Why the Allies have the upper hand


  • TripleA

    1. count the spaces between germany and moscow. If you lose moscow before the fifth round something is wrong with your buy as russia (the russian buy should be limited to just infantry and tanks and sometimes artillery when the fight draws near).

    As russia if germany took Karelia round 1. Take it back. That’s what the tank is for.

    1. UK starts out with 43 on his first buy. Don’t buy an industrial complex. secure your naval, get transports and men and kick german butt. once you start shippin 8 men a round you can do whatever you want. Remember if germany goes north he will be trading units with you and russia and stretching his offensive thin at the same time. If you play with tech I always get a tech roll and pray for advanced artillery or rockets.

    The best german players will buy a mixed bag of units of infantry and tanks. a couple tanks to hold his national objectives sooner and infantry to hold them later. You got to remember though there are many spaces between them at some point you’ll be trading infantry for german tanks.

    If you think germany is going to get Karelia again round 2 land a fighter there. Remember you’re stretching the germans thin.

    As tempting as it is to use your SZ35 transport for asian conquest… use it to counterattack egypt. If you have to sacrifice a bomber to kill a german transport (because he put 2 germans in balkans)… you go ahead and you do that or you use the bomber to kill what’s left in egypt if you got steam rolled. I mean the bomber is worth 15 ipcs this is true but if it dies killin that one last guy then it’s all worth it because africa as a collective is worth alot more.

    1. Who always comes in and saves the day? America! What does America do? kick the Italians butt. Carrier, 2x transport, rest inf/tank. Round 1 buy right there if your naval hasn’t been sunk by german subs. Otherwise carrier, destroyer, sub, transport inf / tank. Those are the two buy options right there. I usually buy option B because I am paranoid I miss those subs and and he hits and then lone sharks my carrier…It’s never happened but it could and that would suck. Plus option B alone is barely enough to sink the italians (with 2 out of 3 starting fighters on it).

    ~
    A successful allied campaign never loses Africa even if it means sacrificing all the american and uk bombers. and all the uk infantry present and two indian guys.

    You got to remember the most men Germany can ever place on the board is 10 unless he buys an industrial complex and there aren’t many places for germany to put that IC that isn’t connected to the waters.

    So no matter how many IPCs Germany makes it’s still only 10 guys.

    Japan is still very far away and time is on your side. In end game after the fall of italy/berlin and moscow you still have an upperhand USA and UK make more than Japan.

    So even with National Objectives you still have the IPC advantage along with the endless miles to moscow.

    GG

    Even if round 2 germany buys an IC in France with his 55 or whatever he musters up. Don’t worry. he doesn’t make 55 for long. Norway/finland is 5 right there and karelia comes back to russia if you cut germany off. All things come in due time.



  • yeah, don’t forget that some things can come simply down to the roll of the dice …

    i’ve taken moscow on my second or third turn as germany before, against experienced players. allies only have the upper hand in the long-run. the axis are all for the quick gains



  • I take issue with a lot of things you’ve suggested. For starters:

    @Cow:

    As tempting as it is to use your SZ35 transport for asian conquest.

    What SZ35 transport? That thing is a must-kill for the Japanese on turn 1.

    I think in your case the Allies have the upper hand because you’re much better than your opponents.



  • Cow:
    it seems like a very nice strategy overall… only that it’s just KGF again

    and I’m just tired, annoyed, pissed, and bored of playing KGF over and over again since classic
    If this is the best strategy, I want my $100 back



  • 1941 is an almost sure win for axis. Japan can toast chineses round 1  😮 Axis can reach economic pairty early. And IL says soviets have few chances of surviving Barbarossa (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

    KGF is dead. Assault on America is so easy with a so rich Japan that is a no brainer. Why attack USSR when western axis can do better and faster than Japan? The problem is KJF also dead.

    Play 1942 or mod 1941



  • Cow: did your Grand Strategy actually worked? (aka: did you win a game using it?), or is it just theory?

    Funcioneta:
    Excuse my ignorance:

    @Funcioneta:

    And IL says soviets have few chances of surviving Barbarossa (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

    who’s IL?

    @Funcioneta:

    (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

    and still having a sub on the artic sure don’t aid anything either – unless that sub is for Stalin run away to Cuba when Moscow falls down … oh! wait! it’s WW2! Batista is in Cuba! … the sub is useless

    @Funcioneta:

    Play 1942 or mod 1941

    what’s mod 1941?


  • TripleA

    I won games with my strategy.

    Japan going for USA? That can get irritating but I don’t see it. America makes alot and can churn out more men. You always have to eyeball hollywood.

    I mean uk from the north soviets from the east and America from the underbelly. use the uk bomber for egypt as neccesary.

    It’s a really balanced game.

    I know people complain about KJF not being a totally kickass strategy.  Whatever.

    If you play without NOs it’s not so bad. uk can shuffle men to africa to stop the italians from going nuts off their money. and well you’re pretty much bankin on shutting down japan before germany takes moscow. Also you kind of need to shutdown italy with uk…

    The idea is you shutdown italy and japan and fight germany. I mean you probably won’t take Italy ever with just UK. usa probably won’t take over japan but you should be able to take the islands but taking japan over is kind of harder then taking his money.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    But can America churning out men result in an Allied victory?  Or will America’s attempts to stop Japan from taking over result in the Axis winning?



  • IL = Imperious Leader
    Mod 1941 = modding 1941, giving more units to China and free movements as first priority, ICs to UK in ind, aus or saf as 2nd priotity and figs to USSR as 3rd priority

    Good joke that one with Batista and Castro  😄 Karma +1



  • @Cmdr:

    But can America churning out men result in an Allied victory?  Or will America’s attempts to stop Japan from taking over result in the Axis winning?

    I’d bet the second. USA will not be able of reinforce UK and soviets if they have to defend American mainland. I prefer fight USA in Alaska and Canada than in Middle East or Africa



  • @Funcioneta:

    Mod 1941 = modding 1941, giving more units to China and free movements as first priority, ICs to UK in ind, aus or saf as 2nd priotity and figs to USSR as 3rd priority

    I agree that UK needs a 2nd IC. They can be pretty well decimated after the first 2 rounds and without a complex I don’t see any way for them of sustaining any kind of income. A N. Atlantic navy and or bombers can’t hold ground in Africa, Middle East, and S. Pacific. I wouldn’t suggest a mod just yet however. I think UK can get away with placing an IC in any three of the territories you mentioned with support from their allies.

    I’m liking the idea of an Australian IC because the S. Pacific is actually pretty IPC rich when you factor in the NOs.



  • Cow, I would really love to think that you’re right and that the game is balanced… which is the first things every AA player wanted to see for AA50

    but there’s something that bothers me about your strategy
    If I may bring up something you wrote in another thread (China Wall):

    @Cow:

    Although I got to be honest. I sacrifice moscow to japan so I can take berlin . I always go all out.  I know in end game uk / usa > Japan.

    All of this is very nice if you’re playing 1 vs 1… what happens if you’re on a multi-player game and you happen to be the Russian player?
    your game can be summarized to “let’s see how much can I hold Moscow until they take me out of the game… or the Americans come to rescue me… if they get to late doesn’t matters because, hey! I’m here to be sacrificed anyway! Moscow may fall but the Allied will prevail! Hurray!”  :roll:

    The entire Allies strategy for a ‘balanced game’ seems to be KGF (again) with a few variations…

    and since a more versatile game, where KGF were not the only-game-in-town was the second request most AA players have, well, if we’re not getting it, with all due respect for Avalon Hill, screw that.

    @Cow:

    I know people complain about KJF not being a totally kickass strategy.  Whatever.

    The idea is you shutdown italy and japan and fight germany. I mean you probably won’t take Italy ever with just UK. usa probably won’t take over japan but you should be able to take the islands but taking japan over is kind of harder then taking his money.

    I don’t mind that I don’t take Tokio, or that KJF is not a kickass strategy… what I do mind is that KGF seems to be still the only strategy.

    what about having to fight both Berlin-Rome and Tokio at the same time for a change?

    I don’t know… I only played two games, one with the allies and one with the axis… in one of them by turn3 Japan had become Gotzilla on esteroids and there was no point for the USA to even try on fighting them… on the other one Japan become just Gotzilla, but again, the USA couldn’t go after Japan or the South Pacific, even though in both games USA had been spending most if not every penny on the Pacific

    I still have to try that strategy suggested by a forum member about getting a big fleet of subs for the US in the Pacific.

    but so far, AA50 1941 scenario seems to be un-balanced for the Axis, or yet another KGF game with Russia playing as the poor-lady-lady-in-distress and Italy and China to spice up the game.


  • Moderator

    I don’t know if the Allies have the upper hand (or the Axis for that matter, I just have seen enough games played.
    I also don’t think KGF (or KIGF) is the only way to go.

    I think it is a standard default given Classic and Revised (for the most part) and people will try what they know first.

    You can’t really plan a KJF until you find out what the “standard” G1 and J1 turns are.  Both have a lot of attacking to do and that means 1 or 2 or more battles may not go as planned.

    I’m in my second game (just started) and already I’ve seen 1 dd kill 2 or more units.  (Game 1 - UK dd survived and killed 2 J ftrs, Game 2 UK dd in sz 6 survived and killed multiple units).

    The US can easily send only 2-4 inf to Afr per turn and spend the remaining 35-40 ipc or so on the Pac.

    UK is not weak.  They lose a lot of IPC early but is still takes roughly 3 turns (At least for them to lose the Pac stuff and Ind) and that is with no reinforments.  UK can spend 43, ~30, ~30 in their first 3 turns and only has 8 placement spots.  That is prime for early capital ships and air.  You only need to earn about 18-24 ipc to make UK viable assuming you have air, trns and capital ships already on the board.

    Also Germany can earn 60 but the still can only place 10 units (12 if they take Kar and can hold).  This is a BIG deal considering Russia can drop 8-10 units for the first few turns and UK can all but match by Rd 3-4 with 8 ground units per turn. 
    Japan also can only place 8 and needs more ICs within the first few turns.

    This all leaves the US as the wild card.  They can spend 40, mid 40’s, mid 40’s the first three turns.  I’m fairly convinced if you commit 75-80% to Pac spending you can give J a run for their money while providing minimal backup to the UK.



  • I agree, it’s way too early to talk about balance.

    I remember in the first AA, everyone who I played with thought that the Axis had an advantage but then once we learned how to play it was clear that the Allies have the real advantage.

    In 2 months time people might be saying the same thing.

    I think the game is more balanced then people believe.  The allies work well when they work together, the axis work well independantly so it doesn’t matter.

    England starts with a butt load of fighters on England, move them onto Karellia after fighting the German fleet on it’s first turn = Karelia isn’t takable by Germany r2.  I don’t know why people overlook this.

    I do agree a KGF strategy might be best though… but in the original a KGF?  Are you kidding?  You haven’t played it enough.



  • @Alair:

    England starts with a butt load of fighters on England, move them onto Karellia after fighting the German fleet on it’s first turn = Karelia isn’t takable by Germany r2.  I don’t know why people overlook this.

    [/quote

    One reason not to do it, if you are playing with NOs, then you have just cost Russia 5 bucks…



  • That’s one way of looking at it…. but that doesn’t take into account the whole picture.

    Karelia on it’s own is worth 2… so by having the fighters on Karelia Russia loses 3 production (fighters mean $5 less but keeps Karelia’s $2 production)… plus keeps another factory.  That factory is huge for Germany.  Germany has problems supplying infantry to the front, so not letting them take it is big.

    Plus, Germany gets $5 for taking Karelia or Caucassus.  So the real calculation should be:

    Russia - loses $3 and keeps Karelia, isolating Finland and all that area off from the rest of Germany meaning America/Britan can take it easily.
    Germany - loses $7 and stays at one factory… where they only start with Germany itself.

    To me it’s a no brainer.

    Something else, I looked at it again.  If Germany attacks the BB off Iceland then they will lose airforce, so 2 fighters will suffice to keep Karelia.  If not, transport a tank and army off England along with the 2 fighters into SZ4 just north of Karelia.  That’s what I’m going to try my next game.



  • The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.



  • The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

    We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

    Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

    My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.



  • @Uncle_Joe:

    The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

    We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

    Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

    My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

    I agree 100%.

    Taking India on J2 is the equivalent of a KEF strategy and the USA should move against them accordingly.

    When I did the J2 India the USA got a ton of bonus income from national objs because I neglected to take some key points.  I think Japan focusing on England and then Russia first should mean that USA builds a massive feat and comes in early.  If Japan focuses on on the US then England should have a IC on India.

    Looking at the game more, it’s just like the first AA.  If the allies want to build an IC on India, there’s nothing the Axis can do about it, you should have to do some moves to assure you get it.  With that being said, I still think it’s balanced against the allies.



  • IMHO the 41 scenario (Tech / no NOs) is balanced with neighter the axis nor the allies having the advantage. Sure, the first round germany and japan are almost unstoppable, but in turn 2 and 3 the tides turn. Earlier or later the germans stick in russian mud with his royal navy bombarding the western territories and the japanese forces wear thin in China while the United States Navy regains combat strengt. I played about 6 games in the 41 scenario, and both sides had equal wins.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn’t buy any, Germany’s basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.

    Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.

    Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California’s door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.



  • @Cmdr:

    I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn’t buy any, Germany’s basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.

    Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.

    Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California’s door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

    I  basically agree with the above said.

    Russia building only infantry in round 1 is asking for problems -
    Russia has to develop offensive capabilities as well as retain the advantages of numerical solid defense - what IMHO calls for a mixed infantry-artillery-tank buy. I also like aircraft, but i belive that mobile (tank-) forces wich can conquer territories have a better early- and mid-game payof than aircraft.

    America cannot ignore Japan -
    I believe that japan should never try to attack the american continent - it just is not economical and there is no gain in it. Better conquer all the islands and force the american to invest in expensive naval units. The USA do not have to be afraid of some land units landed in alaska. Thats units transported in expensive transports occupying expensive fleet operation time only to be destroyed by cheap US land forces and aircraft the US will have to build to deal with the japanese navy anyway - killing of landed units is just not a problem. I prefer taking every british IP island and mainland territory.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    One should also note that W. Canada is no longer connected to the Ocean north of Alaska, making defense there harder for America. (You have to fly over Alaska to get there, pretty much kills your bombers in England being able to attack!)

    As for Japan, I did not mean to imply they would TAKE W. USA, just come knocking on the door. (Basically taking Hawaii and threatening to invade.  Pretty much forces USA to build SOMETHING in W. USA.)

    BTW, why do people forget that Poland is worth 3 IPC?  You can easily build a factory there to produce more ground units to the front, either southern front or northern front and if you are bombed, the MAX you can take is 6 IPC, not 12 like in France (which also is FARTHER from the front than Poland and thus, a lesser place to put a complex in my mind.)

    Basically, Karelia is fine, but it’s so far from Caucasus it doesn’t help much there.  Poland, while it costs you 15 IPC to make the complex, 6 IPC to put a gun on it (preferably with radar as well, min 5 IPC there) it allows you to immediately dump units into the Russian front and it’s pretty much immune from attack until Germany is losing the war anyway.



  • Poland is also only one territory away from Germany, and unlike France, has only a coast on the Baltic. So is it worth 15 IPC’s simply to save one move? I don’t think so, whereas in France, one could build ships in three different sea zones and maintain a link with North Africa. Even if that means throwing one or two units across every now and again, England will have to deal with that, and it will most likely ignore France anyway, if there is a large build-up and AA gun. I think If I were Germany and going to place an IC anywhere, it would be in France. Not to mention that’s a perfect spot to lauch a U-boat war from, as the British cannot simply bottle ships put out here up in the Baltic.

    What I think is that the German player should decide right away whether he is going for an all out “destroy Russia ASAP” strategy, or if he is going to go for a strategy of fighting Russia mostly, but also harassing the U.K. and supporting Italy. The U.K. and U.S. can long be distracted by the war at sea, and the war in Africa, perhaps enough to let Germany destroy Russia. I myself would go for the latter strategy, as I hate seeing games where England goes about sailing freely with 2 destroyers and 10 transports, with nothing to oppose them, with subs coming out of the Bay of Biscay every now and again then the British will have to spend more to convoy their transports, and to defend their pricey capital ships, which a lucky sneak attack can destroy real quickly. So it’s a test to see who spends more, either Germany, by building a factory and subs, or the U.K., by building counters to the subs, and sending more units to Africa.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Benefits of a Polish Industrial Complex:

    Russia is only 3 spaces away
    Karelia is only 2 spaces away
    Caucasus is only 3 spaces away

    If the complex is bombed, it cannot take more than 6 IPC in damage, unlike France which can take 12.

    The complex is almost unimpeachable.  France could fall to massive allied landings.  If the allies have the strength to take Poland, they’ll take Germany instead.

    Yes, the draw back is only SZ 5 to build in.  Then again, why are you building navies???


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 5
  • 9
  • 30
  • 19
  • 4
  • 12
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts