Bonehead European setup?

@Der:

In the current global setup, as the British player you can do nothing at all with your scattered and vulnerable navy but watch as the Germans decimate practically everything afloat,

Another example is the Italian DD and transport setup next to Malta. What smart player would do that with British airpower nearby? They are automatically destroyed every opening turn with no chance to do anything.

I will echo and amplify some of the points brought up earlier: it is necessary for the balance of the game. No, the British did not get their entire Navy sunk in 1940, but if the Axis are to have a chance in hell of winning this boardgame, they must have the opportunity to strike quickly, heavily and on multiple fronts. Spendo02 said earlier that if the UK Navy is not destroyed on turn 1, Germany is pretty much screwed. If it is not destroyed (or mostly) on turn 1, UK consolidates its navy and reinforces it, so much that it becomes utterly suicidal for Germany to attempt an attack. Not that Germany could not win the battle, but they would lose so much irreplacable equipment in the process that it is a strategic loss. But if Germany did not attack and destroy it, the UK would conduct invasions every turn on Western or Northern Europe distracting Germany from putting pressure on Russia and therefore effectively ending the game. Even if the Royal Navy is mostly destroyed on turn 1 they have the resources, territories and allies which allow them to rebuild and be a threatening force to the Germans. Even with this situation in G40 1st, how many times did the Axis win…? Not very many.

Also, is this issue not the case in almost every Axis and Allies game, to a similar degree? I have not played G40 2nd Ed., but G40 1st Ed. is situationally almost identical I believe. The UK Navy gets trashed, fends off attack, rebuilds and invades… happens almost every game. Similarly for A&A Revised, and Anniversary Ed.

On the UK’s side of the coin, it is a similar situation. The UK has important decisions to make, there are pros and cons to attacking and not attacking. The best course of action may be for the UK to attack the fighter and transport as you say. Most times it will work, sometimes it will fail. The dispairity between a fighter and a destroyer is pretty small. Plus, fi this is the only such situation for the Italien Navy in G40 2nd, then it is actually an improvement over the previous situation in G40 1st, where they could launch a full scale Taranto raid and possibly wipe out 80-100% of Italy’s navy on turn 1.

@Der:

My point is, the game should not be set up so that vital and expensive units will get trashed the first turn without you having any say in it. The player himself should make the vital decisions for victory or defeat in each battle - not the setup cards. I mean, why even have those units out there in the first place if that’s the way it is going to be? Why not just start the game out with the British having no navy around England, for example? That’s the way it usually looks by round 2 anyway.� �

Because it is necessary to give Germany the choice of attacking them or not. There are pros and cons to both; ultimately the decision is in the hands of the German player. However, in the interests of survival and a chance at winning it is almost necessitated that Germany attacks the UK and eliminates its threat for a while. This is effectively what Germany did in 1940, without sinking all of the Royal Navy. It was called the Blitz for a reason; the British were on their heels and reeling for a time against German attack. The possibility for a German invasion of Britian was contingent on air superiority, not whether or not the Royal Navy still existed; because it did still exist but that did not matter. Britain was saved by her air force. In this game, history tends to be modeled well in the beginning of the game. Britian is relatively weak and threatened by invasion. Most of the time, she fights off invasion, only to be reinforced by the United States. By which time Germany’s attention and main objective has become the USSR anyway. For being a vastly simplified version fo WWII, it tends to follow historical events in a recognizable fashion; showing how inevitable and necessary certain actions were.

And if no “vital” units (whatever those are defined as) are in harms way on turn 1, there will be little risk and little reward and every game will become even more the same.

The setup will always be, or need to be, something like it is: Axis big push at the beginning and Allies comeback to dominance (providing the Allied players are not incompetent). The real differences from game to game will be dictated by (1) chance (rolling) and (2) choices by the individual players. With people playing these games like supercomputers crunching numbers, a “best course of action” will inevitably be worked out. Experienced players will go with this 99% of the time as it will prove to yield the best possible results. That is why the choices of players comes second to chance or rolling. If (again, with experienced players) all the decisions become more or less predictable, the only thing that will cause different decisions to be made will be the outcome of battles based on rolling. Rolls can result in unpredictable events which may necessitate a strategy different from what you normally see. However, if you were to play with relatively inexperienced players (or ones who are new to a version fo the game), then most games will be unique and a bit more interesting.

@Spendo02:

The Germans would never be able to even think of advancing against Russia if the UK was allowed to keep its fleet intact.  6 Ftr scrambling over what ships the UK has equates to a very early amphib landing by the allies.  The only way to counter that would be to deny the UK via game rule no landings until the US is in the war and lands on the same round as the UK.

Germany would need a significant bump in production and/or starting units if you let the UK keep her Navy (in this game).  Which then means Moscow needs more units to keep the balance.

Sea Lion existed, just at great cost for the Germans.  I think this game reflects it rather well considering putting all your resources into a single VC at the cost of giving Russia plenty of IC’s and basically making Moscow a fortress isn’t always a wonderful idea.

Well said.

The flipside of Sealion being a little too playable because the Royal Navy gets obliterated on G1 is that British chances of successfully landing in Western Europe in 1940 (in game time) is zero - and THAT is an absolutely essential requirement for this (or any?) game to work at all, perhaps as essential as limiting America’s reach until war-conditions prevail.

@Der:

But why was it that the British did not land units on Europe basically from 1940-1944? Was it that they had no navy, or that the Germans were so strong on land?

Probably. The UK by itself could not have defeated Germany and would not have commenced such a substantial invasion without American support. So maybe a rule like you proposed could work… but I am not sure that I like limiting Allied choices like that. It means Germany can go wild in Europe for 3-4 turns not even worrying about UK or US. Then it is basically Germany against Russia for 3-4 turns… and Russia will get steamrolled. By then it will be too late for the Allies, because German industrial production will prevent them from ever gaining a foothold in Europe. Plus the UK becomes basically as boring as the United States for the first half of the game.

Historically, the Western Democracies were generally less willing to “waste” their armies on attrition or battles where they would not have a distinct advantage, which is one reason for them waiting so long to invade. And this tends to be the case in G40 anyway. The Allies will not make a substantial invasion until they have enough forces to back it up. It would be more inaccurate to prevent the Allies from even having the option of invading because it takes away from player freedom to do what they want and introduces an artificial construct to gameplay. Germany will know there is not even the threat of invasion so they don’t even have to prepare for one (and this rule would allow them to know on what turn it will come)… which is a situation that was not true at all in the war.

@Der:

I’ll give you an example of a thoughtful setup from the Pacific side. the navies start out scattered and unable to destroy one another round 1. The USA has a cruiser, DD, Tspt and sub by Hawaii. Japan could sink it with PART of its navy on J1 before the USA even gets to move. But then if it did the USA could counterattack with the bulk of its Navy in SZ10, thus discouraging Japan from doing so most of the time. With NOs and other considerations, generally nothing happens much on that side of the world round 1. That’s good. The setup does not dictate who wins there. It is your decisions FOLLOWING the setup.

You are implying here that who wins is already pre-determined by the setup; in this case, Germany will win because it can sink most of the UK’s large naval units at the beginning. I personally have never heard anyone make such an assertion regarding this game, even if it is complained (and justly so) that the game favors one side or another, which is another matter. I personally do not believe that the setup is so biased that it determines the game.

Germany has plenty of decisions to make on Turn 1; definitely more than any other nation. Germany’s air force is its most important (and fragile) weapon. To defeat the Royal Navy on Turn 1, they must use it and pray they roll well and the UK rolls poorly; otherwise it is Germany who can get screwed at the beginning. The German air arm is also essential in playing the Eastern front well and simultaneously keeping the UK at bay as it builds up after Turn 1. If Germany loses even a quarter of its planes at the beginning of the game it can be disasterous and is almost impossible to recover from while at the same time balancing other needs. Overall, Germany is in a much more delicate situation in Turn 1 than the UK is. Yes, Britain is under threat of invasion, but that is basically an all or nothing gambit for Germany which is not, I believe, a typical strategy. I think that if we are really concerned about a Sealion being too easy, then we could modify or create another rule instead of not allowing something. For example, if Germany were to reach a certain threshold of transports or had a certain threshold of units grouped in Western Europe (presumably for invasion purposes), etc… then the United States could enter the war, or the Soviet Union could enter the war… That in my opinion would be a better idea, because it does not prevent anyone from doing what they want to, but it does add some consequences for those actions and makes people (Germany) think twice about it.

@Der:

Now you move over to the Atlantic and you see practically the whole British navy lined up for destruction. For the German player, there is really no bad consequences for attacking all of these exposed ships. The USA and Russia will stay out of it. There is no UK counterattack other than sinking what’s left of Germany’s battleship and sub(s), which aren’t vital to Germany’s plans anyway. That is why you see the same German move over and over. In chess it would be like setting up a game where your knight is exposed at setup and your opponent goes first. Well of course he’s going to go get it every time.� �

If the UK is in a position to mop up remaining German naval units on the next turn, then I don’t see what the big deal is here. If we are not talking (directly) about a Sealion type attack being staged but simply about the UK getting its ships blown up and then continuing the war… then what is the concern other than that it is not adherant to historical events? If there is a universally good move at the start of the game, yes, you will take it any time; anyone will. Japan does (mostly) the exact same thing every game on Turn 1; as does the US, and USSR and everyone else. Turn 1 should be the most predictable turn in the game. Chess is a poor analogy because the mechanics of the game are vastly different. There are no aberrant factors such as income and territory spaces and differing force sizes or compositions; each Chess player is absolutely equally matched in setup and strength as his opponent; no one is supposed to have the advantage. It is very different in Axis and Allies where the Axis are supposed to have the advantage early in the game, just as they did early in the war. And again, in my experience, and I think safe to say most everyone else’s here, the Allies usually win. Their economic advantage over the Axis is considerable and they need to use it to their advantage. They still need to play intelligently, but you have to be both smart and lucky to win with the Axis. If that is the case, as I believe it is, Britain losing their ships at the start of the game is not an insurmountable obstacle.

@Der:

The most reasonable solution to this is to set up the UK so that it can have its navy and airforce but not much else.

I hope that I have pointed out why this is not accurate and why it is essential that Germany be allowed to try to destroy them if they so choose. Additionally, there is no way for the UK to keep its Navy and Air Force and NOT everything else. “Everything else” would be Land Units, which Britain will always retain on Turn 1 because (other than those in France) Germany cannot get to British land units on Turn 1. The Italians hardly can either. So basically, you seem to want Britain to retain everything on Turn 1.

@Der:

But Churchill was no fool and the setup should reflect that.� � � � � � � � � � � �

No he wasn’t. But the setup also reflects the UKs character as a worldwide power. The entire Royal Navy was not anchored at Scapa Flow for the duration of the war. They were in the middle of the Atlantic protecting convoys, in the Channel on patrol, off Scandinavia wary of Norwegian alliance and later escorting convoys to Russia, in the south Atlantic pursuing German raiders and in the Mediterranean fending off Italy. I think it is erroneous to assume that all or most of the UKs ships should be in a single sea zone.

I am sorry if I seem to be angry or judgemental here. I am not, and do not mean to be. I am just forceful and convinced on my opinion… and because I think I am right.  :-D

But then again, don’t we all…

@Der:

@knp7765:

I agree that it sucks having Britain losing most of it’s Atlantic navy right off the bat, but in most cases, it costs Germany a lot of it’s planes and subs.

Hmmm…Well I’ve never seen Germany really hurt at all by attacking Britain’s navy G1. They just use their huge airforce for hitting and then take off a few $6 subs for any German casualties. They then have a huge paycheck on G2 from the French conquest to replace anything lost.

Ya but its very risky for germ to buy more navy.  It makes it more difficult to take our russia and it buys the allies alot more time.

Can we just say that the reason why everyone plays the same turn 1 moves is that this game has been played so much that people have found out the most optimal turn 1 attacks?

@ghr2:

Can we just say that the reason why everyone plays the same turn 1 moves is that this game has been played so much that people have found out the most optimal turn 1 attacks?

Exactly. That was one of my points; there is a consensus on the best moves on Turn 1 for G40. I am not certain how much the setup has been changed for 2nd Ed. but so far I have not seen anything to suggest it is significant.

If you want to try new Turn 1 attacks it is your prerogative as a player to do so. However, I would not expect your opponent to do the same just because you are. If you play to win, you want the best way. And I do think there is a consensus on the best way, for both the Axis and the Allies. Anyone who goes after Germany at least has the benefit of observing how well Germany’s attack went and conforming or altering their plans accordingly.

Worst case scenario for the UK is their Navy is 90% wiped. If this can be expected, and you plan for it accordingly afterward, anything else that happens can only be positive.

With NOs and other considerations, generally nothing happens much on that side of the world round 1. That’s goo

? Most of the time Japan declares war Round 1. Phil+borneo+kwangtung+FIC is too good to pass up. Screw pearl harbor. Also you get to do the same china attacks. Woopy do he holds yunnan for a turn +2 inf china but uk pac -2 inf. Free naval kills and bigger income boost to japan. Plus 1 island down already and ready to pony up for the next set.

I think it depends on which groups of players you play with.
~

The difference between J1 and J2 is small enough that I don’t care. I just dow J1 because I want to start the game. People don’t sit down to do nothing for the first half hour.

J1 I am killing a bship, sub, dd, fighter, and some infs.  J2 those units have gone away, but I get to dow and pretend it is a better opener when it is just a more conservative approach to japan.

Europe on the other hand is messed up, you are killing a capital and a fton of infs, 2 capital ships, bunch of cruisers, and usually a dd and transport on top.

Like Japan’s battles are nothing in comparison and JAPAN JUST SAID SURPRISE I AM ENTERING THE WAR. What is that? UK and Germany are already at war and here germany is opening a can of ownage… meanwhile Japan gets to surprise the allies only to take a few islands.

From that perspective, europe is totally wack.
~

Not to mention, Germany can steam roll Russia since logistically it is a huge headache to even try to hold thanks to the new and improved +2 bombers, from Russia’s view germany starts the game with heavy bombers. Then you got the whole sea lion threat, which dictates UK1’s buy to all infantry or maybe 1 fighter and the rest infantry if a battle went well.

It is just stupid, but I got over it. I just bid for allies.
~

If you are a true axis warrior like me, you will give your opponent a 14 ipc bid, 1 unit per territory, units can be placed only in spots you have units already in, no china, no france. This pretents overloading/G1 fail france attack is silly/china having another fighter to toy with.

What happens is the game can turn into a real race or it can be crazy. usually uk gets 2 ipc to make full 10 inf round 1, a couple subs get dropped or 2 inf in a key spot and a sub elsewhere. Sometimes Russia charges korea round 1. Which is fun.

~

Honestly, I just think russia should get a bomber, everyone would feel better about russia including the axis. And like 1 more inf for egypt, because UK already feels bad about buying only inf round 1 for london.

Both sides have valid points.

The UK navy getting destroyed G1 doesn’t feel right to most of us (w/o much consequence to Germany), but it has been this way in every global AA game though. The latest arrangement of the Royal Navy around England in Alpha+3 (3.9) is better then it was. Before the Germans had even less risk in taking it out, now they can lose a couple planes.

If you don’t allow the Germans to hit the bulk of the RN, then you have to bulk up the Germans to fend off early landings in Europe (will they keep them in western Europe like you think, or use them in Barbarossa, or an ill advised Sea lion?). Large early UK landings in Norway or France would be a game changer (much of the German income is tied to Norway). You can say UK can’t make landing until US is at war etc…, but that’s a crock, add this rule that rule…etc (too many special rules now). What happens if Japan DOW J1?

Lets face it if the UK is allowed to keep the RN at the scale it starts the game with, the game is broken. It is much cheaper to buy ground units for an invation, then naval/air units to protect the fleet to bring over the ground units. The UK wouldn’t have to worry about the Germans landing in London, because they could just merge their fleet (with scramble) to block out the Germans (the Germans can’t kill it w/o taking too big of a hit). UK will dominate Africa even more then they do now, and Italy becomes non-playable (unless you inflate them even more). If you reduce the RN at set-up, then you get “hey the RN was much bigger then that and the game doesn’t reflect it properly”.

The way I look at it is that the Germans are allowed to smack the UK navy to keep the game flowing (it’s fun as the Germans to kill off all those Brit ships). The UK needs to re-build the RN (stalls them), which in my mind is the English pulling their resources from around the world to the home fleet.

I’m not against a new set-up (would be fun to participate). If you move the RN out of harms way, it will have a domino effect for each power that is hard to predict w/o months of testing. You have to basically start from scratch. I’m not saying it isn’t worth it, but there is more to it then then just moving a couple ships in the set-up, and re-tooling the UK a bit. One thing to consider is a turn order change, or if order stays the same, starting Italy off as a neutral power, not allowing the UK to attack them UK1, Italy DOW on their 1st turn (admittedly another special rule). That would lead to a re-arrangement of the Med though so again each little change is like a tentacle into another part of the game.

I think IL lead the charge with Italy being neutral, but it didn’t happen though  :-(  so I’ll just give him his koodo’s now so he doesn’t feel like he has to jump in to take credit :-D   not that that will stop him from doing so  :roll:

@Der:

How will Russia get steamrolled if Germany has to keep enough infantry in Normandy to deal with the US and Britain’s largely intact navy on turn 3? Russia’s capital is not in danger until G6-8 in the games I’ve seen.

All Germany has to do is build enough units to counterattack a turn before a prospective invasion. Personally, I don’t think you need to put many units in Normandy. France itself is the important territory. Plus, the best use of Italy is to make units to defend Western Europe from Allied invasion. (Obviously, Italy needs to expand, esp. into Africa… but that aside.) For at least two turns, probably three, Germany can focus all of its resources on blitzing Russia as fast as possible. As long as Germany’s attack on France goes well to moderate, Germany should be able to keep most of its attack units in France or Germany instead of removing them East.

Besides, infantry can’t keep up with tanks and mechs, which is what Germany needs on the Eastern front: mobility. Any infantry that makke it out there besides those already on the border, are a bonus.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

Plus the UK becomes basically as boring as the United States for the first half of the game.

How so, when all the action at the beginning of the game for the UK is in Africa and the Middle East?

There is action in Egypt, but that is it. The rest of Africa has nothing going on but redeployment and one-on-one infantry battles. The Middle-East is barren of virtually any activity other than activating a neutral or two. India, if you want to count that even though it is seperate, likewise builds up and consolidates if it has not been attacked.

My point was that if a rule such as you proposed were implemented:
@Der:

How about a rule that the UK cannot put land units in Europe until there are US land units in England? That would give Germany 3-4 turns.

then the UK’s hands are tied and becomes exactly like the US. If the Axis waited until turn 4 to bring the Allies into the war, it will not be until turn 5 that the United Kingdom can attack Europe, because the US won’t be able to put its units in Britain until the end of turn 4. This also means that Italy itself is invulnerable in that time frame. If my method of the Axis defending Europe were used, Italy could both build up a sizable force in France and concentrate attack on Africa with no fear of invasion. This will allow them to wait until it is convenient for them to reinforce Europe while spending all their money to attack UK world holdings if they so desire.

The Royal Navy can rule the waves if they want to, Germany won’t try to compete, but the UK will be effectively impotent for half the game. Almost to the degree of the US, but not quite. All the while Russia will be getting pounded and curse the rulebook.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

…introduces an artificial construct to gameplay.

Which is exactly what Britain’s naval setup is!

In a purely historical sense, yes, it is. But it is the framework of the game, and has been since the A&A series began. In this way, the setup is part of the rules and has been proven to be the best balance of historical accuracy and game playability. The bottom line here is that if in the first turn Britain is allowed to keep 2 Battleships, 1 Aircraft Carrier (w/tac), 4 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 transports (http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-europe-1940-second-edition/) and then consolidate them and build more for turn 2; Germany cannot fight Russia and the game is over. Wild Bill seems to agree. Even if the UK was allowed to keep half of that navy, German would have a significant problem. That doesn’t even count the French ships, some of which would necessarily remain in that situation.

The point is that history cannot be perfectly observed. To have a playable game where both sides have (if not equal then close) chances of winning, something has to give. Maybe in the case of Axis and Allies it is the Royal Navy. I mentioned this before, and Bill touched on it too, that this has in effect been the same situation in every global version of Axis and Allies, from Revised to Anniversary to G40… Britain’s navy gets mostly wiped out. I don’t know why you have not complained similarly for those games? The only difference here is the scale; there are more units involved so the loss is more noticable. in terms of proportions, it is roughly the same as previous games though.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

I personally do not believe that the setup is so biased that it determines the game…

That’s not my complaint. The setup may be balanced, but it is arranged so that the Royal Navy looks like a bunch of boobs. And the British player has no chance to do anything about it but watch it sink. My proposition is an ammended setup/rule(s) that allow all the PLAYERS to decide the outcome of round one, not the opening setup.� � � �

What can you do?.. honestly. Everyone else has accepted the fact that this is what happens to Britain in the game, always has been. It doesn’t tarnish their important role in the game or end their effectiveness… not by a long shot. If you are really worried about how the British look or come off more than anything else, I don’t think that is a very good reason to change a system that works and is not completely ahistorical. Personally, I have never sat back and thought, “Hah, those Limey idiots, positioned all their ships so they’d get sunk in round 1, what morons!” � I recognize the British were not really stupid and that a game is supposed to end up somewhat different than history… otherwise why play?

And that is the other point, the players do get to decide. The rules don’t say that the German player must attack the Royal Navy on turn 1, they choose to. Nobody complains that Japan can completely overrun China in the game if they so decide. That never happened in the war and would have been logistically and militarily impossible for Japan to do. Yet it is easy for Japan to do in A&A. The Japanese player usually chooses to do so because it is a good strategy. It isn’t the player’s fault if they are more intelligent than some World War II dictators were.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

Germany’s air force is its most important (and fragile) weapon. To defeat the Royal Navy on Turn 1, they must use it and pray they roll well and the UK rolls poorly; otherwise it is Germany who can get screwed at the beginning. …

Really? Have you run the odds calculator in the TripleA program for Germany’s opening attacks on the Royal Navy? I have and in SZ111, the odds are 100% German win with 6.13 out of 7 attacking units left. In sz 110 it’s a 97% German win with 3.59 units of 8 left. Germany generally loses 2 fighters doing this. Germany then gets 19 IPCs From France to buy two more fighters. I don’t see Germany under any stress here.

@LHoffman:

Overall, Germany is in a much more delicate situation in Turn 1 than the UK is.

Wow - I don’t see how you can believe that when the UK is spread out all over the world with multiple fronts to manage and Germany is just bunched up in Europe alone.

No, I have not. As Garg knows, I have yet to challenge him in a TripleA match. However, I have played many times in real life, and am telling you what my experience shows. I did not say that the Germans usually lose; they do not. It really depends how you as Germany split up your naval and air units in attacking France and the British/French ships. Germany can lose aircraft in naval battles easily if your rolls do not turn out as the odds say they should. My point is that in a given game anything can happen. Rolling can determine games.

Rarely, if ever, is Germany ruined on this attack, but they can be hurt because their situation is fragile. It may not seem like it because they have so much in the way of men and materiel, but they use up a lot of it and don’t have nearly enough money to sustain replacements throughout the game. They must move quickly and efficiently to take Russia, where it is easy to get bogged down, cut off and have an unfortunate defeat. Maybe you have not played as Germany much, because you might appreciate the difficulty they face a bit better. Retaining the Royal Navy as is at the start, and naturally adding to it, will prevent Germany from having the possibility of winning the game.

And as for Germany being cooped up in Europe… yes they are, but that doesn’t mean their position is easy. Germany has two fronts which can rapidly morph into three. While having all its territories grouped closely together might seem convenient for defense, they are beset on all sides and the Allies taking and keeping any one German territory can be very dangerous to Germany’s security. The same cannot be said of the UK; its decentralized nature and isolation as an island capital are benefits. Taking Egypt, or Gibraltar or South Africa or even Canada would not seriously threaten the United Kingdom as a whole. To take them out of the game you have to take Britain. Which is 1) challenging and 2) mostly impossible after the US enters the war. To take Germany out of the war, all you have to do is encroach on them a bit and cause them to get less money. Eventually they will sputter out.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

And again, in my experience, and I think safe to say most everyone else’s here, the Allies usually win.

If the Allies usualy win, then why is every bid I’ve seen given for games here always for helping the Allies?

Never played with one myself and the Allies do fine. Seems to be the same consensus here, so I am not sure where you are getting your “every bid for the Allies” comment: � � � http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28609.0

@Der:

@LHoffman:

So basically, you seem to want Britain to retain everything on Turn 1.

The UK should not have to lose 92 IPCs worth of navy (including the French BB) before it can even move.

Life ain’t fair. The game is not fair, though it is mostly balanced. You could lodge this complaint for a couple nations. But the same thing would happen to Germany if the UK were to go before them. I know they don’t, but it is still a relevent point even if it is a what if. Somebody has to go first, therefore somebody has to have the advantages going along with that. The best way for the game to work (and most historical) is to have Germany be first. That is just the way it happens.

Maybe try begging the German player not to sink the Royal Navy.

@Der:

OK how about this:

• Germany has five territories in Western Europe to defend by the time G1 is over. Germany also has a major and two minor IC’s in this area. So make the setup where Germany ends up with 6 infantry and 2 AA guns on each of these territories by the end of G1.
• Take away all British transports in the Atlantic and give the Brits ONE infantry on England, one on Scotland, and one in Canada.
• Take away a Brit BB and Brit cruiser by England and replace it with a Brit carrier w/one fighter, to reduce shore bombardment threat.
• Give the Brits only one DD in the Atlantic.  Â
• Move the Italian Navy all together at Toranto.

Not sure I understand you here. How does reducing the numbers of British ships make Germany not still attack them on G1? And by saying “make the setup”, are you effectively writing the results of G1 as a rule?

@Der:

Now on UK1 the Brits will have to shore up their defenses in Egypt and Africa because of the intact Italian navy threat. And, under the most favorable conditions, the UK would need at least another two rounds of buying 2 transport + inf + art for $28 to even threaten Europe. And this is while they are trying to buy enough DDs to chase the German u-boats around that are convoy raiding. There’s your first three rounds of no real UK intervention in Europe.          Â

These are assumptions… And effectively you are boxing the UK into a certain sequence of purchases like you were complaining about in being forced into buying 9 infantry on UK1. What if the UK player decides they want to push Germany hard first and spend all in Britain? What if they want to reinforce Egypt from India? What if they don’t care about German U-Boats… I just ignore them or bait them into attacking my heavy ships; no need to waste money on pretty much useless destroyers.

@LHoffman:

@LHoffman:

And again, in my experience, and I think safe to say most everyone else’s here, the Allies usually win.

If the Allies usualy win, then why is every bid I’ve seen given for games here always for helping the Allies?

@LHoffman:

Never played with one myself and the Allies do fine. Seems to be the same consensus here, so I am not sure where you are getting your “every bid for the Allies” comment: � � � http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28609.0

LHoffman, while i agree with a vast majority of you points, i just don’t understand at all the reasoning behind those comments…
On the given link, the poll clearly shows that half of the voters think that a bid is not necessary, while the other half think a bid is necessary for allies.

So, if this poll shows anything, it is that the Axis have the advantage. There is not a single vote for an Axis bid…
Go into the "play boardgames"section of this forum, and you are going to find dozens of games with a bid for allies, while you may not find any game with a bid for Axis.

^^^ so true.

I am at a point where I am usually not bidding below 10 and I just take the axis and give it to the allies.

When I am in the mood to play the allies, I don’t like going below 8, I want the full 10 inf for uk 1 and a sub.

I agree; 8 seems to be the magic bid for allies.  With $8 you can get a UK sub and build 1 more inf in London (if allowed to keep the $2 change), or you can get 2 artillery in Alexandria or Szechwan (if allowing chinese units in the bid), or perhaps a destroyer somewhere.  My pick is still the destroyer in z104 for its effect on sealion.

I prefer 1 unit per territory, no china, no france, place units belonging to a power where that power has existing units (in other words place where you have units already with the same country). Leftover income is saved.

That keeps funny things from happening. Some people do 1 unit per territory + country must be at war. Leftover income is saved.

Once in awhile you will run into someone that says bid must be fully spent and no restrictions to bid.

In which case I just roll korea round 1 and forget about it.

In that case an extra UK destroyer in z106 might do the trick.  Either 3 subs go to 106 and Germany takes air losses in z111 and z110, OR the Canadians reinforce London (plus z109 destroyer not needed to clear z106 convoy raid), OR luftwaffe preserved and no Canadians but z111 fleet survives.  All 3 options negative for sealion.