@Arthur:
**Despite being spotted a 20-25 PU bid, the Allies till only win 40% of the time in League play. I would hardly call that balanced.** Bids might have to approach 30 PUs to gain true balance. I often win as Axis with an economic focus, avoiding the big battles in India and Moscow. When the Axis has more income than the Allies, a win is usually assured.Â
I agree with you here. The allies have to be played perfect with excellent dice to win without a bid. Rolling Moscow is too easy without a bid. Anyone want to play a friendly game I am willing to show you how easy it can be done.
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade Moscow
If the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
@Arthur:
The game is evolving and it seems like the Allied bids are slowly creeping up as Axis players are learning to compensate. I agree with cyanight that getting to Moscow is easy for a non-bid game unless the Allies play perfectly or the dice are against you. It is like clockwork:
G1: build arts
G2: build tanks/mechs
G3: declare war, move to Eastern Poland, purchase planes or tanks, bomb Moscow if possible
G4: March to Belarus, bomb Moscow again if possible, purchase fast movers
G5: March to Bryansk, purchase planes
G6 or G7 invade MoscowIf the Allies do a KGF plan, scrap this plan and focus on an economic victory as Japan expands to 80+ PUs/round. Eventually the US will have to spend 100% of their budget in the Pacific to contain the monster.
With perfect Allied gamplay and above average dice rolls, Axis can fail. Still I would give the odds of victory to be 75+% when both sides are played by skilled people. You even can get a fast win 10% of the time in a non-bid game when the UK fails in the Med/Africa. Italy can be standing in Egypt in the first few rounds and there is nothing that the Allies can do to recover. Italy builds a factory there, Germany provides a few planes to strengthen the position, and the Axis economy expands to astonishing heights. That can happen ~3% of the time in matches with heavy Allied bids in the Med. Time to start a new game…
I seem to be in the minority here, but I still don’t see this plan as an almost guaranteed Axis win (especially since I’ve seen it beat several times, on both sides of the aisle). Every time I see an Axis strategy written out it never seems to factor that the Allies get to play the game too.
If Germany buys all art G1, tanks/mechs G2, then it’s obvious they are going Barbarossa, and the Allies simply have to prepare for it. Two turns of 9 inf and a fighter for Russia, take Persia UK1, factory there UK2, and US going heavy EUS, and suddenly it’s not a gimme. By turn four the US will either be dominating the Med or landing in Norway (either way they will easily have 6-8 loaded transports in tow); Russia will have at least 7 fighters (one per turn for at least 3 turns, and the UK will send a plane per turn from Persia to Moscow starting on turn 4), making bombing raids difficult (if not impossible) for Germany and the UK will be assisting the US in either the Med or Norway, while providing support to Russia.
Japan can still be contained, as the US can spend the majority of its money in the Pacific from turn 3 on. Plus, Russia should use the Siberian troops to push into Japan on turn three, either into Korea or Manchuria depending on how it looks.
None of these things guarantee an Allied victory of course, but I’ve seen the all out rush to Moscow fail too many times to agree that it’s virtually unbeatable
The Moscow push definitely can be countered by heavy spending by the Allies in the Atlantic, as you mention. 100% US build in the Atlantic for the first two turns, plus a large number of UK fighters in Moscow, is enough to stall a G6-G7 attack on Moscow. That does give Japan a window to expand, requiring major US spending from turn 3 onward. The returned focus of the Allies on the Pacific allows Germany options to push into the Middle East.
At that point, the game requires both perfect Allied gameplay, and good dice rolls. I find that the Axis has usually won if Japan still is swapping control of the Money Islands with the Allies when Germany has control of Persia & Iraq. The economic output of Germany is just too large to counter. Certainly a better player can pull out a victory against an inferior player a majority of times. Nobody is questioning that. The argument is that evenly matched players will not be able to achieve 50% win rates as Allies without a bid. If the game really was balanced, I would expect that top players would gladly play Allies +20 and consistently crush their opponents.
If Japan does NOT declare war on W. Allies till J4, then US domination of Med and Norway is delayed 1 turn.
That one turn is crucial, because , it buys time for Germany to buy 1 more turn against USSR.
That is what usually tips the balance of power toward Axis for good, either, through an Economic victory, by caging Moscow.
Thus bringing in Japan to attack J2 or J3 allows for a more equitable game for Allies.
Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.
Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.
While it could very well be that it slipped by me, I don’t recall any official change to the transport loading rules.
Marsh
I don’t know of any change of transport rules also. I find that J4 is a very poor choice. It gives three full turns of huge income for India, making it difficult for Japan to get to the capitol. I have found that J1 is a great option if Russia doesn’t send reinforcements to stack in Yunnan. Sometimes I delay to J3 if I need two turns to beat back Russian + Chinese forces, but have never done a J4.
The reason to do a J4 is to help Germany in the Atlantic. Japan does take quite a hit from doing so though, as you point out.
I think MeinHerr is referring to the ability of UK to block loading Japan’s transports by moving a surface warship into the seazone then having ANZAC declare war and thus making the seazone hostile with the transports.
I don’t like this tactic but its not much different than something else that is allowed. This same ability can be seen when a power builds a warship in a seazone with transports. This happens a lot with UK/USA transports loading/unloading in Normandy.
I don’t think it should be accepted in either case but the rules support the later.
When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?
When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?
Im not sure what is the best way to resolve it. At first I thought maybe you should not allow deployment into hostile seazones but then it would be easy to block sea production.
I don’t think the rule needs change.
This isn’t a change, it has always been a latent exploit.
The only thing you need to do to avoid the “UK/ANZAC” stub move here is to leave the units on their transports.
Since you always have a substantial fleet in SZ 36 (for example) covering the TTs to prevent their destruction, there is not really a risk here. The only opportunity lost is the option dumping the troops off in Kwangsi of using the transports to bridge/run up north on your next turn, rather than invade islands, Malaya, india etc. But, since you moved the TTs down to SZ 36 in the first place, there is little reason to reverse this direction…
Also, the UK/ANZAC early declaration of war “decouples” America from the alliance. UK often does this in order to get NOs. Once this occurs, there is no “tripwire” besides the fall of London to bring the US in.
As you guys have discussed, Japan attacking early brings the US in big and early, and often 100% pacific, since many good J1 strategies involve intimidating and warding the US navy off. Waiting till J3 or J4 seems unwise, unless you have some kind of gambit brewing, because
