AA42/AAR vs. AA50 balance

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Ok, so I was just thinking recently about the differences between these 3 versions of Axis and Allies and their effect on the game.

Revised has the basic map/setup that is similar to the older versions of Axis & Allies, 5 countries, & the older prices and stats for the units (no cruisers, battleships cost 24, and transports can defend).  In this version, most people agree that the Allies have the advantage in winning the game.

AA50 has a new map/setup with more territories and sea zones, most of which are added to Eastern Europe and China (apparently to better represent the distance between Moscow and Berlin, and Moscow and Tokyo).  Also, introduced is a new system of prices and stats for the units (new cruisers & lower costs for some units, as well as defenseless transports), as well as the addition of Italy for 6 playable countries.  However, in this version, most people claim that the Axis have an advantage.

Another factor that contributes to the game balance on AA50 are the National Objectives. They are optional but plenty of people seem to use them (and there’s talk concerning whether their inclusion balances or unbalances the game more). Another major factor contributing is definitely the inclusion of Italy because of the effect they can have against Russia.

1942 has the same map/setup as Revised with the abbreviated territories in Europe and Asia, and 5 countries, but it also has the new unit system from AA50, and yet most people state that the Allies again have the advantage over the Axis.

I’ve been playing 1942 more than AA50 because it is simpler and quicker games, so I’ll stick more to my opinions regarding it. Overall, so far I think the game is balanced (I play without a bid). There aren’t many players going for it though, since AA50 seems to be the preferred version. I think because of all the differences in map, number of countries, etc. and the fact that 1942 is an upgrade to a game that many played over and over.

The advantage in 1942 being the same as that in Revised, and opposite from that in AA50 would seem to suggest that the change in unit systems did not affect the balance of the games.  The question then is whether the AA50 map that attempts to make it harder for the Axis to get to Moscow isn’t effective in helping the Allies, or perhaps the AA50 setup favors the Axis too much in position or unit value?  Or is the difference simply that having a 3rd Axis country allows the Axis to be more versatile and better able to thwart the Allies?

I’m interested to see what people think, so post your reasons and discuss if you wish.

The effect of unit changes really leaves a mark on 1942 gameplay. Germany’s 1st turn usually now consists in sinking the UK ships on SZ2 and taking Egypt, even if Russia took Ukraine on R1. This refrains the Allies from landing units on Algeria because there’s no way to defend them from german subs and planes, and it also can serve to protect Norway. Usually on Revised you only needed a loaded AC, the UK BB and the US destroyers and BB to protect the Allied fleet on the Atlantic. Now you need plenty of destroyers/etc. to protect both the UK fleet and the US fleet transporting ground units to the UK/Algeria.

Also, Japan’s position on the Pacific is weaker. The UK and US subs can’t be sunk by Japan unless the Allies decide not to submerge the subs and there can be a lot of threats to Japan. Its transports are now useless to either attack/defend in case the US decides to go Pacific.

Another difference: the lower cost of bombers combined with the defenseless transports. If Allies go KFG then Japan should buy 1 bomber each turn and send it to Europe in two turns (using conquered Egypt or Trans-Jordan). A large japanese airforce in Europe can make it really hard for the Allies, because Japan plays between UK and US and can take advantage of any openings left after the UK fleet has moved.

the inclusion of NO’s changes it from a “better win soon as the axis or you are doomed”, to a “better win soon as the allies or you are doomed” game for aa50

Another difference: the lower cost of bombers combined with the defenseless transports. If Allies go KFG then Japan should buy 1 bomber each turn and send it to Europe in two turns (using conquered Egypt or Trans-Jordan). A large japanese airforce in Europe can make it really hard for the Allies, because Japan plays between UK and US and can take advantage of any openings left after the UK fleet has moved.

You know, I had to laugh at this.  I had posted the subject of limits on cooperation b/w the Western Allies and Russia.  Being the history nerd that I am, it never would have occurred to me to send Japanese bombers to Germany (and now that I know, I still couldn’t get myself to do it)!

@DougR:

Another difference: the lower cost of bombers combined with the defenseless transports. If Allies go KFG then Japan should buy 1 bomber each turn and send it to Europe in two turns (using conquered Egypt or Trans-Jordan). A large japanese airforce in Europe can make it really hard for the Allies, because Japan plays between UK and US and can take advantage of any openings left after the UK fleet has moved.

You know, I had to laugh at this.  I had posted the subject of limits on cooperation b/w the Western Allies and Russia.  Being the history nerd that I am, it never would have occurred to me to send Japanese bombers to Germany (and now that I know, I still couldn’t get myself to do it)!

Historically it might make no sense for this to happen (although there were examples of German/Italian subs/surface raiders operating on the Pacific and Indian oceans) but the game isn’t meant to be a faithful representation of WW2 (if so the starting production levels would be grossly unbalanced towards the Alllies).

You may choose to play it so and create your own house rules to approximate it as close to reality as possible but with out of the box rules there’s nothing to stop you or your opponents to do so.