AA50 Bias



  • I am reading players comments,
    after playing several games, from the 1941 setup,
    it is biased to the Axis.
    Gentleman, its 1941, there should be a slight bias to the Axis. They were on the move, wouldn’t it be the intent of this game’s abstraction, to layer this problem, a rising tide of Axis power into the game?
    I would be disappointed, if the Allies could stymy the Axis advance cold in 1941.
    We have enough options to alter that eventual outcome, yet
    the uphill battle the Allies faced was real.
    I like the 1941 setup, Allies should fear their losses, they were many.
    How else would we model this factor into the game?
    The 1942 setup, is slightly biased to the Allies. The opposite problem. The economic might of the Allies is kicking in, our problem as Axis players, how to overcome a growing Allied economic momentum and defend our own maxium. I like playing the Axis in 1942 because of this slight flex in the problem. I will likely favor the Allied position in 1941 for the same reason, overcome the tide of history, at the moment it was strongest.
    The game offers two problems, slight to Axis, or slight to Allies, pick your setup/time and go. I do not believe the game is unbalanced for play, on the contrary, it offers the unbalance of that moment in history to overcome.
    Am I lost in my own thought, What do you guys think?



  • 1941 unbalance is clear before playing because of J1-killing-China problem. Ahistorical, KJF and KGF killing strat, this needs heavy bids for China. There is not a slight bias to axis, there is a very big bias to axis.

    1942 seems more balanced. We should play many 1942 games to know if it’s so


  • Moderator

    The board ('41) does look to favor the Axis early, but I would not discount the Allies yet.  There just needs to be a little time to find the right strat.

    I haven’t played yet, but the US can still buy ships + trns in Rd 1 and land in Alg in Rd 2.  Right?
    They will still be able to shuck from Ecan to UK and then to a European landing spot.
    And Russia has 13 inf that can be retreated to Mos/Cauc from the East.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    The board ('41) does look to favor the Axis early, but I would not discount the Allies yet.  There just needs to be a little time to find the right strat.

    I haven’t played yet, but the US can still buy ships + trns in Rd 1 and land in Alg in Rd 2.  Right?
    They will still be able to shuck from Ecan to UK and then to a European landing spot.
    And Russia has 13 inf that can be retreated to Mos/Cauc from the East.

    With KGF, Japan can reach 65 IPCs easily even if they ignore USA:

    Japan 65
    Germany 35
    Italy 18

    Axis 98

    USSR 26
    UK 26
    USA 42
    China 0 inf after J2  😛

    Allies: 94

    Axis will have economical advantage even with Japan ignoring USA, and with this, Japan can kill soviets alone. KGF seems not very good, but it’s even worst. Try Alaska path and USA will not be able of sending reinforcements to Africa. Even a saf IC cannot beat 4 italians each turn. Then, being generous, assuming saf can survive and assuming Japan don’t get improved industry (game over for USA):

    Japan 68
    Germany 35
    Italy 25

    Axis: 128

    USSR 26
    UK 20
    USA 40
    China  :roll:

    Allies: 86

    (You can add 1 or 2 more or less, that don’t matter)

    So, let’s discard KGF for AA50. We could have a chance with a balanced strat or a KJF strat, but both are also killed by China’s sparring status and that swarm of japanese trannies, preventing India or Australia ICs. And Japan can get economic parity with USA and any fleet they can build, letting Moscow walking to western axis powers.

    Another thing would be playing without NOs. That can lead to a less biased scenario, but don’t resolves chinese problem or swarm of trannies problem. And Japan still moves before UK.


  • Moderator

    It still takes Japan about 6 turns to go from Japan to Moscow, five,  I suppose if you drop an IC some where.

    It is still 2 turns from Ecan to Arch (I think).

    To me it seems the US can set up the same Wus to Ecan to Afr (or Europe) Shuck as it can in Revised.

    Has the US Brazil IC strat been tested?  Perhaps combined with UK IC?
    Direct landings in Arch?
    Early landings in WE?
    KIF (Kill Italy First)?

    My point is I think a lot of things have to be play tested before it is declared the Axis win every game with OOB rules.



  • KIF (Kill Italy First)?

    I think what we are seeing being played is KIGF, that is, kill Italy first and then Kill Germany First. Once you get rid of the italian navy, Africa is secure and you also threaten the Balkans as well as France. Using US troops to invade the Med, Italy AND France, was used by Perry to great effect against me in a recent game (see IL’s "My review thread) !! Italy is much harder to retake now that it doesn’t border Germany so you can’t throw Inf and Art down there, another smart redesign of the game.

    /Funcioneta

    The key for Allied success seems to be to deploy Allied IPCs against Italy and Germany before those Japanese IPCs can be deployed vs. the Allies. It may be that you’re right about that Alaskan thing though, we’ve seen that happen in a few games and maybe that’s a more promising strategy for an expanding Japan than to go for that old JTDTM strat. Attacking over Alaska may be a quicker way to disrupt Allied strategy than to attack over the steppes and forest of Asia!

    Interestingly, both these strat’s are historical in a sense. The western Allies DID kill Italy first and Japan DID try for a push over the northern Pacific vs. Alaska (Midway/aleutian op). A clue that the game is well designed, perhaps?  😉


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    From what I see, there is really no good place outside of India to put an IC for either side.  Perhaps an Italian one in Egypt so they can send their navy out and still hold Africa or something…



  • I have seen a Japan factory in Burma and Incochina as well. We will see how it plays out.



  • I think KGF is the best option.

    Once the Allies take Europe, it doesn’t matter how big Japan is.  That’s game.

    It looks like the only way for the Allies to take Europe is to hit it with full force.  Russia and UK combine on Germany, America takes on Italy.  This is because America vs. Italy is not a fair fight, but once America takes Italy, the Axis are pretty screwed.  The important step is to use UK and USSR to keep Germany at bay.  Once Japan is in range of Moscow, Russia should go all out defensive, and if America has defeated Italy at this point, the Allies will win as Russia defends against Japan and America and Britain finish off Germany.  Japan will have more money than in revised, but also have longer supply lines.  And if Japan decides to go against North America, just pull a North America defense as USA.  USA should be able to hold off the Japanese, but if anything it is good, because then Russia can go all out on Germany since Japanese commitment to North America means that they cannot afford troops elsewhere.



  • /rakeman

    I agree with what you say, just don’t agree with what you say about the Alaskan push. The Alaskan push should be put into effect as quickly as possible in order for it have full effect. It must draw forces from turn 2 from USA and then Italy will be able to survive and then Germany and Italy may finish off Russia together. I’m not sure if it’s doable but I think it might be. Buy 2 trs on turn 1 as Japan and then attack Alaska with as much as you can, protected by 2 loaded carriers. Then up the stakes and keep pushing forces in there, forcing USA to pay attention to you!



  • The Alaska path prevents mayor allied reinforcements in Revised. Probably saves the day for Italy here. Now we have 12 IPCs bombers … it would be interesting know if USA can resist a strat bombing campaign combo with Alaska push.



  • @Funcioneta:

    1941 unbalance is clear before playing because of J1-killing-China problem. Ahistorical, KJF and KGF killing strat, this needs heavy bids for China. There is not a slight bias to axis, there is a very big bias to axis.

    1942 seems more balanced. We should play many 1942 games to know if it’s so

    Ok, Ill favor your statement, " its a big imbalance in 1941. "  I am still reading Players who are doing typical KGF strategies.  Players follow what they know, until forced to find a new route.  If the japanese setup is this strong, we should begin to see KGF failing in 1941.  Of course the player, strong or weak,  can he/she take advantage of the Japanese position and options.  I like the challenge. I hope we begin to see many wins for the Axis in the 1941 setups.  This would proof the concept.  Its early yet, many games to play before the natural tendencies of each setup can be stated proof positive.  Again I find the unbalance of each, 1941for Axis and 1942 Allies as a balance unto itself,
    if this proves true, maybe we can have tournaments where we play each position 1941 and 1942 or maybe each round alternates setups.



  • @Bluestroke:

    @Funcioneta:

    1941 unbalance is clear before playing because of J1-killing-China problem. Ahistorical, KJF and KGF killing strat, this needs heavy bids for China. There is not a slight bias to axis, there is a very big bias to axis.

    1942 seems more balanced. We should play many 1942 games to know if it’s so

    Ok, Ill favor your statement, " its a big imbalance in 1941. "  I am still reading Players who are doing typical KGF strategies.  Players follow what they know, until forced to find a new route.  If the japanese setup is this strong, we should begin to see KGF failing in 1941.  Of course the player, strong or weak,  can he/she take advantage of the Japanese position and options.  I like the challenge. I hope we begin to see many wins for the Axis in the 1941 setups.  This would proof the concept.  Its early yet, many games to play before the natural tendencies of each setup can be stated proof positive.  Again I find the unbalance of each, 1941for Axis and 1942 Allies as a balance unto itself,
    if this proves true, maybe we can have tournaments where we play each position 1941 and 1942 or maybe each round alternates setups.

    A balanced imbalance? interesting concept. hmmm. What players seem to be very concerned about is a fair fight given optimal strategy and average dice. I certainly would like a game that accomplished that, as i doubt i can find time to play 2 fulls games in a session. But perhaps you are right, that this version of A and A has been designed to be unbalanced. I hope this is not the case, but it would explain the reasoning for 2 scenarios. Only the game designers can reveal this for sure, and Im sure they are going to let this game speak for itself for some-time, before giving us the clues.



  • In the first game I played with my friends, we played the '42 setup. The Allied team decided upon this strategy: UK vs Italy then Germany, USSR vs Germany, USA vs Japan. Needless to say, it went horribly.

    First, even with the USA going full tilt against Japan, it was unable to seriously bring it down. By the end of the game, the Imperial Navy was still strong, and the Japanese army had made major grounds in China and the Soviet east. Allied victory in the Pacific seemed far off, despite gains in Borneo, the Philippines, and long range aircraft (which really helped speed things up).

    Second, while the British campaign against Italy initially went well, it became a protracted campaign that wasn’t really going anywhere. The intention for the British was to quickly destroy the Italian navy and then  take Rome before it could adequately defend itself. The first part of the plan was a glowing success, but the second, not so much. Italy proved to be a tougher shell to crack, and Germany was becoming too powerful. Thus, the British decided to let Italy be and focus on D-Day landings.

    Third, the German campaign in Russia went really well. They had advanced artillery and paratroopers, and really gave the Soviets a licking. The Russian military collapsed rather quickly, mostly due to over extending themselves when they should have probably been more defensively minded. It wasn’t long until Moscow was surrounded and under siege. Moscow fell two rounds before the Allies gave up.

    The game could have probably kept on going, but it was getting late, and no one was interested in a protracted war of attrition.

    Endgame incomes with NO’s (approximations)
    USA- 65ish
    UK- 35-40
    USSR- 0

    Japan- 33
    Germany- 70-75
    Italy- 9



  • If allies or axis need bids we can only speculate….for now.

    I don’t want to say some players are stupid, but you cannot judge balance if you are playing with tech!!!

    As for tech and NOs, I don’t use tech, but naturally and logically, if ppl prefer tech, then use it. We all play for fun, some even use house rules, and in AAR tech is actually not an optional rule…  🙂

    This reminds me of some of the KJF + other discussions in the revised forum, you cannot judge strats and/or balance if techs are in play.

    If we are serious in trying to measure game balance, then we must play lots of games with both scenarios, 41 and 42, with and without NOs, then time will tell  😉



  • @Admiral:

    First, even with the USA going full tilt against Japan, it was unable to seriously bring it down. By the end of the game, the Imperial Navy was still strong, and the Japanese army had made major grounds in China and the Soviet east. Allied victory in the Pacific seemed far off, despite gains in Borneo, the Philippines, and long range aircraft (which really helped speed things up).

    This is why I can’t wait to try KGF variants against multiple opponents in AA50.  The fact is, Japan is too powerful in a naval sense… if America throws everything at it, Japan still likely will have more or less the same progress on the mainland as if America did nothing at all, maybe less if America was truly effectively whittling away at Japan’s navy…

    America could spend all of its money trying to take over the Pacific, or spend all/most of its money finishing of Italy, and soon Germany.  The endgame will be a messy and arduous affair if the Japanese player refuses to surrender, but it will safely be an allied victory if Italy falls before Russia has to take to the defensive against Japan (Japanese units adjacent to Moscow).

    Theoretically, this should produce better results than a KGF in revised because Germany COULD hold off the Allies for a long time.  In AA50, Italy doesn’t have that same luxury.



  • If people are doing many games to try to average the outcomes to determine the balance, you might as well use low luck dice. You will get a much more accurate average.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    My point is I think a lot of things have to be play tested before it is declared the Axis win every game with OOB rules.

    Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.

    One hour after playing 1941….“dmm game is slanted to the axis…dmm it!” :roll:



  • One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.



  • @Lynxes:

    One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.

    this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs



  • this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs

    It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.



  • @Lynxes:

    It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.

    I agree that the USA can slightly aford tech more than others, but the second part of your statement I must disagree with.  Japan especially and Germany can both benefit from may techs from both tech trees even more than the USA can because both of them use Air/Navy and Land, where the USA wouldn’t use most of the Land techs until late in the game.



  • @Imperious:

    Pretty well agree. Give it TIME.

    One hour after playing 1941….“damm game is slanted to the axis…damm it!” :roll:

    My point, I still do not believe this is a bad thing.  We know the 1942 setup has been a problem for Axis players in the past.  Now, we have a possible counter setup for the Allies in the 1941 setup.  Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree?  The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo.  This is a great modeling of that advantage.  The situation in 1941 was not balanced.  Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.  The Allied challenge, overcome the Axis operational tempo, the Axis were deployed and moving.  It is like a monster chess game, One color Axis, is seven moves into the game, when Allies are just begining to move. The answer for the Allies should be tough to find, because it was.  I do not yet, see it as impossible for the Allies, only tougher to find the Allied win.  would the game be worthy, if we strolled in, did our best 1942 kGF and, yawn, victory-NO!!  We need many more games, to research the answer.
    Possibly, we could start a thread, tracking each players games as research data: 
    Setups used 1941-1942/Who won Allies-Axis/ Number of players 2-6/ Techs used yes-no/, NO’s used yes-no.  We could quickly gather data from everone’s play.



  • @Bluestroke:

    Again I state, this a good model of the problem the Allies faced in 1941, do yo agree?  The Axis were in the field with units, advancing with operational tempo.  This is a great modeling of that advantage.  The situation in 1941 was not balanced.  Why would you model a game for the Allies, that was balanced, at its start up-this would be wrong.

    ….unless you are Timerover51


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 44
  • 34
  • 48
  • 4
  • 5
  • 20
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

29
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts