Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map?

  • Sponsor

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    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.

    The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

    War Bond Campaign
    The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

    Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?


  • In my gaming group, we play with a house rule: The only national objective used is USA getting the extra 30 IPC’s. I think it makes the game more realistic. The axis win about 30% of the time in our group.


  • @Young:

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    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.

    The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

    War Bond Campaign
    The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

    Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

    Does the US start with 15 base or something? I’m not seeing how it gets 21 IPC’s in round 6 in your house rule…

  • '17 '16

    US1
    US2
    US3
    US4
    US5
    US6
    1+2+3+4+5+6= 21 IPCs

    FWIW, I really like this time ticking bomb against Axis, YG.
    Is it enoug though?
    If not, makes +10 IPCs US and Japan at peace NO reciprocal.


  • As Wild Bill pointed out, the starting bid necessary to “balance” the game (20 PUs or more, according to many experienced players) is so large that it effectively stifles early game development. For example, the bid is often used in the Med/North Africa to kill Italy in its cradle, transforming those areas into stagnant zones, rather than the dynamic theaters of war they were intended to be. Does this make the game more balanced? Maybe. But it also makes gameplay less dynamic and more mono-dimensional. The net result is to reduce the game’s strategic depth.

    As an alternative to this double-digit bid, a “Balance Mod” conceived of by Adam514, myself, and several other players, and playtested extensively, uses National Objectives as way to generate  income for allies in the later stages of the game (when they need it most). The NOs balance the game while also enriching its strategic and historical dimensions. It works. Its awesome. It has also developed a reasonably large following.

    The revisions are as follows (attached is playable saved game with the NOs built in):

    Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

    Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

    **REVISIONS    **

    Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

    **Additional National Objectives  **

    UK

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece (“Southern Europe Beach Head”).

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or pro-Allied controlled (“Control of Mediterranean Shipping Lanes”).

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127 (“Control of Atlantic Shipping Lanes”).

    • 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and Egypt; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81) (“Control of Indian Ocean Shipping Lanes”).

    USA

    • 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“Western Europe Beach Head”).

    • 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories (“North Africa Beach Head”).

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam (“Pacific Airbases”).

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas (“Vital Forward Bases”).

    Revised National Objectives

    Russia

    • 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe (“Spread of Communism”).

    • 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is open if Russia is at war with European Axis and no allied units are present in any originally Russian territories: (Persia, sz 80), (Amur, sz 5), (Archangel, sz 125); An additional 1 PU per open Lend-Lease lane if Japan has declared war on Russia (“Lend Lease”).

    G40BalanceVariantv4.tsvg

  • Sponsor

    @Baron:

    US1
    US2
    US3
    US4
    US5
    US6
    1+2+3+4+5+6= 21 IPCs

    FWIW, I really like this time ticking bomb against Axis, YG.
    Is it enoug though?
    If not, makes +10 IPCs US and Japan at peace NO reciprocal.

    If the +10 IPC at peace NO was reciprocal, I wouldn’t implement the War Bond Campaign until America is at war, which would probably make more sense anyways. Also, if you do that for the US, it should probably be done for Russia as well in regards to the 5 IPC at peace NO for Germany.


  • The ultimate test of balance is whether the best Allied players can go toe-to-toe with the best Axis players.

    If they can’t, then the game is not balanced, regardless of any other factor. People have playtested and analyzed this game thoroughly enough to try everything worth trying.

    If they can, then the question is: what are the best Allied players doing that the rest aren’t?

    Take as an example, those Russian inf in the east. What to do with them and why? Bring them home always for Moscow defense? Use them offensively when focusing on Japan? If used offensively, do you bring in tanks and/or planes to support them? Is a bomber buy appropriate in that case? Should there be an extra inf or three pushed into Chinese territories south of Mongolia to trigger the war pact if Japan attacks them? Are there a set of Chinese/UKpac/ANZAC/US moves and buys that are necessary to make this kind of initiative successful? Are these good moves against certain Axis openings and bad ones against others? If so, which ones? Etc.

    Feels like whole-map coordinated allied strategies are missing, even though there is a lot of point-level advice out there.

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    The one thing I did once in a game to balance it long term was to give USA +5 increasing +5 every turn.  So 5 R1, 10 R2, 15 R3 etc so by turn 8 USA is 90ish, putting real pressure on the Axis to win.

  • Sponsor

    @SubmersedElk:

    The ultimate test of balance is whether the best Allied players can go toe-to-toe with the best Axis players.

    If they can’t, then the game is not balanced, regardless of any other factor. People have playtested and analyzed this game thoroughly enough to try everything worth trying.

    If they can, then the question is: what are the best Allied players doing that the rest aren’t?

    Take as an example, those Russian inf in the east. What to do with them and why? Bring them home always for Moscow defense? Use them offensively when focusing on Japan? If used offensively, do you bring in tanks and/or planes to support them? Is a bomber buy appropriate in that case? Should there be an extra inf or three pushed into Chinese territories south of Mongolia to trigger the war pact if Japan attacks them? Are there a set of Chinese/UKpac/ANZAC/US moves and buys that are necessary to make this kind of initiative successful? Are these good moves against certain Axis openings and bad ones against others? If so, which ones? Etc.

    Feels like whole-map coordinated allied strategies are missing, even though there is a lot of point-level advice out there.

    A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.


  • @Young:

    A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

    That’s not necessarily a question of balance but of strategic depth. A good game should have both of course.

    My fear is that so much of the G40 map is scripted by the particulars of its design that it leaves no room for strategic depth even if it were balanced. For example, some have said that they have seen games go well without UK doing the Taranto raid, but can they do so against quality Axis players? If not, that attack is effectively scripted by design. When I analyze Allied-side choices, many of them are essentially scripted responses to Axis openers, since deviating from those responses can only produce worse results than the script. When you boil it down to optimal openers followed by scripted responses, it becomes a one-player game (all choices on Axis side), and not a terribly fun one at that.


  • Wow…I didn’t realize that the game that I have so much fun playing was so screwed up and unfair.  There are a number of posts along the forum that sound like whining rather than newre players trying to discover what experienced players have done over the years with the purpose of becoming better players.  When all is said and done, it is a game.  Have fun with it.  Try something and if it doesn’t work,  try something else.  If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.  We had to in real like anyways.  To get back to the opening question: are the allies doomed from the outset on the G40 map?  No.  Are they at a disadvantage?  Maybe but that’s what makes playing the allies so much of a challenge and thus fun.  Guys…Just have some fun.  The world is hard and nasty enough without bringing into our leasure time.  Just an old man’s opinion I guess.


  • @Dafyd:

    Wow…I didn’t realize that the game that I have so much fun playing was so screwed up and unfair.  There are a number of posts along the forum that sound like whining rather than newre players trying to discover what experienced players have done over the years with the purpose of becoming better players.  When all is said and done, it is a game.  Have fun with it.  Try something and if it doesn’t work,  try something else.  If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.  We had to in real like anyways.  To get back to the opening question: are the allies doomed from the outset on the G40 map?  No.  Are they at a disadvantage?  Maybe but that’s what makes playing the allies so much of a challenge and thus fun.  Guys…Just have some fun.  The world is hard and nasty enough without bringing into our leasure time.  Just an old man’s opinion I guess.

    There wasn’t anything on this thread that genuinely qualified as “whining” until you showed up. Please don’t derail my thread with get-off-my-lawn protests. Not everyone shares your just have another beer approach to wargaming, for some of us the analysis is not only also fun, but an essential part of playing well.


  • @SubmersedElk:

    @Young:

    A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

    That’s not necessarily a question of balance but of strategic depth. A good game should have both of course.

    My fear is that so much of the G40 map is scripted by the particulars of its design that it leaves no room for strategic depth even if it were balanced. For example, some have said that they have seen games go well without UK doing the Taranto raid, but can they do so against quality Axis players? If not, that attack is effectively scripted by design. When I analyze Allied-side choices, many of them are essentially scripted responses to Axis openers, since deviating from those responses can only produce worse results than the script. When you boil it down to optimal openers followed by scripted responses, it becomes a one-player game (all choices on Axis side), and not a terribly fun one at that.

    For what it’s worth, It’s my experience that Axis and Allies is inherently scripted on both sides with one optimal strategy that dominates all others. This is my experience on Revised, 1941 v3, Big World, Global 1940, Lord of the Rings, and New World Order.

    Then again, the optimum strategy is complex enough to execute that few/nobody humans can actually attain it. It’s similar to Chess, where state of the art computers have nearly solved the game such that the computer can look at each point and evaluate the decision tree of outcomes to select the best one. The parallel I am drawing is that there’s an inherent optimal play in both game structures, not that Axis and Allies has good AI (doesn’t yet.)

    Still, Axis and Allies is a fun game that’s certainly captured my attention across over 500+ full games.


  • @Dafyd:

    Wow…I didn’t realize that the game that I have so much fun playing was so screwed up and unfair.

    Sry to disillusion you

    @Dafyd:

    When all is said and done, it is a game.

    Wait, you mean we’re not controlling real world events with our moves?! Gay

    @Dafyd:

    If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage. We had to in real like anyways.

    but I thought you said this was just a game? Now its like real like? I’m confused.

    @Dafyd:

    Guys…Just have some fun.

    Yeah, come on, guys. Stop having a discussion you find fun, and lets just have some fun

    @Dafyd:

    If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.

    We did. We changed the rules. Problem solved.


  • @regularkid:

    @Dafyd:

    If the axis have an advantage then learn ways to overcome the advantage.

    We did. We changed the rules. Problem solved.

    This sounds like poor will to solve a challenge  :wink:
    In “real life” (like Dafyd said) you’ll find many hard challenges… and you can’t change the rules  :evil:

    I think that Axis hasn’t an advantage… it has “initiative” (at the start) that is another thing.

    My group (about 15 players) is playing a G40 tournament. We played over 80 matches with bid 0… and the outcomes are nearly 50%


  • @MarineIguana:

    For what it’s worth, It’s my experience that Axis and Allies is inherently scripted on both sides with one optimal strategy that dominates all others. This is my experience on Revised, 1941 v3, Big World, Global 1940, Lord of the Rings, and New World Order.

    Then again, the optimum strategy is complex enough to execute that few/nobody humans can actually attain it. It’s similar to Chess, where state of the art computers have nearly solved the game such that the computer can look at each point and evaluate the decision tree of outcomes to select the best one. The parallel I am drawing is that there’s an inherent optimal play in both game structures, not that Axis and Allies has good AI (doesn’t yet.)

    Still, Axis and Allies is a fun game that’s certainly captured my attention across over 500+ full games.

    That’s fine IF there are less-than-100%-optimal strategies that are still playable and viable. The ideal case allows for maximum creativity.

    To bring up the chess example, there may technically be a “best” play in any given situation, however, there are often dozens of viable plays that can still be winners, some of which may even be situationally better than the technically-best play in the context of an opponent who is less familiar with them and thus less able to find the optimal counter-play. Just crack open a book of chess openings - even if white opens very conventionally and conservatively, black doesn’t have to do the same to have a strong and viable game.

  • Sponsor

    @regularkid:

    Wait, you mean we’re not controlling real world events with our moves?! Gay

    **Out of respect for our gay members on this site, please do not use that word in a derogatory manner.

    Thank you.**


  • @Young:

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    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.

    The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

    War Bond Campaign
    The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

    Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

    Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

    As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

    1940        1941      1942      1943        1944          1945
    Allies      40            60          123      150          180            190
    Axis        35            50          70        80            70            60

    And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they  allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
    These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…


  • Well, if we’re gonna play by history the axis powers are doomed. The only reason the Germans held out so long is because they had a superior way of fighting (tactics: Auftragstaktik, operational: improvisation/Blitzkrieg, but that advantage wore off during the war…).

    In strategic terms the axis powers never coordinated their war efforts. Germany took on Russia, and Japan the US. Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, and Japan had a bad experience fighting the Russians (a certain general Zhukov defeated the Japanese in the 1930’s).

    So perhaps the Germans need a bonus to in A&A… ;)

    But I really would like the powers to be more balanced, and I don’t think giving the US a extra 5 IPC a turn is adding to the fun of the game. Which is personal of course. Better give them an extra bonus in my opinion, or change the set-up.

  • Sponsor

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    @Young:

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    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.

    The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

    War Bond Campaign
    The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

    Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

    Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

    As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

    � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1940� � � � � � � � 1941� � � � � � � 1942� � � � � � 1943� � � � � � � � 1944� � � � � � � � � � 1945
    Allies� � � � � � � 40� � � � � � � � � � � � 60� � � � � � � � � � � 123� � � � � � 150� � � � � � � � � � 180� � � � � � � � � � � � 190
    Axis� � � � � � � � � 35� � � � � � � � � � � � 50� � � � � � � � � � � 70� � � � � � � � � 80� � � � � � � � � � � � 70� � � � � � � � � � � � � 60

    And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they� � allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
    These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…

    problem is, nobody is gonna play it… you can take a simple rule like The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, but it won’t ever replace the bid system until Larry endorses it. I’ve read tons of great house rule ideas over the years for balancing G40 way better than the bid system, and they all got buried in the house rule forum. Now the G40 discussion forum is getting over run with house rule talk because there’s nothing for experienced players left to discuss other than the balance issue. If Larry or Kevin introduced or endorsed a simple modification that gives the Allies a boost, the bidding and setup alterations would end, but it’s the only way it ends.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 4
  • 3
  • 40
  • 9
  • 8
  • 13
  • 29
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts