The allies are not the lost cause some make them out to be. They are the more difficult of the 2 powers because they take time, planning, and cooperation. That can be very difficult or a headache for the player that isn’t familiar with the map or game mechanics. The USA must plan ahead 3 turns in both the Atlantic and the Pacific when it comes to Navy. That’s really tough to plan ahead if one doesn’t grasp how the Axis win.
It’s a way of thinking in the Pacific that makes things difficult. As players of the game, we think in terms of conquering territory. IMO the key to winning in the Pacific is to stop the final victory city from falling (usually Hawaii/Sydney). It’s all chess. The allies don’t have to take anything. The Japanese need to. The allies just have to work together to pester Japan. Take an island, kill stray blockers and unprotected/under protected transports. Just like the USA can NOT take on both the Atlantic and Pacific evenly, Japan can NOT take on China, USA, UK, and ANZAC evenly.
As for the Atlantic side, Russia needs to keep Germany to taking just 1 territory at a time. Counter attack under defended territories. Buy 1 fighter per round after round 4 to help counter attack. Stop the blitz into Russia. Delay 7 rounds and you get 18 free infantry from the East. If they make it back, it’s almost impossible for the Germans to take Moscow. While Russia delays, open up a 2nd front with UK and USA. Germany and Italy can NOT fight a 2 front war.
These ideas are basic, but take long term planning. IMO that’s what makes the Allies harder to play.
No, I think the main problem is that the Axis don’t have to do anything, but wait, to win after R4. Because they have more income…
Careful with this “R4” stuff, kids. That seems on first glance, to me at least, like Russia’s 4th turn.
I can’t espouse the virtues of 1 Russian fighter per turn after R4 (literally), but the idea that Russia should make sure Germany is only making one territory per turn’s worth of progress is the entire idea of the eastern front for the allies. If you can cause Germany to not advance at all for a turn, that’s fantastic. Trying to keep them from that pivotal point of Rostov/Bryansk as long as you practically and safely can is the game.
The statement that seven rounds for 18 Russians = free hold of Moscow, however, is not correct. Germany can still take Moscow after the 18 dudes show up, though it usually slows them down by at least a couple of rounds (while they make any available grabs at the caucasus etc). With a good Italian can-opener, those 20 dudes (including AA) may only be one round of extra time for Moscow.
That being said I nearly always take those 18 ruskies back home.
And yeah, well said, the Pacific is much like chess. It’s kinda “boring” compared to the European theater maybe, but the Pacific game, especially for the first 1-5 rounds, is nothing but posturing and zero dice rolling. Eventually, however, Japan will begin to crumble at the edges under the combined spending of US/ANZAC. The trick I have a problem with is finding a way to do that quickly enough.
Nippon, I’d read the hell out of whatever you want to write on the subject.
For my games, I’ve tried doing a static +X to the American income, including the first turn. The minimum is +10, and I’m in a +14 game right now and it’s pretty clutch for the Axis. I may not be the best A&A player, but I’m by no means the worst, and that +14/turn is showing extreme dividends for the allies. It’s arguably also kind of historically accurate, though I’ll not mention much more as that’s squarely in the houserules type of discussion.
What I can say is that the balance of the game as it stands now at the current high level of play is not too awfully far out of whack. It doesn’t take much to swing things back around to the dicey sweet spot.
edit-
spelling is hard
I’ve been on these forums a while, and have participated in many conversations about the overall balance, or house rules to fix the game. There’s only one thing I’m interested in saying anymore and I’m prepared to start saying it a lot from now on…
It’s now up to Larry and Krieghund to release a new modified setup, national objective, political situation, atom bomb, or whatever it takes to balance A&A 1940 Global… they are the only ones that can effectively do it for all of us.
I can’t espouse the virtues of 1 Russian fighter per turn after R4 (literally), but the idea that Russia should make sure Germany is only making one territory per turn’s worth of progress is the entire idea of the eastern front for the allies. If you can cause Germany to not advance at all for a turn, that’s fantastic. Trying to keep them from that pivotal point of Rostov/Bryansk as long as you practically and safely can is the game.
The statement that seven rounds for 18 Russians = free hold of Moscow, however, is not correct. Germany can still take Moscow after the 18 dudes show up, though it usually slows them down by at least a couple of rounds (while they make any available grabs at the caucasus etc). With a good Italian can-opener, those 20 dudes (including AA) may only be one round of extra time for Moscow.
That being said I nearly always take those 18 ruskies back home.
Thanks for the reply, Teslas. You are correct about the axis taking Moscow. I just meant that if played well, by the 8th or 9th turn (hypothetically when Moscow will fall against max pressure) the allies are in place to take back Paris, Cairo, or Leningrad/Stalingrad.
- The Allies can’t seem to put a fleet anywhere effective against overwhelming Axis air power.
If the US goes Pacific, it has more than sufficient fleet after two turns of building to cause Japan to be very, very cautious. Japan winning depends on speed, and if it must be cautious it cannot be speedy. If the US goes Atlantic, making minimal purchases in the Pacific to ensure that Japan cannot win while the US concentrates in Europe, it takes two turns of building to create a US fleet that Germany cannot destroy except by Pyrrhic victory.
- Neither Russia nor UK-Pac nor China can defend itself effectively against straightforward Axis build-land-units-and-advance strategies so both will inevitably fall.
Those powers are not intended to be able to stand alone. If the other Allies do not provide help, they will fall. That being the case, they can be played well and cause Germany and Japan to lose a lot of momentum to kill (or, in the case of China, bypass), or they can be played poorly and fall quickly.
As China: don’t lose the Chinese fighter, stack it with tons of infantry, keep it out of range of Japan’s air force, and use the map to your advantage to slow down the Japanese. A gain of a single turn is usually enough to cause the Axis to inevitably lose.
As Russia: turtle and build infantry. Demand that the other Allies send you fighters to assist in the defense of Moscow. Do not try to hold both Leningrad and Moscow – you will just lose vital units you need for the defense of Moscow. Once Germany attacks, the forces in Leningrad must start retreating. Do not leave speedbumps unless it is crucial that Italy and Germany not be able to blitz. If Germany does Sea Lion, attack! The only way for the Axis to win in Europe after Sea Lion is for Russia to not attack.
- Axis lines of supply at all the major conflict points are much shorter than Allied supply lines. Axis therefore can see what the Allies are going to do far enough ahead of time to build a counter.
This is true at the start of the game, and for the first five or so turns. After that, this Axis advantage disappears because its supply lines are longer and more vulnerable, the Allies have shorter supply lines, and both powers frantically play the logistics game to keep their major conflict points from being lost.
If the Axis has not won by turn ten or so, the Axis has generally lost barring some fatal mistake by the Allies.
- Games eventually get to a “midgame” point where Russia and UK Pac are ready to fall, Axis has equalized income and nearly equalized material, and the Allies still have no strong counterattack, after which it’s just a matter of playing out the Axis win.
Absolutely not true unless the Allied players have given up and are only making a halfhearted effort.
- UK Taranto raid (effective but even holding Africa with no additional investment doesn’t help all that much)
I absolutely disagree. Holding Africa with no additional investment allows the UK to focus on Germany more effectively, preparing forces necessary to help kill Germany and take pressure off Russia when the US enters the conflict.
- monomaniacal US focus on Pacific theater (no matter how much I build, Japan can always have enough fleet + air power to keep me away from Asia, even with healthy ANZAC and UK fleet units in theater helping)
You cannot win in the Pacific. However, you can not lose. If you are going Europe first, ANZAC should be building defenses and you should be continually reinforcing Hawaii. It does not matter if India falls as long as Japan cannot take Sydney and Honolulu.
- Atlantic dominance (takes too long to build up enough of a fleet to land anywhere, and that Denmark strait block kills counter and counter-pressure opportunities)
If you pull a few fleet elements from the Pacific, it takes two turns to build a fleet capable of surviving in the Atlantic. If Germany attacks your fleet with its air force once you arrive off the European coast, you have won in Europe because Germany has lost much of its offensive power.
- UK-Europe using its builds to help UK-Pac
That sounds like the Allies are putting too much emphasis on the Pacific. India is inconsequential if Japan is incapable of taking Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco. Yes, once India falls Japan makes it into the Middle East, but that turns out to be more of a side show for Japan because much of its fury was spent killing India.
I totally get that the Allies have to stall the Axis long enough to outbuild them, but common Axis play equalizes the economic advantage too fast for that to happen, while leaving Axis with better tactical position. All the while, all the strategic choices seem to belong to the Axis side (e.g. when to DOW).
Long story short, it doesn’t seem to matter what the allies do, Axis seems to have a straightforward victory every time unless they mess up badly, as the Allies had in the original game. Bids don’t seem to help; the map layout, movement rules, unit costs and strategic bombing rules all seem to conspire to give Allies nothing to hang their hats on.
What I would love to see is how a good Axis player can be beat. Every game I observe where Axis is losing, the Axis player made horrible newbie errors and appeared to lack a basic understanding of this map.
I’ve read dozens of threads in this forum trying to figure out what those missing strategies are and I’m just not seeing it. So I guess my question is: is it worth my time to pursue this map further, or is this effectively a “solved” game for the Axis side with no hope of Allied victory? Or are there some strategies out there that give hope?
The Allied players must make a simple choice: Defeat the Axis in Europe or defeat the Axis in the Pacific. The side they choose becomes their primary focus, and the focus in the other theatre is to not lose. Some folks on these forums insist that Kill Japan First is the best course of action, and others disagree. I have seen both Allied approaches work and I have seen both fail.
Once you’ve made up your mind, do not be derailed by your plan by factors that are not going to cause you to suddenly lose where you decided not to lose. If you decide Europe first, do Europe first. Time the construction of the UK fleet and loaded transports with the arrival of the US fleet so that the US can one punch Germany and the UK can punch right behind it. By US4, the US/UK in a Europe-first strat should be forcing Germany to do defensive builds. It is very hard for Germany to take Moscow this fast, especially if the Allies provide even a modicum of support to Russia (fighters for the defense of Moscow).
If you go Pacific first, build a fleet capable of taking on Japan’s fleet. Once you have outbuilt Japan, force a fleet conflict and use subs to keep Japan’s income down while you turn your focus to Europe to defeat Germany.
Marsh
Right now the consensus is that a 20+ allied bid approaches equalization. Regardless, I think that fact that “good” players try to play the Axis more skews the results to make it look Axis favorable. Although some think that Germany buying tons of bombers breaks the game. Not sure about that; I think that strategy is actually very dicey and just as prone to sink the Axis as the Allies.
You guys are smoking crack! A 20 bid for the Allies? How could the Allies possibly lose with a 20 bid? A couple of extra infantry for China (buh-bye J1 progress!), a sub for the Med (Hello 100% Taranto win!), and a couple of units for Russia (so much for any hope of a G6 attack on Moscow succeeding!).
IMO, the real problem is the 8/6 VC victory condition. If it was, say 10 VCs total, I think that would largely balance the game.
I agree with you that the victory condition is the real problem. However, 10 VCs is not enough – that doesn’t even require Germany to take more than Leningrad for the Axis to easily win. My opinion is that it would take an Axis victory condition of 13 cities for the game to be balanced.
Marsh
How about giving the Soviets a couple extra tanks, one in Belarus and another in Archangel, giving China their own tank, using WWI1914 UK pieces (or US pieces if you are cheap), this way the weakest of the two relevant (sorry France) allies are boosted somewhat without straining too much on poor Italy (no more extra allied units in Africa), and still allowing Japan and Germany the opportunity to win.
The Soviets had plenty of tanks in the war, I feel like it’s Tank Army is under represented, and China did use Soviet and British tanks of the past to fight off Japan, not many, but still.
With regards to the discussion about supply lines - Axis supply lines don’t actually get longer. Axis captures of Russian ICs combined with SBR on Moscow moot the issue in that theater, and in the East Japan can build ICs in quite a number of effective places, later using the UK Pac home IC, while the only Allied nation that can afford to build one east of Persia is the US, and its choices are limited to Alaska and Mexico, (thanks to the “no ICs on islands” rule) - neither of which shorten supply lines. It also can’t build any in North Africa due to the 2IPC minimum rule.
Onto the balance topic, If I had the aim of making changes to balance the game, there are some items that stand out to me as Allied liabilities that could be fixed:
- Priapet Marshes impassibility is a killer for Russia’s ability to defend its territory.
I can’t say I’ve tried to think what the board would be like without it, but it also doesn’t help Germany a whole lot. It forces them to pick north or south, cutting the other side off from the support of their infantry/artillery if they want to swing their fast units back around. Maybe there’s something I’m missing.
- US should be able to get ships from the coast of the US to the coast of the UK in one move instead of two.
This destroys a large chunk of the viability of the already shaky Sea Lion. I like the option to exist, as threatening it can be necessary to keep the UK from dropping very early mICs in Cairo/Iraq/Persia. With America able to swing on over immediately and liberate them, they’d possibly be a little more gung-ho about things in the med/middle east–bad news for Italy’s pipe dream of Cairo and bad news for Germany as it looks at British units coming up through the Caucasus to join the party.
- Blockade zones shouldn’t take IPC from a nation that no longer owns the territory that’s being blockaded.
… wat?
The allies are not doomed, rather they take on a big challenge.
It is a Boardgame about WW II, so there is no way to make it start evenly/balanced for all sides like in chess. Where I have 16 pieces and you have 16 pieces.
The challenge is to overcome all the obstacles as the Ally and beat the Axis!
Work as a team and hope that the dices don’t screw your tactical plans.
It is a game where you can wrap your head arround and try to find ways to win.
You lost with the Allies a few times??
Go ahead and play Axis this time and realize where the issue with your gameplay is.
Also play others and learn by there style if there style is helpful.
As for now you can minimize a “allways Axis win” by using bids and switching opponents.
People fall most of their time against opponents they know because they try to adapt instead of going outside of the thinking box and come up with something new, better or refreshd.
The game will not neccessarily be fixed by shorten supply lines, mIC’s everywhere to be built or let all nations equally start, but will be fun and interesting by your ideas to deal with all the issue.
Use this Forum to learn and become a stronger player.
Play online here with fantastic opponents to sharpen your skills.
Yeah go for League and mess with best and you will find your self becoming and outdtanding player.
My two cents to all this!
Sincerely AeV
@Marshmallow:
You guys are smoking crack! A 20 bid for the Allies? How could the Allies possibly lose with a 20 bid? A couple of extra infantry for China (buh-bye J1 progress!), a sub for the Med (Hello 100% Taranto win!), and a couple of units for Russia (so much for any hope of a G6 attack on Moscow succeeding!)
My thoughts exactly. I’m not sure what the exact restrictions are (I think I’ve read only one unit per space and it has to be somewhere that already has at least one unit) but I don’t see how this doesn’t stack the game in the Allies favor.
Like you said: a sub in the Med is a back breaker for Italy. Hell, sub in the Med, fighter on Egypt and you can Taranto without touching any planes from London, with 4 IPC left to add a unit in Yunan.
How about another BB in the Channel? Would Germany still be able to take out 110 and 111? How about a DD in 111 and a fighter on Scotland? Again, would Germany have the resources to take out both SZ’s? If not, they’re in a lot of trouble right off the bat.
An additional inf in every Chinese territory? Two more fighters for Russia? If you’re playing a Japan player who prefers JDOW1 you could easily shut that down with additional units in key spots.
There are at least another dozen examples like this. I just don’t see it gentlemen
I agree with Young Grasshopper.
I think the developers overdid their balance effort (from ‘allies unbeatable’ in edition 1 to ‘axis nearly unbeatable’ edition 2) and we need an official correction. I have (personally) no fun in playing house rules that I know no1 else plays. Or, for that matter, only a handfull of people.
I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.
I think it is the 8/6 VC indeed, but whatever the culprit is, the axis fear factor (time) needs to be introduced again. This is the least a WW2 game needs to offer. I mean, the very name of the game (WW2) implies a minimum of historical ‘correctness’ but even if only very very hard to find, if it’s a WW2 game there has to be at least 1 historical factor that is correct: time should not be the ally of the axis!
If reinstating the 14VC again makes this happen, than so be it but if this means the axis cannot win anymore (most likely), tone this down to 13VC or 12VC or whatever number will work. 8/6 clearly does not do it for most.
@Nippon-Koku:
I am looking forward to your allied essay :-). I know you advocate a (limited) Atlantic focus and it is currently also (still) my only hope for the allies. Yet I reckon the allies still need an extremely well calculated and balanced force in the Atlantic with extremely well co-operated production from the UK and USA. 1 ship built by the wrong ally, or simply just 1 too many or 1 too few, can mean the difference between failure and victory for the allies. I know this approach very well and I don’t get this balance right every time only because of the wide variety of strategies and the flexibility the axis have at their disposal. Let alone the limited time the allies have to do it and the fact that the dice can still kill the allied well-balanced fleet. Now imagine the UK and the USA are 2 different players…
Maybe a full KJF or P80E20 approach can also work but I have not enough experience with that. And since I don’t want to be forced into a Pacific-first line of thought, I don’t think I will anytime soon.
I know for sure though that I have no faith at all in a full KGF and only a very small amount of faith in a limited Pacific focus (only a few turns of 100% USA spending here). Played it a few times, only to see how incredible easy things become for Germany, while Japan cannot be reduced below 50-60IPCs per turn, even if they make a few mistakes…
The Pripet Marshes thing is a huge benefit for Germany - Russia can only defend north or south of it, and because it has so little mobility it must choose and choose first. Germany can then easily advance to whichever side that Russia deprioritizes. The marshes then serve to protect the German advance from being flanked or cut off. It forces Russia’s defensive force to move behind the line instead of holding the line, since it can’t consolidate a counter/strafe stack in any of the the 2nd line of territories off the front without abandoning the other side.
Try playing without it, you will see it has an immense impact on the Russian defensive position, and as a consequence, also on the speed of Axis advance against it.
It just seemed weird to me that there are only three impassible areas on the board - the Sahara, the Himalayas, and… the Pripet Marshes? Why the Pripet Marshes vs. any other inhospitable place? Clearly it was placed there not for realism but to produce this very effect on the Russian defensive position.
The marshes played roles in history at the start of “modern” warfare. I mean, there’s this right here: wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes
Are there other potential places that would have affected mobility? Yes. Are they anywhere on the board that would consistently affect the game and are not already included? No. The marshes being there in a major theater of every single time the game is played makes sense.
Were they included there to only weaken the Russian position? I don’t think so.
Elk, You never responded to my “wat?” about the comment on convoying.
I feel the allies have the advantage, which I’m OK with since we did win the real war after-all. I hardly understand where all this Pro-Axis fervor is coming from. You’re worried the Axis will do these “winning strategies”? Then counter them! Screw with your opponents’ plan! Knowledge of your enemies’ intended moves is one of the greatest advantages a commander can ask for.
This is a very abrasive and callous thought, but to be extraordinarily blunt: If you keep losing, maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are?
Try thinking outside the box. Do something different!
For example:
Don’t send the 18 Far East Russians to the west. Coalesce a turn in Buryatia, then move back to Amur and start moving south. Send in a fighter and tac bomber from the west for offensive power - it’s not like the Japanese are going to spend time or money on getting AAA to the mainland.
If you’re lucky, your opponent might think you’re doing the typical retreat to the west you usually do, and will be ill-prepared for discover 20 troops at his doorstep. You can send the planes east turn 2 instead of turn 1 and have the t1 Buryatia infantry move into Yakut S.S.R. if you want to commit to the bluff.
Or, don’t bluff, and send the planes east t1. Then your capable Japan player notices he’s going to have more pressure than he’s used to, and have to plan for it. But then guess what: the advantage is on you, because there’s nothing forcing you to attack. Either you handicap the Japanese by forcing them to use men and resources to defend (making them lose momentum), or you exploit a critical weakness, or you end up killing a bunch of troops on your terms. All work out to your advantage.
While we’re talking about Russia, have them fight like they have some balls! Buy artillery (more!). There’s power in being able to threaten a counterattack even if you never execute. Or, seize weakness when you see it and make that counterattack! Maybe dance around and avoid a fight, or maybe if given the opportunity… can your stack of troops get to Berlin before Germany’s can get to Moscow? Heck, spare a mech and a tank to help out China. Exploit China’s instant mobilization ability. Go on the offensive.
Everyone talks about how Russia always falls. Well, it is outgunned by Germany, but the difference between Russia in 1940 and other A&A games is that the Soviet Union isn’t a punching bag! Unless of course all you do is sit there and take it.
Everyone knows America is the key to Allied victory, right?
So… what the heck are you guys doing?
Go for Rome! Be different!
If Britain did its job, Italy is making less than 20 IPCs a turn. And according to your Axis playbook, it’s busy doing can-openers against Russia. It simply can’t defend against the United States.
In the Pacific, in the wise words of someone around here, have the U.S. “pee aircraft carriers” and land ANZAC planes on them. Let the Brits and Anzac recapture the money islands, just clear the way for them. Buy subs, convoy disrupt the crap out of Japan. Defend what you need to defend and make expansion costly.
There are all sorts of tricks the Allies have at their disposal. I could go on, but each game is different because ultimately, the Allies still play in response to whatever the Axis decide. But here’s the key: that’s fine. Mess with their plan by threatening them enough so that they need to respond to you - and if they don’t? Exploit and win.
I never claimed to be all that great on this map (though I was a top-25 online player back in the Classic days, so I’m not a newbie either). That’s why I came seeking help unwinding this problem of standard Axis openings for which there seems to be no good counter.
I’m going to try some of the ideas put forth here and see if I can work out some combination of them that can be effective for Allies in countering those Axis strategies. Maybe enough incremental improvements in the way I play the response will be enough to equalize - I’m probably now a better player for having posted this thread and gotten the feedback from it, thanks to all.
I feel the allies have the advantage, which I’m OK with since we did win the real war after-all. I hardly understand where all this Pro-Axis fervor is coming from. You’re worried the Axis will do these “winning strategies”? Then counter them! Screw with your opponents’ plan! Knowledge of your enemies’ intended moves is one of the greatest advantages a commander can ask for.
This is a very abrasive and callous thought, but to be extraordinarily blunt: If you keep losing, maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are?
Try thinking outside the box. Do something different!
Its easy to write this sort of thing, but in practice, it is a different story. The received wisdom that G40 is pro-Axis bias is not simply a bunch of players making excuses for themselves. The overwhelming majority of upper-level League Game end in Axis victories, even with robust starting bids. That should tell you something. Your assertion that “allies have the advantage” suggests either you are trolling or simply haven’t played enough to know any better. Either way, your post is misleading.
Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map? Between equally matched players, the answer is “Yes.”
I second regular kid. I’m just starting to learn Global and it’s clear that allies should receive a bid. To be clear though, I have played over 500 games, many at the highest levels in Revised, NWO, etc.
patterns I notice in high level play:
I’m always puzzled when people make the suggestion of playing better as the solution for strengthening the weaker side. The purpose of the bid is to an even game among players at the same skill level. Such posts are often followed by bad play suggestion (e.g. keeping russia in Bury, when the territory structure so dramatically favors Japan.
I think that in G40 the axis do have an advantage now. It trails back to the Alpha project, first the Japanese where scaled back some (mostly air and positioning), but the Germans got a boost in air plus more ground units (now 11 inf in Germany). So then it was London was too weak so more AA guns……but now we know that it wasn’t enough, the allies need some more help, or the axis need to be scaled back.
I’m not a fan of an out right bid, because as others have said 20 IPCs worth of units placed at the start can be too disruptive. It’s like the allies have an out of control house rule IMO. I agree that there should be a standardized tweak to the set-up, but bitching about it isn’t going to make a difference IMO. We need to get an official tweak, and someone should start a thread over at Larry’s site to see if you can get him to bite, I nominate Young Grasshopper :-D
