Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

UK/USSR VS Germany/Italy



  • @simon33:

    @ScottishOne:

    @Tirano:

    The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist

    Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?

    League has the default rule as it applying everywhere.

    Ah, I haven’t played any games with that rule. Wasn’t even aware it existed and had to look up those league rules. I’ve usually played with 1 unit per territory, no ships where there aren’t already ships, and you had to put down a unit matching the nationality of the terr you were placing it in.

    I guess that rules out putting an Aussie in New Guinea or other similar moves. With those rules I’m now trying to figure out if there’s a way add an Aussie or French unit in any of the territories they share with UK that would be really useful . . .


  • 2019 2017 2016

    You can add ANZAC units to Egypt or Malaya. Well, one each. There is no requirement to add them on territories with the same owner (unless I’m mistaken).

    Yes, it does rule out that cheesy New Guinea move.



  • Well you could also add a Frenchie in London. But I can’t figure out anything really worth bidding.  😄


  • 2018 2017

    As Tirano and I keep discussing OL, the problem is that the bid will be used to the greatest effect wherever it buys the most 1) timelyness 2) theatre-altering math.

    That means the bid goes to UK (since it is in the war from start and on the front line) and not RUS (who may or may not need the bid T1 but cant exploit it as much as UK anyways, arguably).

    Then, you use the bid to close out Africa and Med, which you were already capable of doing in 2 turns (rather than 1) in the OOB setup.    You’ve also reduced Italy to a side player, but it wasn’t the problem in the first place.    Italy isn’t the reason Russia is weak…dog piling and the diplomacy rules and weak allied income early game are the reason Russia is weak.  Russia is weak because it starts the game with nothing.

    It leads to the logic that the bid shouldn’t be used to add pieces, but rather subtract them from your enemy, since it is the Axis board position and starting setup that is the reason for their dominance, not allied weakness (the allies start with much more on the board and it all dies because it is spread out, badly placed, and easily picked off).


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    To start with, I already think most of you are bonkers for wanting bids in the 30-40 range for the Allies. (I realize that I’m in the minority here.) But let’s put that aside.

    If you remove pieces, there have to be detailed rules about what you can and can’t remove. Otherwise, you could just remove all the Japanese transports, or both the German strat bombers, or all the German tanks in Greater Southern Germany, or all the German subs…

    If Russia is the weak point that needs fixing, then it makes more sense logically for the entire bid to be given to Russia as IPCs. That would let the Allies concentrate on the desired theater early while knowing that Russia can hold out until the US can relieve it. That’s a much more logical position than your assertion that pieces should be removed as part of the bid. It also requires a lot fewer rules, and last time I checked simpler is usually considered better.

    Marsh


  • 2018 2017

    Yes I agree.  I wasn’t even proposing removing pieces; im saying that that would address the balance better than adding them, but either one alters one aspect or theatre of the game without fixing what might actually be broken (USSR’s anemic setup and the realistic diplomacy that lets Japan and Germany and Italy whallop on it pretty much unrestrained for 4 turns).

    A clearer way would be to simply give the allies more, specific units, without the flexibility of a choice that they will use in 1 or 2 idiosyncratic ways.  But its all houserules, with no consensus, so we can keep going in circles I suppose…



  • The problem with the bid going to USSR is that it’s not to powerful, if all of a sudden Russia can hold her own with a few fighters being flown to it, then USA can go full KJF and the Axis are screwed, so the problem Is finding a way to help Russia while still making it conquerable and defendable.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I would assume you wouldn’t be dumb enough to give Russia enough money to stand on its own, but just to last a little longer on its own to give the Allies time to arrive.

    Marsh



  • That’s the idea


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Personally, I think a large part of the reason people think that the Allies need a large bid is that they try to run the Allies like the Axis (immediately going on the offensive) and the Allies are just not set up to go on the offensive early in the game. Yeah, there’s a little wiggle room with the UK in the Med, but for the most part any serious attacks the Allies mount early in the game just makes their position worse and emphasizes how weak the Allies are at the start. If you wait four or five turns though, the Allies are more powerful than the Axis. If you examine history, it was tooth and nails for a long time with the Allies, and it took years for the Allies to actually muster enough strength to go on the offensive.

    5-7 infantry worth of IPCs should be enough to hold Germany off from being able to attack Moscow for one or two rounds (unless the Axis wants to engage in major battles with a large luck factor). That should be more than enough to erase any Axis advantage if the Allies are run correctly and pressure on Moscow starts being relieved by US6.

    Also keep in mind that the fall of Moscow is not certain Axis victory.

    The Axis advantage would probably be erased completely if the 18 Russian infantry and 2 AA guns in Eastern Russia were distributed in a less concentrated manner so that 5 or so of them could absolutely make it back to Moscow before Germany could attack. Also helping would be an absolute prohibition on Japan attacking Russia before the fall of Moscow (and likewise for Russia attacking Japan before the fall of Berlin), or a victory city rule that requires near-Axis victory on one side of the board and Axis victory on the other side of the board (13 victory cities required for Axis victory).

    Marsh


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I agree about the bidding being insane.

    I’m more inclined to remove the victory city rule and reduce allied bids.



  • @simon33:

    I agree about the bidding being insane.

    I’m more inclined to remove the victory city rule and reduce allied bids.

    You cannot reduce by much, often times even without VC, going for Total Vicroy, once Axis reach economic superiority they can just start playing safe and slowly out economize you.



  • I like the direction this thread has taken, although it is off topic.

    The way bidding is done with units being placed at set-up pretty much at the players discretion is insane. It just screws up certain theaters in the opening round (mostly the Med). As stated most bid units for what ever reason go into the Med to give the UK better odds in battles they already have an advantage in (making Italy even more irrelevant). Either that or it allows the UK to take on more then they should be able to, but comes with a high risk factor that could certainly leave the allies doomed in the first turn messing up the game from the get go. Marsh is 100% right, the UK isn’t supposed to be that aggressive in the opening rounds. UK is alone and should feel that way by strengthening its positions, picking its battles wisely, and consolidating units. Not owning the Med in the first turn with bid units that just mess up a theater that was pretty balanced to begin with.

    Through the Alpha project the Germans were strengthen several times to give them more punch vs Russia, which lead to a more threatening Sea Lion. So London got some more inf and AA (AAA was also tweaked at this time to take a hit etc……). Now it seems that the balance sought against Russia was over achieved too (but not addressed at the time). So that leaves it up to players to make bids (which are basically house rules) to fix one problem, which snowballs into other problems that are being discussed in just about every topic on this forum. You really can’t discuss a single strategy because once you get into it the person you are debating with throws in well yes I can because I will bid this unit…

    I agree that the allies need some help, I just think there should more of a universal tweak adopted by the majority that addresses the problem, and not the insane bid units placed on the board at set-up at the players discretion we have now that seem to just cause more problems. If it is units added to the set-up it should be standardized IMO.

    There are several ways to do it.

    1. Do nothing because if we fix it we won’t have anything to talk about.

    2. Come up with a tweak to the starting set-up that is recognized by the community (maybe even seek an endorsement). Would be extremely difficult to get a consensus among players, and endorsement would probably be harder yet.

    2a) I would probably look at swapping out some of the Russian Far East inf for some art/mech to start with. We have experimented with this in the past taking out 4 inf, and giving them 1 art, and 2 mech in Sakha (12 IPC even swap). Gives them a little bite out there and also allows the mech to get home or into China double time (to me the mech represents a bit of the Russian Siberian Rail).

    1. Fix it with NO’s for the allies. Think that Young Grasshopper has mentioned this. I would be on board with that, especially splitting the Russian NO because they seem to be the power that is lacking (maybe along with a Siberian tweak above). Plus I think the axis have a chance to intervene. I would be careful about giving the USA an easily achievable NO  because that could create a problem the other way as the game progresses.

    2. Have a bid system that adds income to the allies starting income, with stipulations for the max any one power can receive at say 10 IPCs, or 1/2 the bid (or what ever determined). That way the players still get some say so, but units are purchased as normal, and placed at the end of the turn following normal placement rules. The Bid won’t effect the open moves as much because the units are placed after combat. Plus the units don’t show up in territories or sz w/o an IC.

    4a) It could change the opening moves to some degree, like with an extra 10 IPCs the UK would have enough to by an IC for Egypt, and max def London against Sea Lion. They can pretty much do that with a unit bid as is now too though. Allies could use the unit bid to place one French inf in London, and one Brit inf on Scotland, and maybe an extra ftr on Gib (that could go either way), allowing them the comfort to purchase an IC for Egypt on UK1.

    1. Change to the Victory City win, some prefer a global VC count.

    5a) Victory Tokens like Young Grasshopper uses. Looks interesting (will use it at some point) but is a pretty big change that I don’t think the vast majority would adopt.


  • 2018 2017

    1)  Yeah that’s a danger now that Gencon is over.  At the con, we were too busy playing to conjecture.

    1. I think this is the solution, and I think the first step is to add a strat bomber to Moscow.  its simple and it isn’t defensive; it adds punch.

    2a) and many of the better bid ideas seem to go over there.  Not sure we should tweak the ability or timing of Japan to strike Russia because taking that 7-9 income can be game changing over time.  Looking at adding a NO for when Russia is at war with Japan is ok (like Balmod) but the $$ is going to get put on Moscow it isn’t going to affect the far east.  Money alone isn’t Russia’s problem.

    1. balanced mod approaches things this way and it adds a ton of em.  YG’s Vic Token idea is similar;  get the players to do “themey” actions (rather than “gamey” actions) like island hopping, holding specific territories, liberating minor capitals that don’t lead directly to victory but fit in the war.

    2. not a bad idea to just give them cash.

    3. the victory conditions are practically unattainable and they are a major part of the problem.  As I said about G42–the scenario could be balanced but if you state that the goal line is “125 IPCs” for the Axis, that is binary, clear, fairly gamey, and not very hard to accomplish for the Axis.  The only question becomes then “on turn 7, can they take away enough stuff to make it less than 125”.

    With the open-endedness of the regular G40 game, the real victory condition is “Can the Axis kill Moscow without also losing their capital (within 2 turns)”

    While Moscow doesn’t decide a close game, the $$ that Germany gets for taking it usually will bolster its final defense and make the US hail mary impossible…on that exact turn…its usually 1 turn difference between winning and losing…



  • Why are some people so reliant on bids? I see no need for them. I’m mean I can win as the allies without any bids.


  • 2018 2017

    If all 3 axis concentrate on Russia, the game is over.  This is the problem with the Global scenario and the fact that geography leaves Russia surrounded, also it is the only goal that the Axis can all 3 easily concentrate upon.

    Even if you save Moscow for a while with Allied intervention/planes, your income is shredded and you are eventually under siege with less than 10 IPCs.  If the Axis also use strategic bombers (all 3; 2 Italian, 5 German, 2 Japanese) they are burning all Russia’s money too with no reply.    Both Germany and Japan are difficult to defeat directly or quickly, so when the Allies win its usually because of a combination of attrition and concentration of force on one enemy as well.

    Both G40 and G42 are biased against the Allies, primarily for these reasons.    G40 probably cannot be won against strong players below +22.  G42 needs at least +8.

    It is certainly possible to win as the Allies without a bid, but probably not likely against top tier competition.



  • @taamvan:

    If all 3 axis concentrate on Russia, the game is over.   This is the problem with the Global scenario and the fact that geography leaves Russia surrounded, also it is the only goal that the Axis can all 3 easily concentrate upon.

    Even if you save Moscow for a while with Allied intervention/planes, your income is shredded and you are eventually under siege with less than 10 IPCs.  If the Axis also use strategic bombers (all 3; 2 Italian, 5 German, 2 Japanese) they are burning all Russia’s money too with no reply.    Both Germany and Japan are difficult to defeat directly or quickly, so when the Allies win its usually because of a combination of attrition and concentration of force on one enemy as well.

    Both G40 and G42 are biased against the Allies, primarily for these reasons.    G40 probably cannot be won against strong players below +22.   G42 needs at least +8.

    It is certainly possible to win as the Allies without a bid, but probably not likely against top tier competition.

    Well spoken taam, as always, for the allies to start getting consistent wins I would argue perhaps a 40 bid, although +22 definitely gives them a chance.



  • A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

    Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

    Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
    Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 8
  • 15
  • 21
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games

47
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts