2nd edition strategy Allies



  • We have played A&A 1940 global, 2nd edition for some time now but the Axis always seems te get on top. And we are very experienced players, we have played all A&A-games…

    Does anyone have some insight into a strategy we can use to defeat the Axis?

    The last time I focussed on defeating the Japanese fleet, but before I could realy make an impression (buying 6 fleetpieces a turn with the US in the Pacific) Germany was taking Moscow and I still hadn’t taken Norway…  :x

    Please help!  :? :? :?

    Thanks!


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    The Axis are hard to beat out of the box. You need to give the Allies extra units or remove some from the Axis.
    People playing League here, generally give around 20 extra income’s worth of units  to the Allies. Most use it in the Med. Maybe try that.



  • Thank you, but is this the only way? And what is your strategy for the allies? Japan first right?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Generally, yes.


  • 2015

    Japan first has the advantage of being pretty straightforward.  There’s a lot of debate about whether it’s even possible to win with a Germany first strat.

    The most important thing for being Allies that I have noticed is that you need to stick to your strategy.  Don’t build a weak fleet in the Atlantic and then start building up in the middle east.  Do one or the other.



  • @wittmann:

    The Axis are hard to beat out of the box. You need to give the Allies extra units or remove some from the Axis.
    People playing League here, generally give around 20 extra income’s worth of units  to the Allies. Most use it in the Med. Maybe try that.

    Basicaly what most people do is ensure that italy is screwed over before it can even move so the axis cannot win in europe anymore, in a timely fashion.
    This gives you all the time to go full on japan for a few rounds before you even have to consider germany.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    The Allies pretty much can’t win unless Russia OR China is strong.  Like strong enough to be on the offense.
    Some players (not me) are able to bolster Russia significantly and actually defend Moscow for a very long time.

    You do need to modify the starting setup a bit if you want the Allies to get roughly a 50% chance to win.  The game developers over-compensated from earlier editions where the Allies dominated.


  • 2015

    I have been having pretty decent success with giving the USA +10 IPCs/turn. This includes on its first turn, where it receives 62 instead of 52.

    It’s simple and it doesn’t change the initial setup.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.



  • Thank you all! Now I know it’s not just me… 😛

    And can anyone give some insight on how the allies should play to win the game? Japan first or Germany first? In our experience, when it is Germany first, Japan can never be beaten…

    When I attack Japan (which I always do after playing a few times), it is very (!) difficult to conquer Norway. Germany can always prevent that, if it really want’s to…


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Well, lots of different opinions, but most will agree you do not ignore Japan too much early.

    I prefer a MOSTLY Pacific approach, with a certain level of constant presence in Europe.  You want to be able to threaten to take Denmark with USA and Berlin with UK, you want to be able to threaten any Italian fleet with America, and I think you want to threaten to take and hold French complexes with America (or Norway, as you have talked about).  This means a transport or two, a carrier, couple destroyers, couple subs, 1-2 bombers to threaten to disable bases for the UK to attack, and a couple fighters.

    So kind of a 85-15 or 80-20 or 90-10 approach.

    I win over 80% of my games playing on this site, and am currently defending my league champion title in a league of 50 players…. just to assure you I know this game well and have played it a lot



  • @Gamerman01:

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.

    Actualy this is a huge difference, giving the USA 10 extra money is units that cannot be used to change the opening battles.
    Some opening battles, taranto comes to mind, are really important and can change the game from the start.

    But 20 extra you could even give france 7 extra inf on it the first round. That would mess with germany the first round. Suddenly taking france isnt automatic ( even with LowLuck you hardly win) You need to divert air to do it and no way you take south france or normandy that turn.



  • We find that the problem lies within the oob victory conditions, here is our group’s house rules for victory which have worked out quite well for us.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35671.msg1395764#msg1395764


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Gamerman01:

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.

    Actualy this is a huge difference, giving the USA 10 extra money is units that cannot be used to change the opening battles.
    Some opening battles, taranto comes to mind, are really important and can change the game from the start.

    But 20 extra you could even give france 7 extra inf on it the first round. That would mess with germany the first round. Suddenly taking france isnt automatic ( even with LowLuck you hardly win) You need to divert air to do it and no way you take south france or normandy that turn.

    Nobody in the league plays that you can add even 2 units to the same territory
    You have a preference not to change the opening setup - I don’t care.  No need to argue it.  Everyone does what they like.



  • @Gamerman01:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Gamerman01:

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.

    . . . .
    But 20 extra you could even give france 7 extra inf on it the first round. That would mess with germany the first round. Suddenly taking france isnt automatic . . .

    Nobody in the league plays that you can add even 2 units to the same territory
    You have a preference not to change the opening setup - I don’t care.  No need to argue it.  Everyone does what they like.

    Shadowhawk may have gotten the bid mechanics wrong, but the essence of his point is still valid. 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, as one person already noted, 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 (not to mention historical interest).

    An alternative to this double-digit bid is a “Balance Mod” conceived of of by Adam514, myself, and several other players, using 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.

    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”).

    G40BalanceModv3.tsvg



  • @Gamerman01:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Gamerman01:

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.

    . . . .
    But 20 extra you could even give france 7 extra inf on it the first round. That would mess with germany the first round. Suddenly taking france isnt automatic . . .

    Nobody in the league plays that you can add even 2 units to the same territory
    You have a preference not to change the opening setup - I don’t care.  No need to argue it.  Everyone does what they like.

    Shadowhawk may have gotten the bid mechanics wrong, but the essence of his point is still valid. 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, as one person already noted, the bid is often used in the Med/North Africa to kill Italy in its cradle, transforming those areas into dead 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 (not to mention historical interest).

    An alternative to this double-digit bid is a “Balance Mod” conceived of of by Adam514, myself, and several other players, using 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.

    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”).

    G40BalanceModv3.tsvg


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    To each his own
    I agree 2nd edition badly needs to be houseruled, and I am also doing one but have been busy winning another league championship, but I do not agree that 20 in bid units to the Med, North Africa is so terrible, and as I already said I don’t need you to agree with me because I don’t even play with you, so don’t bother to argue.

    Adding a bunch of small National Objectives is a really good idea.
    I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.  Maybe that’s just a preference you guys like to play with and isn’t meant to balance, I don’t know, but you list it under “balanced mod”

    I see you also fixed the retarded Russian NO money from Italian African cheeeeeeeese
    My opponent in the league championship game is milking those to the max  😛
    All part of the game….

    But I do laugh when you say the bid is bad for historical interest, because the whole game is so ahistorical regardless of whether you have a bid or not or whether you play with your houserules that that argument is laughable in my opinion



  • Thank you all again! This has been very helpful!

    But in my opinion less is more, so I think I would rather remove some units then add a few: perhaps removing Italy’s battleship (exactly 20 IPC’s ;)) in the next game will give us a more balanced game. This way we don’t have to alter much.

    And I like the idea of extra bonuses for the allies, and as a historian (I wrote a book about WW1 and my book on WW2 is almost finished) I think I will add bonuses to Britain as a Lend-Lease construction. This will also balance the game, for the US is busy in the Pacific…



  • @Gamerman01:

    I agree 2nd edition badly needs to be houseruled, and I am also doing one but have been busy winning another league championship. . .

    You mean the game thats been proceeding at glacial pace for months now? How do you find time for anything else?!

    @Gamerman01:

    I do not agree that 20 in bid units to the Med, North Africa is so terrible, and as I already said I don’t need you to agree with me because I don’t even play with you, so don’t bother to argue.

    Sharing ideas/perspectives = arguing? hmmm.

    @Gamerman01:

    I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.

    Don’t know what you mean by “equal.” As in both sides can do it? Definitely agree there. But, from a balance perspective, the purpose of increasing the fighter defense to 2 is to limit Dark Skies. It seems to work too, since the fighter stack that inevitably grows in Russia is usually enough to deter strategic bombing runs, when the axis player only has spam bombers to send at it. A small point, perhaps, but it relates to balance (among other things).

    @Gamerman01:

    But I do laugh when you say the bid is bad for historical interest, because the whole game is so ahistorical regardless of whether you have a bid or not or whether you play with your houserules that that argument is laughable in my opinion

    Obviously, the game at least purports to be historical. A setup that completely stifles Italy’s engagement in Afirca from the outset is less so. Its a question of degree. For example, your endorsement of eliminating the Russian NO for occupying Africa suggests that you share a concern for historically. Efforts to improve historically while also improving balance and gameplay = good. Glad you got a laugh from it. 😉


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    @Tolstoj:

    Thank you all again! This has been very helpful!

    But in my opinion less is more, so I think I would rather remove some units then add a few: perhaps removing Italy’s battleship (exactly 20 IPC’s ;)) in the next game will give us a more balanced game. This way we don’t have to alter much.

    And I like the idea of extra bonuses for the allies, and as a historian (I wrote a book about WW1 and my book on WW2 is almost finished) I think I will add bonuses to Britain as a Lend-Lease construction. This will also balance the game, for the US is busy in the Pacific…

    I would remove two Japanese Air (FT and Tac) over the Italian Battleship. Whatever you try, I  Hope it works and the next game is better for all players.



  • @regularkid:

    @Gamerman01:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Gamerman01:

    Change the setup - give a power more money every turn - same difference.

    . . . .
    But 20 extra you could even give france 7 extra inf on it the first round. That would mess with germany the first round. Suddenly taking france isnt automatic . . .

    Nobody in the league plays that you can add even 2 units to the same territory
    You have a preference not to change the opening setup - I don’t care.  No need to argue it.  Everyone does what they like.

    Shadowhawk may have gotten the bid mechanics wrong, but the essence of his point is still valid. 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, as one person already noted, 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 (not to mention historical interest).

    Bids are house rules, it would be unwise to asume that everybody uses the same rules or even thinks that they are OK. If someone tells me you can spend 20ipcs on units im free to place them anywhere. Some allow units in zones that you dont have units in some people dont.

    But with bids nobody wants to make it a fair game they want to gain an unfair advantage. That is why there is nearly always a bid in the med, destroy italy change it to a boring theather of war without the opponent having any chance of changing that.

    Without changing the rules and the outcome 2 much, how about just changing the factory in france to a minor from the start of the game and then let france go first, but now allow it to make combat moves. Or for realism let them go first but make italy and france neutral from the start of the game untill italy’s first turn.

    Btw changing the russian NO to 6 iso 5 for lend lease is pretty decent but changing the 5 for UK europe to 12 that cannot be contested the first turn, and with tarranto at least a few turns might be a bit 2 much. It also makes sea lion unviable because of the extra money UK has round 2.



  • I think bids is a healthy part of any axis games. It does not really matter that much who has the advantage with perfect play from each sides, the only thing that matters is which side has the advantage with the skilllevel of the players. No axis game is ever going to be balanced for every skill level. I remember the first few times I ever played the original axis, I thought it was fairly well balanced then.

    So, no matter what axis I play, I always include a bid, that way each player can bid based on their opinion on who has the advantage.



  • Cow has a good house rule where all the South American territories including neutrals and standing armies are under American control to start the game. It’s easy, clean, and gives the Americans a more realistic economy while expanding their Atlantic range when not at war.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @regularkid:

    You mean the game thats been proceeding at glacial pace for months now? How do you find time for anything else?!

    Classy.  So you’re disappointed my game isn’t ready yet for you to play?  Why else would you care?

    Sharing ideas/perspectives = arguing? hmmm.

    You’re arguing.  Call it whatever you want, I don’t care.

    @Gamerman01:

    I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.

    Don’t know what you mean by “equal.” As in both sides can do it? Definitely agree there.

    That’s what I thought.  You think the Axis does a lot more SBR than the Allies.  Hasn’t been my experience.
    Again you insult me.

    Thread is over anyway.  Original post was addressed and finished a long time ago.  Just devolves into yet another discussion about balance and bidding.  So stupid


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Thinking about this, I do have time to respond to this  😄
    @regularkid:

    Obviously, the game at least purports to be historical. A setup that completely stifles Italy’s engagement in Afirca from the outset is less so.

    Really??  Italy starts with lots of units in Africa.  Historically the Allies DOMINATED the Mediterranean, so much so that the Axis couldn’t reinforce their Africa holdings.  Without the bid, it’s horribly ahistorical.  A lot of players dominate huge areas with Italy and Italy becomes a major player.  That’s ridiculous historically speaking.  So admit it - the reason you don’t like the bid to the Med is just because it’s fun to get Italy going and have more dynamic gameplay.  Don’t even try the “historical” card there……  That’s absurd.

    Its a question of degree. For example, your endorsement of eliminating the Russian NO for occupying Africa suggests that you share a concern for historically.

    Yes I do to some degree, just as you rightly pointed out.

    Efforts to improve historically while also improving balance and gameplay = good. Glad you got a laugh from it. 😉

    Yes, agree again


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 9
  • 27
  • 46
  • 13
  • 6
  • 51
  • 40
I Will Never Grow Up Games

42
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts