  It is, essentially, the same game/concept.  I know Japan gets richer faster, but turn 1 they make alot less, as do all the axis and the allies make alot more turn 1.

    The absolutely biggest problem in this game, in my honest opinion, is the extremely dicey turn 1s (I can typically tell you the victor of the game after J1), and the stupid Italy can-opener.  That single tactic slams Russia so hard its not even funny, and why in the 42 scenario it is much easier to play as Russia.  That and the invisible wall in china are the only two things that personally annoy me.  Now if I were to redesign the game I would make a ton of changes to promote a more balanced conflict in all theaters, simple things to promote combat in the pacific and in africa.  I would weaken Japan and boost Italy, along with boosting Russia and the UK in the form of Australia and India.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Hmm you are probably right bugoo–Karelia and Egypt in the same turn is too risky.  Actually though, I once played a game where I took Karelia, killed the bb, and took Egypt…  However with only 3 figs Karelia is obviously too risky so the better play is probably pursuing the dd/tranny combo with the 2 subs–the bb can be kept out of Finland/Karelia by landing all fighters in Finland…  Re. Karelia, in a ll game it comes down to whether the aa hits.  If no fighter is shot down then sometimes Karelia can be taken without sacrificing a fig…and that is pretty devastating for the Allies.  If a fighter is shot down, then sometimes that’s 2 figs down for the Axis.

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2
  • 12
  • 7
  • 11
  • 51
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts