AA50 1941 w/NO - Allied Allways Win

  • Yes, there is one: playing 1942 scenario, that is, by far, much less imbalanced than 1941 (but still gives some advantage to axis)

  • Moderator


    But how beat the axis economic advantage? Even if you manage stop Polar Express, it will stop reinforcements to Africa 2 rounds, enough time for axis securing Africa. And I’m pretty sure Italy will harass and probably kill your shuck if you only buy trannies. By round 3-4, Italy could be colecting more than UK if allies left Japan alone

    I don’t think the Axis Economic adv can last or if it does it is not immediately enough to kill the combined stacks of inf/arm/ftrs that boarder Mos (or are in Mos).

    For Example, say there are 9 Rus/Chi inf in Chi.  Japan has to commit 7 inf and 6 ftrs (81 ipc in units to take vs. 27 to defend) or a more likely force of 7 inf, 3 arm (36 vs. 27), but that leaves the Allies the option to counter the remaining arm.  Attackers need to spend 4:3 in order to take.  Lots of the Axis economic adv gets eroded away killing Allied units.  Unfortunately for the Axis, defense is cheaper to buy (3 ipc for 1 inf).

    IMO, I don’t think the Axis should be able to maintain the eco adv long enough.  Also any eco adv doesn’t come into play until several turns down the road, a lot can change in the meantime.

    I also don’t think the Axis can reclaim Afr if the Allies go heavy landing in Rd 2-3.  They can dump up to 16-20 troops in Afr and that excludes ftrs/boms plus the 2 Safr inf.  Ita only has 1 trn, and 2 if you can keep the Ger trn alive and continue to bring down 2 Ger troops.  At this point it could be safe for the US to only follow-up with 2-4 inf if attacked by Japan b/c the Allies have already done their damage.  It would take an absolute major Axis commitment to hold Afr which means either 1)  Japan is helping, so no assualt on NA or 2)  Ger is helping, so less pressure on Mos.

    As for the NA threat, I don’t think Japan can offer a credible threat before rd 3, which is almost too late.  As I said the UK/US should already have landed heavy stacks in rd 2 and 3.  I’m assuming Japan makes Aus and Ind a higher priority, considering the US goes after Japan and that on J1 they’d setup to at least have a shot at Aus/Ind on J2.  If Japan sets up to go after the US, the US can then respond accordingly on US 1.


    There are plenty of alternative methods to kill the Axis, but NONE are viable unless Japan is seriously threatened by more than a defensive force. USA has to build up a fleet in the Pacific (using the Carrier&Destroyer and any fleet elements that survived J1) to at least threaten to take Japanese islands (denying Japan the NO’s for Islands and Australia).

    I disagree, but think I need to clarify.  When I talk about falling back and ignoring Japan, I do so with the intention of confronting them on my terms (or what I hope are my terms).  Basically, stretching out Japan’s supply lines while I shorten mine.  I’m just not sure the Allies can put up a credible offensive in Asia in the early rds, so I just choose not to fight where Japan can use its full arsenal.  I retreat and then try to pick off the weak points which should be one of the following routes: southern, central, or northern.  If Japan is weak on one or more of these routes you (as the Allies) may be able to find some very favorable trades.

  • But how beat the axis economic advantage?

    To further argue DMs case here, I’m guessing that you have to keep those German and Italian NOs down, once you hinder Karelia being taken and then both Italian NOs the economics are not too bad, something like:

    Germany ~40 (two NOs)
    Russia ~27 (excl. eastern Russia after EVE)
    Japan ~58 (incl. India, China)
    UK ~35 (incl. Scandinavia, Africa)
    Italy ~9
    USA ~45

    Axis & Allies IPCs are at break-even here. If you reach this stage you will be able to focus enough Allied IPCs on Europe to get an advantage. You can then have forces enough to hinder Japan, through Africa/Middle East and/or a Pacific offensive, while at the same time closing in around Germany. Especially if Italy is knocked out of the war, an immediate IPC boost. For AA50 to be a global game with an active Pacific theatre, stopping the European and African advance of the Axis is an absolute must.

  • I can see how the European axis are put under pressure after a long while, but not as quickly as just five turns. Last game, my Germany built only armor and infantry (and an occasional bomber after a really long time). By having focused on ground forces, it became increasingly difficult for the Allies to build sufficient transports (and cruisers) in order to ship the invasion forces. Also remember UK can only build 6 (?) units each turn in England, which further limits her actions. On the eastern frontier, things are getting plain ugly for the SU by an ever increasing lack of forces. If Germany concentrates her forces in two SU-provinces (e.g. Baltic and Ukrain), and they trade East-Poland, they’re gaining two NO each turn… which should ease the defense against UK and US. Early on, I needed some Italian forces for support, but after four or five turns, Germany should be capable to make a decent stand in the east.

    About Africa or Scandinavia: it’s loss is regrettable, but far from lethal.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator


    I’m still curious as to how the Allies can win? with NO and tech on what are some of the strategies that you’ve used to ensure victory and what did the axis player do?

    In all my games the axis player attacks deep enough into Russia to get their NO’s and then adapts a massive deffensive position and waits for Japan to grow unstopable. The allies can’t even threaten europe because once Germany adapts a deffensive strategy there numbers of men, fighters and tanks are just too much for the allies to be able to invade or hold any ground in europe and they can’t seriously threaten Berlin.


    I’d agree with DM in that I don’t think you are seeing balanced play from your opponent. (Balance as in equitable skill to your own.)

    First off, it appears the biggest mistake the allies are making is attempting to use the strategies of Classic and Revised for Anniversary in so much as they are not attacking Japan.

    It only takes 6 rounds for Japan to have a 500 IPC army if you ignore them.  This is not good since it takes over 10 rounds for Russia to achieve that without counting damage taken from Germany!

    I believe it is imperative that America at least force Japan to build boats in the Pacific.  Maybe not go all out after Japan, but at least present enough of a threat that Japan feels the need to put boats in the water.

    If you are not going that route, then landing massive British and American troops in Karelia would help alleviate the pressure.  After all, you’re already giving Japan an 80-90 IPC income anyway, so you shouldn’t worry about the 5 IPC loss to Russia for having some allied units on red territories.

  • @ Jennifer: if the US would like to keep Japan at bay, doesn’t she need almost her entire income to do so? If not (from what I’ve seen), any ‘small’ American fleet would be easily destroyed by Japan thanks to their huge starting fleet. The ipc’s the US spent would almost be thrown away, since a few ships would hardly delay Japan.
    Please tell me: what kind of a US-fleet did you imagine (size and type of ships) to face Japan? (In the games I’ve played, I’ve seen BB and destroyer based fleets in the Pacific. The hitpoints of the BB would make a minor attack against the Japanese fleet extremely costly. But then again, I may have been playing the game completely different than you)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No.  I am referring to building just enough to encourage Japan to play defensively with her fleet and even outfit it with more ships.

    If you want to kill Japan you need to spend almost your entire pay doing so however.  In that regard you are correct.

  • Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.

    I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake. It does not take much effort on Japan’s part to quickly boost their income. Also after turn 3 or so the limiting factor to Japan’s production is IC slots to fill not income. This also means that the tank becomes Japan’s Infantry. I see no reason to build Infantry with Japan in regards to Asia. Tanks attack better, defend better, and get there faster. This is not classic so there is no need for Japan to do some sort of IPM.

    As far as Japan invading the US it can do so quite easily without sacrificing all that much pressure off of Russia. While it may not be able to take and hold W. US it can easily drop 4 transport loads a turn in Alaska, drawing US forces out of the pipeline to Europe.

  • 1941 setup Japan is dominant and should be in the 40 IPC range first turn with NO’s. Furthermore, turn 2 India should fall unless UK player went all out there, in that case take Australia and more of China and Far East, now its second turn and you have 5o+ IPC’s. IC in East Indies and India should come quick and Africa, the Islands and eventually Caucasus. Bombers built in India can bomb Russia immediately. With money for tech rolls, heavy bombers and long range should be top priority. German just needs to survive and build up for 5th turn advance toward Russia, that way the West will be well defended and a strong force can move forward without looking back. If you’re smart you have a fair sized Italian Navy to work with as well. If Italy is getting both NO’s then most of Africa can be left for Japan. All Italy needs is 20-25 IPC’s per turn to cause major problems for the allies. The larger the fleet the more attention it takes away from Germany.

    As far as game balance, I feel there is a slight advantage to the Allies in '41 and a slight advantage to the Axis in '42. I also feel that research & development is too powerful and game changing. A limit of 2 or 3 per country works well with another limit of purchasing only one roll per turn.

  • If the US buys some ships to force japan to also Build ships the advantage is still on Japans side. japan needs ONLY to match the US builds at most. As usually japan has more BBs (usually) to soak up losses, It “only” has to maintain a fleet in "striking distance to the US setup areas. Of xcourse it needs fighter cover, but that is easily achieved as Japan has a definite carrier advantage (same as bbs) in the early stages.

    I too often saw the US building up for a strike on Europe/Africa and then they had to go a few rounds against constant naval landings from Japanese troops. In the meantime Italy (must also build some ships IMHO) sailed out and damaged the US attack fleet while Germany spent a turn or two to strike at the UK ships.

    IMHO if the Euro Axis strikes a balance betweed agressive defense and heavy blows on dangerous Allies - build up points (Germany has the inner line - often enough units used for an attack on one front are available for defense action on the other front next turn), they are in a 2-1 position for a win.

    regarding an 8 inf attack on turn 2 on africa - yeah thats a really bad blow to the axis, thats why I NEVER saw a game in AA50 where Germany did not commit the bulk of its airforce/navy to take out UK ships in the biggest number possible. Sometimes the Luftwaffe got blown out of the air, but more often the UK built ship after ship only to watch them sunk by the Luftwaffe - so the main weight in this thrust must be done by the US.

    If I may say so - Japan does not have to go after russia immediately, buiding up a potential threat to the US West coast is more important.

    I do not say that teh Axis does suceed every time, but they really get a 50+% share…

    In the games I played so far (slight Axis advantage) Lady Luck decided the outcome of the games. More than once by a single streak of bad rolls in ONE offensive, but also by some attition to one side by losing the more risky attacks, when probabilty would have sid otherwise.

  • why bother WUS when u can fight US in MED and africa with japan, helping italy, threatening russia. if US ignores pacific, grab hawaii / 2nd island - 5 IPC NO for US and thats it.

  • Why bother with Moscow as Japan when you can make a serious raid in mainland America, forcing USA to defend there instead Africa, thus giving Africa to italians?

    If USA tries ignore Japan: congrats, you won as axis! Tons of free IPCs for Japan in all the globe, japs menacing America, Siberia AND aiding italians in Africa (if they need it  :-P). A super-strong western axis that can easily beat UK + soviets. UK colecting less than italians …

    No more KGF strats, pals. Sooner you accept that is a dead road, sooner you’ll accept the game is broken and needs a heavy allied bid (and a burning of page 10 of rulebook  😛 )

  • @a44bigdog:

    Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.

    Thanks for your view a44.  I can certainly see where you’re coming from, though for me the infinite variations in each game make me enjoy it enough as is.  After a lot of games, i take your point that the strategies probably play out the same way so it could get repetitive.

    I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake.

    This may be true, though I havent played enough games of AA50 to be sure.  To make the alternative case: if you fight the pacific as US, you prevent otherwise losing a UK and probably 2 US NO’s plus some unreliable island dollars from turn to turn.  Lets say 20 bucks a turn for the allies, which I acknowledge is significant.

    On the other hand, the US (in concert with the UK) is capable of projecting some serious power into Europe and north africa.  And it can be delivered much cheaper without the need to invest in as much navy infrastructure to wage a sea war with japan (debatable perhaps, as you do need to buy the transports and a couple of boats to protect them).

    Remember that even a rich Japan has trouble making itself relavent.  Its sheer distance from the key areas (russia and italy’s tender bits) makes its $$ hard to deliver.  If they go into infrantry, its sunk money walking across siberia/china/persia.  If it goes into ICs, there’s a lot of cash sunk right there.  If you attack america, sure you disrupt the troop pipeline, but you’ve also sunk money into transports and troops doing little.  My current view is that you’re right - the IC–>tank option seems the best way to stay relevant.

  • And Japanese bombers. They are the quickest way to make Japanese IPCs felt in Europe. Russia can be bombed into the Stone Age in relatively short order if Japan is left alone.

  • Yep, and it’s even more funny do it to the USA in a Polar Express campaign. Priceless

    Also, western axis could make a try with SBRs on London if UK makes the error of not buying SAF IC. 16 damage on a country that is colecting about 25 or less? Deadly

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 17
  • 44
  • 9
  • 5
  • 25
  • 60
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys