Another Review – 1941 Scenario


  • 2007 AAR League

    Okay, I played the '41 Scenario last night.  My first impressions, much of which will be old news, but some may not, are as follows:

    1.  Germany – On G1, he attacked Karelia, Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine, my sz9 fleet, and my sz2 fleet.  He did not attack the sz12 fleet, the sz6 DD or Egypt.  Purchase-wise, he bought all tanks (for the most part) and did tank dash.  It was not as effective as I might have thought it would be.  The Soviet player bought almost exclusively infantry, and with only tanks to counter (after the first couple turns), the German player got bogged down into some expensive trading with Russia.  He probably should have focused more on taking Karelia or Caucuses (Italy was largely irrelevant in the game), and he did take Karelia on each turn.  However, Russia re-took on R1 and Britain re-took on B2 and B3.  I/o/w, Germany never took it in force.  I’m not sure he could have, without exposing his flank in the south.  He also burned through his airforce pretty quickly, which left him with only tanks for offensive punch.  He should have taken out my sz6 DD and probably attacked Egypt.  Instead, he used Germany’s sz13 transport to amphib attack Ukraine.  That was a mistake.

    2.  Russia – buying all infantry still works, apparently.  Russia used his lone tank to re-take Karelia on R1 and promptly lost in on G2.  After that, he had exactly 1 artillery for offense.  But since he was facing mostly short-stacked German tanks, it was not really a problem.  The play reminds me a lot of A&A Europe – there is a wider front for Germany to defend, only in this game, each territory counts toward IPCs.  Germany gets a big push early, but can’t sustain it in the face of 10 new Soviet infantry per turn, especially once the Allies get the SBR campaign going (discussed below).  The real threat to Russia came when Japan absolutely tore through China like tissue paper.

    3.  Japan – my GOD is that Japanese fleet massive.  Three carriers, nine fighters, five transports, plus a BB, a cruiser and a destroyer or two.  This is definitely not revised where Japan is reduced to one transport on turn 1.  Far from it.  Yes, Japan must conquer all the islands it already owns in Revised, but with all the fleet at its disposal, and basically no one standing in its way, that’s hardly heavy lifting.  He also gobbled up China by J3.  His only mistake was not bringing a fighter into the attack on the Phillipines, which delayed his taking the Phillipines until J3.  That was seriously the ONLY bright spot for the Allies in the Pacific.  (That and he needlessly burned through his transports by moving 2 of them forward, unprotected, so that I could kill them both very easily).

    4.  Britain – okay, they nerfed the India fleet, leaving Britain with very few options indeed in the Pacific.  I used my DDs to kill his transports off East Indies and New Guinea, and I amphib attacked New Guinea from Australia and re-took it.  Might as well use that fleet before I lose it, because that transport will not live to see action on UK2, that’s for damn sure.  The good news was, since Germany foolishly left his German transport exposed off the coast of Ukraine, and since I still had my Egypt plane, I killed his transport automatically, ending any further Germana amphib attacks in the Med.  I also went ahead and stacked Egypt, pulling troops off of India, leaving me with a healthy stack of around 8-9 pieces.  I built a South Africa IC, some fleet and two fighters to fly to Russia eventually.  My biggest mistake was not hitting that stupid Baltic fleet.  I’m still used to Revised where that fleet has some survivability on UK1, but in this game, only the Cruiser shoots back and neither the sub nor the transport can be taken as fodder vs. my planes.  So all I needed to do was kill the stupid Cruiser and his Baltic fleet (except the sub) was history.  Live and learn.  I’m not sure the South Africa IC was the way to go, but I damn sure wasn’t going to put it in India, with that massive Japanese fleet floating around.  It was simply not sustainable, IMO.

    5.  Italy – he really missed the boat with Italy, IMO.  First, he bought 2 tanks a turn.  That’s not the best use of Italian money.  He’d have been better off with buying a fighter a turn or troops to take Africa.  He also foolishly tried to take Egypt on I1 even though I had it stacked taller than the forces he had available to attack it with.  So he promptly got slaughtered.  On I2, I had pulled out of Egypt (basing my troops in Persia to counter India if Japan attacked it), so he dropped a tank there, again to no real effect on the game.  Too late he realized Italy’s highest and best use is in a support role to Germany vs. Russia.  Especially since I had built the South Africa IC, there was no way he could effectively contest ownership of Africa.

    6.  US & China – first, China is screwed if Japan is paying any attention to it.  I don’t see how the Chinese hold out more than 3 turns, tops.  As for the US, about the only GOOD things are:  (1) you get a carrier in the Pacific that the Japanese PROBABLY won’t attack (he didn’t in last night’s game); and (2) you get an extra bomber.  That’s it.  You are otherwise screwed because, as America, (1) you MUST build fleet to get “in the game”, and (2) building fleet is very expensive in this game.  To get the same impact from buying an 8 IPC transport in Revised – a unit that transports AND shoots back at planes and other boats, you now must spend 15 IPCs – 7 for the transport and 8 for the destroyer, which now defends on a “2”.  And with Japan tooling around with 3 carriers with up to 6 planes on the carriers, you don’t have the option of building slowly – which I found out the hard way.  We decided to deal with Germany through a strategic bombing campaign (you start, after all, with two bombers), so I figured I’d build a bomber a turn and fleet.  But even with 12 IPC bombers, it still took too long to build a sizeable enough fleet to screw with Japan while also building bombers.  You pretty much need to buy fleet only for at least 2-3 turns.  And ignoring Japan and going after Germany didn’t seem to be a viable option, again, because of the expensive fleet building problem.  By the time you get to Europe with enough troops to take France and hold it, Russia is probably already overrun from behind by Japan.  So the dilemma for US is, there is no one else but you to stop Japan, but how do you do it?  And IF you do it, Japan is going to require all your efforts, leaving Britain alone to deal with Germany and Italy (except for the US bombers, of course).

    Overall, I think the new rules for the '41 Scenario favor the Axis for several reasons:

    For Japan:  (1) it’s fleet is already built, unlike the US and UK, which must rapidly built fleet to contest with Japan and Germany, respectively, (2) Japan goes BEFORE Britain, not after, which means Japan gets TWO rounds of attacks in before UK can place its first build in an India IC, which effectively means that strategy is DEAD without serious Soviet support or Japanese neglect, (3) Japan’s economy gets huge (to 50+) very quickly, allowing Japan to replace any losses quickly, slowly and steadily build up your invasion force versus Russia, AND screw with the United States, if you feel like it, or just go swallow up Africa whole.

    For Germany:  All you need to do is focus on Russia and keep it tied down until Japan comes in from behind.  You don’t really have to seriously worry about a D-Day-type invasion before maybe UK4 or 5 at the earliest (if then), because Britain is desperately trying to keep you out of Karelia, if it can.  Britain must buy the transports and troops in the interim to try to assault you, but that must wait until they build sufficient fighter cap to help Russia hold its capital.  Since you’re probably not buying any fleet, the expensive fleet problem doesn’t really affect you.  In fact, it’s a blessing.  Your only worry, and there’s nothing you can really do about it, is American and British strategic bombing coupled with your limited IC capacity.  As Germany in AA50, unless you take Karelia, you will only ever be able to build 10 units per turn, because the Southern Europe IC is no longer yours to build in – it belongs to Italy.  And if the Allies bomb you, chances are you will be buying 8 tanks (or, God forbid, only 6 tanks) per turn instead of 10.  That seriously slows down your offensive against Russia, because Russia can basically build 10 infantry per turn, no problem.  So all you can do is keep attacking, with Italian help, and hope that:  (1) Japan comes to the rescue, as usual, or (2) Russia screws up and you manage to pick her off yourself.  If neither of these two happen, then the likely result is: (3) the Allies come up your tailpipe with the D-Day invasion, which you are powerless to stop, once they build up enough transport capacity, because all your production has been going to fight Russia.  My sense is, once you turtle in this game, you’re dead, barring a miracle.

    So, in summary, the biggest change, the map aside, is the fleet rules, and they suck for the Allies, period.  It’ll be interesting to see how the Allies compensate.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    He should not have attacked Karelia on G1. Big mistake IMO. He cant get good odds until G2. If he went to Karelia he would have to bring his planes and since he used them elsewhere he lost alot of infantry. Russia cant do anything to prevent it but can even win the battle on G1 if he tries it.

    He has to plan the targets with more care and may even perform a number of leaching operations on Caucasus or Karelia. So hes just killing enough and not taking and retreat back to a position where he can strike both north and south. He would take provided he gets support from Japans planes or Italian forces. Only in Karelia this is not really possible.



  • Thanks for your review Gamer.

    Japan goes BEFORE UK?  That’s insane. 
    Can someone please inform me of the proper turn order in A&A:50?

    If Japan is indeed that powerful, this puts a huge crimp on the game.  Not from a balancing standpoint, but because I was really looking forward to the Pacific theater opening up.  As it stands, USA has no reason to go after Japan even if it wanted to because Japan’s Navy is so strong.

    So, in summary, the biggest change, the map aside, is the fleet rules, and they suck for the Allies, period.  It’ll be interesting to see how the Allies compensate.

    What are these fleet rules?



  • Yes, so far it looks like once again there is little incentive for the US to fight in the Pacific. As noted above, Japan starts with a MASSIVE advantage in fleet firepower (made worse because they can kill off the only US BB while it is alone). In addition, there is little the US can do in the Pacific (that I can see) that will have anywhere near the same impact that European operations would have.

    I think the situation is made worse because after 2 turns (which the Allies cannot contest), Japan is making as much if not more money than the US! The Brits have no chance to contribute that I can see either. They can build an IC in India or Australia, but Japan can take either if they commit to doing it. MAYBE with a heavy Soviet commitment to India the Brits could hold it long enough, but my experience is that Russia needs those infantry desperately in the first few turns.

    Dont get me wrong, I dont think the game is a ‘gimme’ for the Axis (at all), but I just dont see much of a reason for the US to do anything other than what they’ve always done in A&A - ignore the Pacific and throw the kitchen sink at Germany. Hopefully we’ll be able to come up with some strats that might pay dividends in the Pacific for the Allies, but so far they arent obvious.



  • Thanks for a good review! We found something of the same when we played the '41 scenario, opting for a South African IC, for example, and going for a SBR campaign.

    But I differ in your judgments on these points:

    1. USA can afford to hit Europe with invasions before Japan reaches Moscow. That Italian fleet is easy to hit with bombers and then you just need to worry about German air attacks which 1 CV+2ftrs+1 cruiser+1 destroyer usually stops (that’s just 26 IPCs of naval warships, the rest is transports). The strategic change is that there are more areas between Japan and Moscow, buying you more time.
    2. Japan needs to have a more balanced strat than just taking all Pacific VCs and then going for Moscow. USA must be put off guard with moves such as invading Alaska or West US or Mexico or SBRing West US. If USA leaves the Pacific unguarded, it must pay for it!
    3. We found matching the Jap fleet just as hard as you. But in the long run Japan will maybe be forced to put a lot of fighters into the land battles around Caucasus or some fleet units vs. Africa, and that might be the solution to the seeming imbalance fleet-wise in the Pacific.

    Basically, the default strategy is “Europe first” (just as it was historically) for the Allies, and the Axis will win if it somehow forces a derailing of this strategy!


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Imperious:

    He should not have attacked Karelia on G1. Big mistake IMO. He cant get good odds until G2. If he went to Karelia he would have to bring his planes and since he used them elsewhere he lost alot of infantry. Russia cant do anything to prevent it but can even win the battle on G1 if he tries it.

    He has to plan the targets with more care and may even perform a number of leaching operations on Caucasus or Karelia. So hes just killing enough and not taking and retreat back to a position where he can strike both north and south. He would take provided he gets support from Japans planes or Italian forces. Only in Karelia this is not really possible.

    Good point about Karelia, IL.  He definitely spread himself too thin, which gave Russia the time it needed to bulk up on infantry.  Also, by “leaching”, I assume you mean “strafing”, which is not a bad idea either.  I also think, upon reflection, that Germany should still buy SOME infantry.  Not a lot, but at least enough to support strafing as a strategy.  Because if I strafe, I’d much rather lose infantry and save my expensive tanks until I’m ready to move in in force.

    @TG:

    Thanks for your review Gamer.

    Japan goes BEFORE UK?  That’s insane. 
    Can someone please inform me of the proper turn order in A&A:50?

    If Japan is indeed that powerful, this puts a huge crimp on the game.  Not from a balancing standpoint, but because I was really looking forward to the Pacific theater opening up.  As it stands, USA has no reason to go after Japan even if it wanted to because Japan’s Navy is so strong.

    So, in summary, the biggest change, the map aside, is the fleet rules, and they suck for the Allies, period.  It’ll be interesting to see how the Allies compensate.

    What are these fleet rules?

    The fleet rules are as follows:

    Cost differences – subs cost 6, transports cost 7, DDs cost 8, cruisers cost 12, carriers cost 14 and BBs cost 20.

    Battle differences – subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.  Subs attack on a “2” and defend on a “1”.  Transports die automatically if attacked and have no offensive OR defensive value whatsoever.  Their ONLY function is to transport land units.  So in the case of Germany’s Med transport, I could attack it with the Egypt fighter and automatically kill it without risk.  So what this means in practical terms is that you still have to buy transports as the Allies in order to set up D-Day, but now that purchase does NOTHING for you in terms of fleet defense.  Nor does buying subs, for that matter, since they cannot be taken as losses against air attacks (the most likely kind from Germany in particular).  So you are buying DDs as fodder IN ADDITION TO buying transports.  But the DDs attack and defend on a “2”, so that doesn’t get you any true defensive punch.  For that, you will have to buy cruisers, carriers and planes.  So, without any additional income for America (you start with 40 IPCs), and with a carrier in lieu of a BB from the West coast, you either go KIF/KGF, as always, while constantly watching your back for the stab from Japan – OR – you go on a MASSIVE spending spree buying fleet to try to compete with Japan.  Say, a carrier and two fighters on US1 (34 IPCs total) off the coast of LA and moving your existing carrier and fighters up to the same sea zone.  That MIGHT survive J2 depending on how Japan stationed her fleet after J1.  But now you’re still 2-3 turns at least from seriously threatening Japan.  Meanwhile, Japan is cashing out well over 50 IPCs, assuming it hits its NOs, which it should.

    Oh, and your question about turn order, it is as follows (in the '41 scenario):  Germany, Russia, Japan, Britain, Italy, US.

    A couple more points:
    1.  Even though they are cheaper at 20 IPCs, BBs are not as good a deal in this game.  They nerfed the BB by only allowing you 1 shore bombardment per attacking amhip unit.  So you no longer have the option of dropping one guy in France and getting 6 bombards.  The rules prohibit that, which makes the expensive BB much less attractive as a purchase when you can buy a cruiser for 12 IPCs and get almost the same benefit (attacks, defends and bombards at 3).

    2.  The quality of the plastic pieces in this set was VERY disappointing.  It was almost of the quality of the old Xeno Games W@W set – piss poor.  For $100, I would have expected something more on the order of the quality pieces that came with A&A: Europe, which cost HALF as much as this game.  In fact, IF I buy this game, I would be tempted to throw out the pieces that came with it and buy up odd sets of A&A: Europe pieces on e-bay or whatever to replace them.  The map and counters are too nice to be played with with such crappy plastic pieces, IMO.


  • Official Q&A

    @Gamer:

    subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.

    Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle.  This will be in the FAQ.



  • @Uncle_Joe:

    Yes, so far it looks like once again there is little incentive for the US to fight in the Pacific. As noted above, Japan starts with a MASSIVE advantage in fleet firepower (made worse because they can kill off the only US BB while it is alone). In addition, there is little the US can do in the Pacific (that I can see) that will have anywhere near the same impact that European operations would have.

    I think the situation is made worse because after 2 turns (which the Allies cannot contest), Japan is making as much if not more money than the US! The Brits have no chance to contribute that I can see either. They can build an IC in India or Australia, but Japan can take either if they commit to doing it. MAYBE with a heavy Soviet commitment to India the Brits could hold it long enough, but my experience is that Russia needs those infantry desperately in the first few turns.

    Exactly. The 1941 setup and gameplay is a huge disappointment for me. They have made Japan a superpower with existing units and a superpower economically by turn 2. Whereas the USA is still nerfed. They should have given the USA larger ipc production to somewhat match historically. That is the only way USA can take on Japan realistically. This game will play KGF 99% of the time. What I would really like to know is how the playtesters(who post here ) missed this rather large fault in the game. Did you guys give feedback on it? Was it squashed or what?

    I’ll play a few more games before I give up on the OOB rules after that I will introduce modified NOs like this one….

    American NO…
    -Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
    (Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Krieghund:

    @Gamer:

    subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.

    Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle.  This will be in the FAQ.

    Really?  I guess I missed that one.  In that case, it is even more imperative for Germany to take out the sz6 DD on G1, because, if he doesn’t, the sz5 sub either will die anyway (if the Brits bring that DD to sz5 on UK1) or it will have nothing to do.  Either way, it’s odds of taking out the DD are much better at “2” with air support than at “1” without air support.



  • @Gamer:

    @Krieghund:

    @Gamer:

    subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.

    Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle.  This will be in the FAQ.

    Really?  I guess I missed that one.  In that case, it is even more imperative for Germany to take out the sz6 DD on G1, because, if he doesn’t, the sz5 sub either will die anyway (if the Brits bring that DD to sz5 on UK1) or it will have nothing to do.  Either way, it’s odds of taking out the DD are much better at “2” with air support than at “1” without air support.

    You missed it because it’s not in the printed OOB rules.



  • Gamer,

    Thanks for the fleet rules.  I do like the fact that transports cannot be used as fodder, which is unrealistic and heavily favors the Allies.  Also, buying subs for the Allies in the Atlantic shouldn’t be practical anyways; they were used as primarily offensive units.

    I hate suggesting ways to “balance” the game when we haven’t had a large enough sample set or time to devise alternate strategies.  But if these problems persist, we’re either going to have to give:

    1.  A bid for the Allies.

    2.  Remove Japan’s NOs (only) or at least nerf them.

    3.  Rearrange the turn order.

    Out of these, I like #3 the most because it requires the least amount of change to the game.  Do you think a turn order of Russia, Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, USA would balance the game?

    Also, have you tried playing without NOs at all for 1941?  Does that make a significant enough difference?

    1.  Even though they are cheaper at 20 IPCs, BBs are not as good a deal in this game.  They nerfed the BB by only allowing you 1 shore bombardment per attacking amhip unit.  So you no longer have the option of dropping one guy in France and getting 6 bombards.  The rules prohibit that, which makes the expensive BB much less attractive as a purchase when you can buy a cruiser for 12 IPCs and get almost the same benefit (attacks, defends and bombards at 3).

    I still like BBs because they take two hits to sink.  Though, you’re right, the build costs should have been lowered to 18 IPCs.  I never liked the unlimited bombardment rule.  1 infantry should not be able walk aboard a continent because of naval bombardment, they just didn’t happen.

    2.  The quality of the plastic pieces in this set was VERY disappointing.  It was almost of the quality of the old Xeno Games W@W set – piss poor.  For $100, I would have expected something more on the order of the quality pieces that came with A&A: Europe, which cost HALF as much as this game.  In fact, IF I buy this game, I would be tempted to throw out the pieces that came with it and buy up odd sets of A&A: Europe pieces on e-bay or whatever to replace them.  The map and counters are too nice to be played with with such crappy plastic pieces, IMO.

    Urgh.  I do not want to replace my fresh pieces before I’ve played with them.  Yeah, Wizards bungled this department.

    Flying Tiger

    American NO……
    -Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
    (Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.

    Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint.  It bogs the game down.  The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific.  The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.



  • @TG:

    Flying Tiger

    American NO……
    -Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
    (Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.

    Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint.  It bogs the game down.  The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific.  The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.

    I disagree, counting the value of units will be less than 30 seconds, unless your math skills are bad.

    All this will do is evaluate your commitment to the Pacific theatre which if high will boost morale in the states and give you your bonus.

    Sure there are NOs in the pacific for USA but the Phillipines are far away and protected by large japanese fleet. The NO for Midway, Wake, Solomans should be easy for the Japs to squash for at least 2 turns. The Allies are not getting France for awhile so the Americans are not represented correctly IPC wise when Japan starts with a huge navy and the ability to expand their economy larger than the USA by turn 2. Quite frankly, it’s bullshiat. They designed a game where Japan is more powerful than America. Give it time, in 2 months everyone will come to the same conclusion.

    In the real war America fought in the Pacific, and Africa while building up in England for DDay. You can’t fight in 2 theatres with the income given. The bonus will make America fight in the Pacific and give them just enough to send something to the Atlantic which is ideal.


  • 2007 AAR League

    TG Moses, I think the most likely solution, ASSUMING everyone concludes after sufficient play time that '41 is unbalanced toward the Axis, is a bid to play Allies.  That’s how all the other prior versions got re-balanced (with the bid going to the Axis).  It’ll be the same for this version, only in the other direction.  I could envision a 6 IPC bid for the Allies, placing 2 infantry in India to make an IC there more promising.  Or perhaps as high as 10 IPCs, giving Russia a fighter to start the war.  That’d be a big help, believe me.  (Did I mention before that Russia starts out with NO AIRFORCE?)


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    and one tank one artillery…. they even lost the sub



  • Any bid would probably go to a KGF campaign. Never would have thought a global game like this would turn to giving allies a bid. It feels like that episode of Star Trek when they visit that planet where the guy from earth brings the Nazi ideology with him. He proceeds to conquer the planet. I wonder if that planet’s USA equivalent had a weak economy too……maybe they based this game on that planet’s war and not ours?



  • I’d bid at least 9 IPCs to China, 12 to being sure. All to Yunnan to let the last and lone chinese fighter survive. And to let more than zero chinese units survive by the way  😛

    China is the greatest flaw in this setup (and in the whole game)


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Funcioneta:

    I’d bid at least 9 IPCs to China, 12 to being sure. All to Yunnan to let the last and lone chinese fighter survive. And to let more than zero chinese units survive by the way   😛

    China is the greatest flaw in this setup (and in the whole game)

    I don’t know about bidding units to China.  Those IPCs would be put to better use elsewhere.  A fighter for Russia, for example, would be useful the entire game, whereas any Chinese units will die eventually – it’s just a matter of time.  (And probably sooner than later, the way Japan is set up).



  • But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?



  • 4 inf to Yunnan lets survive them plus the starting 1 inf, 1 fig plus probably another inf (Japan cannot reduce you to a 1 inf popping status, so it’s better take only 2 territories) plus 2 inf from reinforcements. That’s a total of 7 or 8 inf and a fig, opposite to usual 1 inf. You have a China that can survive 3 or 4 rounds at very least, probably even 5 or 6, opposite to a China killed J1. That buys time for USA navy arrives or a possible India IC (that buggy no-out-of China rule damaged Asian fight for allies but still China can attack Manchuria  😛 ). If Japan’s attacks take less than 2 territories, there is no chance Japan can beat the chineses in a long time with that bid, and remember the fig survives and now China can afford make small attacks (as she should). If Japan attacks Yunnan there is a big chance of Japan not killing the fighter and even maybe losing some fig if they get careless, and the resources needed are excessive and maybe they cannot attack rest of China (or Pacific) very well. Just for sure, I would even bid 5 inf to Yunnan (that’s 7 vs 7) or 3 inf, 1 armor (yummy chinese armor  :-D)

    Of course, It only works well with a Pacific navy, but I anyway think that KGF is hara-kiri for allies in this scenario (65-70 IPCs Japan)

    I don’t like the soviet fig by the way. More guys to Egypt or India would work better than that (specially the egyptians)



  • To all,

    But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?

    I agree with this statement as much as possible.  If we’re going to bid, it might as well reflect the changes in A&A:50 as a NEW game.  I’m sorry but extra infantry/tanks in the Caucuses or in Egypt screams a retread of A&A over and over again.  It may help the Allies win easiest, which is what they’ve always been doing with KGF.

    Lets put those extra IPCs in China (or the Pacific) so that those 32243 extra rules about China are worth memorizing.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

65
Online

14.0k
Users

34.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts