• Playing for seven or eight hours recently at tripleA a game that we decided to interrupt after the 15rd to be finished later, I wondered what experience with those long games people may have. I do not have experience with long games myself because i really like to sort out things quick one way or another.

    First let me give you quick summary of the game we had: I played allies and did what i always do – the Norwegian gambit: attack on Norway with both figs and on West Russia with all the rest but one unit to block kar, leaving cauc empty but with one unit. Both of the attacks went really horrible, in West Russia I had only 6 or 7 units left, and i failed on norway completely – losing all my six units including both figs and getting only 2 hits in the process.

    This could have been game over already against an agressive axis player. but my oposition was not agressive. He did not press as hard as he could – even did not take cauc, did not take WR and did not sink the uk BB, but rather gambled to sink the cru and 2 trn off the US coast, unfortunately successfully.

    This all really had me on the ropes and set the pattern of the game: I had to do everything what i could to hold on to moscow. My opposition is a decent player but still has made several suboptimal moves but was aided with exceptionally kind dice in these early stages – most notably when I attacked his 6tnk at arch with 4inf and 7 tnk and won with only 2 russian tnks remaining. That looked like the final blow, but it wasn’t.

    I decided I had to abondon everything else and focus just on developing a route for the allied units to Europe. After a drop of 4 units to africa R2, US had all focus on shuttling the units via UK to NOR and further aiding UK already operating this way. Africa was a site of minor fights in early rounds and settled as a stallmate for many rounds with him taking 6ipcs and me 5ipcs there without anybody of us feeling we want invest in doing anything about it.

    His Japan took quickly FIC, Ind, China, sink, Aus, NZ, Hawaii. But although he had build ICs on FIC and Ind he did not send evertyhing avaliable on russia from japan but rather tried to put pressure on Western US which i believe is a major strategic mistake. He eventually took panama which I saw for the first time in my life, but i killed all his 6 units there mercilessly nevertheless.

    Although his Axis was earning more than Allies for about 5-6 rounds, the pressure on Russia was never sufficient to break it even if it had eventually to retreat everything to Moscow abondoning cauc. When the allied tide in Europe was really rising and Germans started to be worried about Berlin, he tried to get mosc with a japanese attack that had only 21 % of chance of winning with 7 defenders remaining acoording to battle calc. He failed and after 2-3 rounds of fight when it was obvious russia would hold he retreated. Although most of the 30+ russian inf was gone he payed with almost all of the jap tanks and that was the point when the fortunes of the game really started to change.

    At this stage I saw that Allies are still not in posititon to break heavily armoured Berlin any time soon and decided to use the idea of Hobbes i saw somewhere in this forum – and turned my allied forces against weakened japan. This proved to be largely succesful, i even managed to pull out the trick of US clearing persia, Russians taking India and UK producing units there in round 14!

    Of course there were some mistakes involved at those later stages of the game as the fatigue on both of us mounted (but still hey, i guess he had nice evening, while it was 4am for me at the end), but as things stand at the end of round 15 Allies pushed Japan out of mainland completely with US taking Man, Kwan, and FIC with the IC there and they are likely to hold it, uk is likely to hold india and japan reduced under 30 in production. Germany is at about 35, with Africa solidly in allied hands again.

    It looks like almost game over but of course the immense German forces started to move east perhaps for the last attempt to get moscow. I contemplate two ways forward: 1. cripple Japan permanently, putting it out of water and getting the islands with US, while using UK and russia to hold germany sacrificing everything but london and moscow if necessary or 2. using the all allied might to KGF after all, letting japan to rise again. I think i am inclined to go the first way if i got that far with breaking japan.

    My questions are:

    1. Is this the common pattern the long games tend to follow?
    2. Are there any chances for Axis to win in such a long war of attrition?
    3. What you people do when playing for so long to keep yourself alert not to make silly moves like exposing your ships in baltics or forgetting to take africa for a round or two apart of not drinking any wine, while playing, but only tea and guarana which would be a good advice but one i am afraid I am not likely to accept.


  • When I’m running short on time, I usually do some flashy 20-30% success attacks that will break the game one way or another, or resign regardless of whether I think I’m winning or losing.

    1.  Long games favor the Allies b/c of fleet situation (regardless of KGF/KJF) and difficulty of Axis in retaining control of Africa.
    2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.
    3.  On the rare occasion I do play a long game, it’s usually because I consider the game too interesting to dismiss casually.  So I take a few extra minutes each turn to think things out

    As far as long game patterns - I’d imagine usually the US sets up a transport chain from East Canada to Algeria, Japan shouldn’t screw around with multiple ICs (just buy one), and Japan maintains transport chains at Buryatia and French Indochina, switching to Buryatia dumps / infantry/sub builds when the US starts to apply pressure.  Once you stop bleeding Germany, it normally builds up enough power to pressure Russia again, but if UK maintains drops at Norway/Karelia/Archangel, it shouldn’t be a game ending problem for Allies.


  • @Bunnies:

    2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.

    Hobbes, Zhuk, Paulzy and other masters of the game, is that really true? The fact is the last game I lost was with Paulzy on 11th round with axis, when I really felt my Axis is fading and I have not much left to do to either break Allies or get superior income.

    But if that is true, the strategy of the game could be reduced on Axis trying to break Allies – or Russia more precisely – within first 5-7 rounds and Allies just staying alive before becoming to big a monster for Axis to cope with. Correct?


  • @Granada:

    @Bunnies:

    2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.

    Hobbes, Zhuk, Paulzy and other masters of the game, is that really true? The fact is the last game I lost was with Paulzy on 11th round with axis, when I really felt my Axis is fading and I have not much left to do to either break Allies or get superior income.

    But if that is true, the strategy of the game could be reduced on Axis trying to break Allies – or Russia more precisely – within first 5-7 rounds and Allies just staying alive before becoming to big a monster for Axis to cope with. Correct?

    I disagree with that sentence. The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Hobbes:

    The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

    I agree, neither side is necessarily favored in the long game.  The side that is earning more IPCs will be the one that is favored.  Control of Africa and the Pacific islands can be decisive, as well as control of Eurasia.


  • well sure but wouldn’t you say one side or the other tends to have an easier time leading in IPCs?


  • I’m going to assume veterans are the ones reading this.  So I won’t go into mind-numbing detail.

    Let’s assume a KGF plan of UK dumping to Karelia/Archangel, and US to Algeria through the East Canada.  Japan builds an early IC at French Indochina, Russia did a R1 ground build, preventing Germany from holding Karelia for any length of time, UK prevented Germany from gaining a foothold in Africa and prevented Japan from moving into the Mediterranean through the Suez.  UK or US killed the German BB/transport on UK2/US2, or Germany built carrier with Libya dump with accompanying weakness vs Russia on later turns (regardless of the logistic advantage of S Eur to Balkans/Ukr dump, which is not too awful if Russia’s maintained control of WR, which it did b/c of early Allied fighters.  Allied subs in Pacific harass Japan to either force destroyer build for sub hunting, or battleship escorts (both acceptable).

    Pretty average game.  UK builds minimal fleet protection, US builds minimal fleet protection, Japan grabs territory, Germany grabs territory.  Russia drops SFE, Buryatia, Yakut, US drops China and Sinkiang, UK drops India and let’s say Australia.  Germany drops Norway, Algeria, Libya, and West Russia.  That’s Allies dropping 12 IPC, and Axis dropping 7 IPC.  The Allies start with 96 IPC worth of territories, Axis 70.  With the change in territories, that’s still 91 Allies 75 Axis.  The Allies have better long term income in the midgame after control of Africa is established.  You could claim New Guinea and French Madagascar for Axis, but it’s still not great for Axis.

    But the Allies also have a logistic advantage in Africa.  US East Canada-Algeria drops requires 2 turns after production (produced East US, march East Canada, drop to Algeria).  Furthermore, it only requires 1 US transport to keep this route.  Japan will have 7 units a turn at French Indochina, with an IC and 2 transports from Japan, but that already requires 2 transports.  Let’s say the transports are a sunk cost; French Indochina still requires 2 dedicated transports a turn to drop to Africa; it’s only at India that you can use a single transport to drop.  But India is a forward location near Caucasus, and Japan will have to do the heavy lifting in the attack against Russia.  Can Japan REALLY bleed off units to Africa, with 6 US units following 6 US units every turn there, and diverting early pressure from Russia?  But US is not similarly hampered.  The constant chain through Africa presses on Japan’s southern reinforcement line, relieving pressure on Caucasus.  That is, Japan is bleeding away from its main attack to hit Africa; US goes through Africa anyways.
    So much for midgame.  Allies maintain economic advantage.

    How about late game?  Japan pressures Kazakh/Novosibirsk, and Russia collapses at Caucasus, Belorussia, and West Russia.  That’s 12 IPCs more to Axis, say 13 with Evenki.  But just what are the Allies doing all this time? Either UK should have started rolling Germany up from Karelia, or US and UK should be hitting W Europe with 11 / 8 units (8 ground plus 3 air from London, 6 ground plus 3 air from East Canada, with 3 US transports at East Canada and 3 US transports at Western Europe maintaining a steady reinforcement stream) - becoming 11/11 pretty quickly.  Or maybe US is just ramming 10 units a turn in through Persia, or US is grabbing Pacific islands.  Anyways, the outcome is still contestable.

    How about endgame?  Moscow can fall, so long as Berlin follows.  With Russia and Germany both fallen, Allies typically have the advantage.  Japan will have a lot of units, but can only produce 12 units a turn at Moscow and Caucasus.  UK/US can produce at Berlin and Southern Europe for 16, and use transports for another 16.  Even then, Allies have a huge logistic advantage in Atlantic with ability to drop infantry almost anywhere on coast, which Japan cannot do.  Japan will really need a huge unit advantage to overwhelm Berlin or Southern Europe before the Allies can stop it - but it should not be able to do this, since the Allies should have at least 3-4 turns to build reinforcements (assuming Allied blocking of Jap forces); with the logistic setup from Allies, 3 turns means 48 Allied units just from transports alone, let alone production at Berlin and Southern Europe.

    So put it all together.  Allies have economic advantage early game.  Allies have economic advantage midgame.  Late game, Allies might not have economic advantage, but they may, and they will definitely have a logistic advantage.  Plus, they can afford to lose Moscow, while the Axis can probably not afford to lose Berlin.  So it comes down to, how much earlier will Moscow fall than Berlin?  If Moscow falls a lot earlier, Japan can race in to save the day.  If not, it can’t.

    But regardless, the longer the game goes on, the better the chances the Allies have.


  • @Zhukov44:

    @Hobbes:

    The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

    I agree, neither side is necessarily favored in the long game.  The side that is earning more IPCs will be the one that is favored.  Control of Africa and the Pacific islands can be decisive, as well as control of Eurasia.

    My point in the post I just put up was that I think Allies are able to maintain economic advantage in the long game.  I think they should be able to control Africa, normally.

    Hobbes’ answer is more accurate, in that it doesn’t assume one thing or another. I assume the Allies keep their fleets, and that Africa is controlled by the Allies, because that’s what I expect to see.
    But my reply does not account for things like, say, 1 German sub/2 fighters/1 bomber attacking a US fleet of 3 destroyers 1 carrier 1 cruiser 2 fighters 4 transports and destroying the whole thing, while Germany maintains control of Africa.  In such a case - yes, the game would go on longer, yes, the Allies would be in bad position, yes, the Axis would have a better chance to win over the next 4-5 turns, and you could say such a game was a long one as Germany turned its economic advantage to good use against Moscow and defense of Berlin.

  • '16 '15 '10

    As Allies, I find it very difficult to hold Africa against an expert Axis opponent.  The shuck to Europe is more important for the Allies and its difficult to build enough surface navy to protect 2 shucks while maintaining momentum.  Shucking to Africa is particularly hard if you’re up against something like Hobbes’ Fortress Europe (a long-game strat) where both Germany and Japan have lots of air power in Western Europe.  Finally, in a KGF game Japan has the logistical advantage in Africa, since they dominate Egypt and drop directly into the heart of Africa from India.

    If you’re saying that Allies are likely to win the game eventually if they hold down Moscow and Africa then I agree.  But in my experience Axis are just as likely to win the long game because there’s plenty of ways for them to get the economic edge without having to take a capital.


  • @Zhukov44:

    If you’re saying that Allies are likely to win the game eventually if they hold down Moscow and Africa then I agree.  But in my experience Axis are just as likely to win the long game because there’s plenty of ways for them to get the economic edge without having to take a capital.

    Many thanks for your reflections. Given the balance of the game, I guess in a game where both sides are capable of holding the capitals and it really starts to drag, it really should come down to the question of who controlls Africa without spending too much in the the process of controlling it.


  • You guys seem to play quite a bit, so you’ll get a handle on the rules pretty quickly. In the mean time, I would suggest not playing with any house rules. The game is very ballanced as-is, so give it some time before you change things up. We played two games last weekend, same teams on the same sides both games: the Axis won the first, and the Allies won the second. Like I said, it is a very ballanced game. We do use the optional rule for industrial bombing raids, but that is listed in the rulebook, so I don’t consider it a house rule.

    We’ve talked about moving up to the the Global 1940 game, but the fact is that we’re finally comfortable with the 1942 rules, and since we only play once every month or two, we’ll stick with what we’ve got for a while. I never liked winning or losing because of a rule issue, and now that we’re familiar enough with the game, outcomes are decided on strategy and to some extent, dice. Our games are very interesting; no house rules needed.

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 7
  • 12
  • 4
  • 7
  • 16
  • 3
  • 18
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts