Are Allies doomed from the outset on G40 map?



  • I am a bit confused. Germany and Italy seem to be crushing Russia from what I can gather from this thread. The axis players are bypassing Africa and leaving the $ to uk Europe. What is the UKeurope doing this whole time? Are they not landing troops in Normandy? Are they just shuffling fighter planes to Moscow? A western front relieves more pressure off of Russia than fighters in Moscow. If the German Air Force is bogging down the uk navy doesn’t that mean less $ being spent towards the eastern front? So what IS UKeurope doing?



  • What about the NOs? I am only playing with +30 to USA when at war. It plays well.
    Are the Axis powers grabbing so many NOs early that it shifts the balance too quickly? I don’t hate the NOs in the game but I have always felt they should not have such a large part In the game.



  • @Flying:

    What about the NOs? I am only playing with +30 to USA when at war. It plays well.
    Are the Axis powers grabbing so many NOs early that it shifts the balance too quickly? I don’t hate the NOs in the game but I have always felt they should not have such a large part In the game.

    The US only gets +20 from NO’s at war, if they’ve lost the Philippines.



  • @KimRYoung:

    Grasshopper, I’m afraid Larry’s interest in doing anything further with this game has passed and that any play balance will have to come from the community.

    That said, the bid is long accepted as the most agreed upon means, however to put some new life into that system for more strategic variability, how about inverse bidding? The bid is instead of ADDING units equal to the bid for the Allies, but is instead for that amount in units belonging to the Axis that will be REMOVED from the set up!

    How much are you willing to give up as the Axis knowing that your opponent will be REMOVING that amount of units of yours of Their Choice?

    A 20 point bid is now possibly 2 less Axis fighters, or a capital ship, or a couple tanks and a transport, the options are endless. The Axis may have to totally alter the Standard Opening’s and rethink their first turn attacks.

    If the Axis advantage is material, then TAKING AWAY some of that advantage just might be much more effective than Allied bid additions, as well as taking away some of that early initiative with well calculated attacks.

    What does Japan do with 4 less Infantry and 2 less Artillery do in China? How effective is Germany with 2 less Fighters to take on the UK navy? Italy could suffer a major disaster in Africa!

    Think of the possibilities and then rethink what the bid might be. The options could really dictate some major strategic thought on both sides.

    Kim

    you could screw over Japan pretty hard if you removed their starting transports


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @SubmersedElk:

    you could screw over Japan pretty hard if you removed their starting transports

    You could also wreck the Med game by removing the Italian battleship (or hey, the cruiser and transport that normally survive past UK1 instead). You could wreck Germany by removing 3 or 4 tanks from Europe, making sure that Paris is an utter bloodbath for Germany AND insuring that at least one UK fleet survived because Germany would be forced to commit aircraft to the Paris battle.

    I think this last one is my favorite under that bidding system. The UK has the core of a fleet surviving and France costs Germany so much that Russia gains a whole turn of life while Germany rebuilds.

    IMO, this is a bad way to do bids.

    However, I also think that giving bids by putting actual units on the board is a bad idea. I think that all bids should be IPCs in hand (to be divided among the side getting the bid as the players choose) simply because it can lead to more variety of play, and frankly variety of play is much desired in a highly-scripted game.

    Marsh


  • 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @Flying:

    I am a bit confused. Germany and Italy seem to be crushing Russia from what I can gather from this thread. The axis players are bypassing Africa and leaving the $ to uk Europe. What is the UKeurope doing this whole time? Are they not landing troops in Normandy? Are they just shuffling fighter planes to Moscow? A western front relieves more pressure off of Russia than fighters in Moscow. If the German Air Force is bogging down the uk navy doesn’t that mean less $ being spent towards the eastern front? So what IS UKeurope doing?

    Usually trying very hard to hold on to Egypt.



  • you could screw over Japan pretty hard if you removed their starting transports

    possibly the best counter-argument against taking off the units, but still its a nice Idea


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    I don’t know if someone has already said it, but according to the 2015 league results, of 461 games played, axis prevailed 251 to 210 for a 54% win margin over the allies 46%.

    8% swing in favor of the Axis isn’t huge, but it is definitely indicating there is some advantage there.  This is also in the face that 20ish bid had become standard in the 2015 league.

    It’s hard to ferret out if that win margin stands among players of equal skill or is the result of good players beating up on weak ones. I don’t think so since Gammerman has a weighed point system to entice better players to play against players of equal skill.  Maybe he could do a data analysis on that.

    Regardless, it looks like 30ish bids are the way forward IMO.



  • What I have found is that Yes the Axis powers start off with a huge advantage over the Allies on all fronts and it is very difficult for the Allies to match the Axis powers let alone surpass them in materials and income (US exception because they are the most powerful nation in the games soon as they enter the war) the best way to play the Allies I find is a mix of spoiling attacks wherever possible (attacks where you either knock the Axis player down to 1 unit in the territory then retreat while your force still holds a strong presence or take a territory like Norway in a raid which requires the axis player to react a d counter attack taking units away from their main effort) and providing reinforcements to Russia and in the pacific, to the island of the East indies (the gold mine as I call it for Japan). It is costly and takes a few turns to really show its teeth but eventually you will find the Axis lacking in Infantry on all fronts, mean while powers like US and Russia can build up massive counter attack forces and when they go on the offensive effectively mark the end of Axis superiority and put the initiative in Allied hands, but as many of you have pointed out its a long road for the Allies and a costly one at that.



  • @Karl7:

    I don’t know if someone has already said it, but according to the 2015 league results, of 461 games played, axis prevailed 251 to 210 for a 54% win margin over the allies 46%.

    8% swing in favor of the Axis isn’t huge, but it is definitely indicating there is some advantage there.  This is also in the face that 20ish bid had become standard in the 2015 league.

    It’s hard to ferret out if that win margin stands among players of equal skill or is the result of good players beating up on weak ones. I don’t think so since Gammerman has a weighed point system to entice better players to play against players of equal skill.  Maybe he could do a data analysis on that.

    Regardless, it looks like 30ish bids are the way forward IMO.

    Well my personal view on this is that even if you got 2 players of equal skill that does not guarantee that they are both equaly skilled playing both sides.
    Allies require a different mindset and a different playing style then the axis. Mind you mindset and style have nothing to do with skill. Compare it to soccer some are experts at attacking others are experts at defending it does not say 1 is better then the other but swithing places isnt a smart thing.

    In my opinion this also holds true for playing allies or axis. When i started playing against a friend of nearly equal skill ( always hard to determine exact skill level ) both of us could not secure a win with the axis and both would easy win with the allies. Disregarding skill level we should win with axis more if axis where favored all the time. But our playstyle really favored allies or it sucked for the axis.
    Now this forum has a lot of good players writing down guides on how to play, but those are mainly based on their style and are mostly focussed on axis play. Which is normal because well what do you write down for US1? Maby japan attacked maby it didnt.
    Axis have the initiative so guides are easy to write for them, nobody goes before G1 so you know exactly what forces are where. Not to much for the allies they have to respond and cannot follow a default guide.
    This has the effect that a lot of players will copy these guides in their playstyle and a lot of players will play a similar style, which apparently really favors the Axis. Or is verry bad for the allies.

    One thing is definately not true, the allies will have an income advantage that the axis will need time to compensate for. Allies have around a 50 ipc advantage round1 ( assumeing US stays out of the war ), Axis start with more forces and initiative on their side. ( except italy which is screwed ) if the axis forces cannot get their income at the same level fast enough they will be outproduced eventualy. This might be too easy for them or not, ill not go into the debate which side is stronger, but there are different advantages to both sides.



  • If you ask me, the Allies are much harder to play since the Axis decide where the focus is going to be, at least for the first 5 rounds or so. I can play Axis and give very good players a serious challenge, but I cannot play Allies at the same level, not even close. Maybe at the top level things even out a bit, but at my intermediate level the sides are very different in difficulty.



  • a well-timed danish can opener can work wonders 😜



  • @regularkid:

    a well-timed danish can opener can work wonders 😜

    optimal timing: 6:30AM when all the Germans have fallen asleep



  • lolz



  • I usually give The Soviet Union 2 extra Tanks, one in Archangel, and one in Western Ukraine, I move the artillery in Western Ukraine to Belarus, and an extra Submarine in 127

    China gets an Anti-Aircraft Artillery and an Artillery in Szechwan

    The United Kingdom gets one Submarine in Sea Zone 98 and a Strategic Bomber in United Kingdom

    Italy gains a Destroyer in 97 and a Cruiser in 96

    France gets a Tactical Bomber in United Kingdom


  • '15

    Very well said Shadow.  I’ve been a big advocate that the Allies are not doomed from the get go and you articulated it very well.

    Someone mentioned that the Allies require a different mindset and that’s certainly true.  One thing I’ve learned to be absolutely true: the Allies cannot win if the US and UK are not on the exact same page.  Let’s say you’re playing a 2 on 2 game, with the Allies broken up as Russia, UK, France, and US, China, Anzac: if the US has an idea and the UK will simply not cooperate (or vice versa) you may as well just pack it up.

    A recent game I played as the UK I had this exact problem.  The forces were ready to hit hard and I was pushing for Norway.  It was there for the taking, but the US player absolutely would not do it because they wanted to hit the Med.  I firmly believe that if the Atlantic Allies are hanging around the Med turn 5, 6, 7, etc. that they have lost the game (which is exactly what happened).

    Shadow, I’ve been working on an Allied strategy guide but I’m having the exact problem you mentioned: writing a guide based on completely theoretical moves.  Still working on it though!



  • I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

    This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!



  • @theROCmonster:

    I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

    This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

    Good to see you again on the Global thread ROCmonster, seems like just yesterday I was disagreeing with everything you were saying about early Japanese aggression, and now I’m teaching it to my YouTube subscribers. I know Global is unbalanced and close to impossible to win in 1 vs 1 games, but it’s to much fun to give up on it… it just needs some good universal house rules or for Larry to come forward with an official solution.


  • 2017 '16

    @theROCmonster:

    I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

    This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

    I wonder if some players reverse the attack values of bombers?
    I know Barney tried it, but a switch between StB and TacB would make a real change on Germany’s strategy. It will rely more on TcB but would have to make a choice whether to use against Russia or Western Allies.
    We are throwing ideas in this House rules thread
    G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
    But I believe the TacBs was too new unit and haven’t find is right place while StBs is quite omnipotent with the additional +2 damage and Fg reduced to A1 D1 in SBR.
    Habits to see StB as Attack 4 unit is hard to change but realistically they are not as good against tactical targets.

    And now there is TcB in the roster, each can have is own nest. 1 with less range but more firepower and the other with more range and less firepower.
    The payload in SBR doesn’t need to change.
    StB carried more but was less accurate, TcB carried less but can compensate by accuracy on targets.
    Just my two cents.

    @Baron:

    @Baron:

    From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
    It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

    I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
    Attack 4
    Defense 3
    Move 4 +1 with AB
    Cost 12
    TBR dmg:  1D6

    And Strategic Bomber like:
    Attack 3
    Defense 2
    Move 6 +1 with AB
    Cost 12
    SBR dmg : 1D6+2

    It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

    Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.

    StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.

    In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
    For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
    Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
    Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
    The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
    D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
    I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.

    That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.

    I’m pretty sure, if asked politely to Barney, he can provide an OOB G40 TripleA with this sole change for play-test and feedback on this specific features of bomber.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    regularkid posted this G40 mod w/a lot of changes that I think could help the allies:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36867.0

    If they come out w/a third edition, I think Avalon should definitely power up the allied NOs.



  • That mod is the same as giving the allies a repeating bid of around 10-15 if im not mistaking.

    So every turn the allies get 10-15 extra cash. And some other funny things for both sides that would be mostly usefull for the allies.

    Yes it helps the allies but i would not play Axis in that mod without a decent bid.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    That mod is the same as giving the allies a repeating bid of around 10-15 if im not mistaking.

    So every turn the allies get 10-15 extra cash. And some other funny things for both sides that would be mostly usefull for the allies.

    Yes it helps the allies but i would not play Axis in that mod without a decent bid.

    Are you talking about YG mod or Reg Kid’s Vichy rules ?


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    The info on the link indicates it’s from regular kid…



  • Honestly I think it would help a lot with game balance if Strategic bombers attack was reduced to 2. That would alleviate a lot of the stress the allies have in the Atlantic, as well as helping Russia when defending Moscow, and also it would help UK in the Med. The Strategic bomber was never built to attack navies or Army groups. The reason it was made was to attack Infrastructure and Cities. I am fine with the bombers get +2 on their roll in bombing missions, but maybe defending fighters should roll at 2 instead of 1 since they are in their home territory. Has anyone heard of home court advantage? Also the fighters defending would have much more fuel than the attacking fighters would, so they could maneuver more freely, and stay in the fight longer.

    Why West Germany is connected to Northern Italy I will never know. That is the biggest problem with this map. Germany planes should not be able to go from Western Germany to Egypt in 1 turn, and it is way to easy for Germany and Italy to defend their homeland with Western Germany and Southern Italy being on two spaces apart.



  • I would hate to go back to intercepters defending @2, during our early 1st Edition games no one would conduct SBRs… they just never happened.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 142
  • 23
  • 13
  • 9
  • 11
  • 2
  • 17
  • 34
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

78
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts