Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

  • Moderator

    I disagree with the you can’t leave Japan alone, and KGF (KIF) don’t or won’t work.  The more I get a feel for this game the more I think KGF is the absolute way to go, at least until you neutralize the G threat then you’re free to do as you wish.

    @Cmdr:

    1)  Japan starts with 17 IPC.  Yes, that jumps to near 40 really fast, but it’s still like having half a pay check and one spent on transports usually.

    2)  Japan takes 6 rounds to have any reasonable chance of invading Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  I don’t care what your dice were, it’s still 5 rounds to walk there and you have to get through the Chinese and Russians first.

    This is why KGF works.  Japan simply isn’t a serious early threat to Mos from rds 1-6.  You can all but eliminate the Ita (Med ships) and Ger (immediate blitz to Mos) threats in the first 3-5 rds.  At which point you are now free to either turn all three Allies against Japan, turn the US only against Japan, or finish off Europe if Rome or Berlin will fall before Mos.


  • @Cmdr:

    It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

    The problem is that I suspect that if America is going all out to kill Japan, Germany/Italy will be able to crack Russia before either Japan falls or Britain becomes a serious threat.

    As Darth says, Japan can expand, yes, but they can’t seriously threaten a capital for the first 6 turns.  Germany can threaten a capture of Moscow as early as Turn 3.

    I think a kill Italy first might be a decent strategy.  Having Britain use build a Bomber fleet to torment the Axis and eliminate vital forces, while America sends its navy to capture Italy could work.  It also has the advantage of flexibility.  The American force can simply capture Western Europe, Balkans, and Bulgeria if Italy turtles too much.


  • I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

    Given that, the US’s job is to keep Japan from doing those two things. Usually if Britain or Russia can spare ANY help, Japan could struggle for a while.  I dont think the US really has the income to split her attention and I think her attention is better spent in the Pacific than in Europe.

    I think people are looking for the quick ‘gimmick’ strat but it appears that this edition of A&A has done a REALLY good job of denying that. That might change in the future, but at the moment, I just dont see either ‘all out effort’ in a theatre to be as productive as fighting in both.


  • @Uncle_Joe:

    I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

    Agreed with balanced approach being the best. But is still a lesser evil: UK and soviets are no match for western axis because of west axis economic advantage from round 2-3, they need a bit of USA aid. And USA simply cannot beat the superior income of Japan from round 2-3 even without sending aid to Europe and spending all the money in Pacific ocean

    Flawed game design. And China is the key, they should be able of at least stopping Japan in Asia, but in OOB rules China is the patetic shadow of a sparring.

    [Praying for axis against tcnance]


  • I guess I just dont see a Germany/Italian econ advantage over UK/USSR IF the US and UK minor forces are preventing Japan from romping. Its not hard to deny Italy her bonus(es) and Russia outproduces Italy straight out most of the time. Germany DOES tend to outproduce UK at some point, but if the US is putting pressure on Japan, its not THAT hard to give Britain at least one of her bonuses as well.

    If you go with a UK IC in South Africa, they can even make it very hard for the Axis to piddle in Africa. With Africa more or less intact, UK’s econ is usually OK. In any case, I dont tend to see some massive Axis advantage in econ UNLESS the US doesnt keep Japan pinned down.


  • Best approach i’ve seen is have the US harrass Italy and focus on the south pacific.  Turn 1 buying subs/destroyers and sending air plus carrier group toward the south pacific and trying to work with UK to get extra troops into europe.  Taking finland/norway really helps fix the economic hit UK takes and puts a bit of hurt on germany as well.  As does keeping a very real threat on france as letting you trade france will put your income as the allies back where it belongs.

    While japan is huge you must remember the quantity of fronts they must fight.  South Asia, Northern Russia, China, and all the south pacific and Japan.  China dies fast but can make a comeback just as fast with Russian help, India can be taken but it diverts part of there fleet, Japan trannies can bridge but must be defended, stretch Japan out and then break her.  I like to do this with US navy/air, and Russian annoyances.  And the best part, any headway you make against Japan helps the UK fight Germany.  I’ve found the key is UK’s income, if it is high enough you will win, if it drops too low you lose.


  • @Funcioneta:

    @Uncle_Joe:

    I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

    Agreed with balanced approach being the best. But is still a lesser evil: UK and soviets are no match for western axis because of west axis economic advantage from round 2-3, they need a bit of USA aid. And USA simply cannot beat the superior income of Japan from round 2-3 even without sending aid to Europe and spending all the money in Pacific ocean

    Flawed game design. And China is the key, they should be able of at least stopping Japan in Asia, but in OOB rules China is the patetic shadow of a sparring.

    [Praying for axis against tcnance]

    hmm still praying for the axis ??

    It seems to me your losing that game  as the axis

    heaven forbid ?


  • Well, I got allies and finally I’m starting to have advantage (killing that big japanese fleet aided me a lot)

    That game is not won yet, but is totally convincing me about axis having advantage. Axis should not be able of hold so much time when USA has such advantage in Pacific, UK conquers Africa and soviets still buy about 10 units a round.

    Now I feel as americans in last stages of Midway battle: I sunk a big japanese navy, but I want that last small one also sunk  :lol:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It’s possible for both sides to win.  I believe the game (with National Objectives and no other optional rules) boils down to who is the better strategist and less on what side you play.  Lucky dice are still lucky dice, so I’m discounting them for the purposes of my belief.


  • I won more games with allies w/o NOs than I lost, but I have also lost some games, and before I started playing online I also lost some AAR games with allies, with no bids. This doesn’t prove that AAR is balanced, or that AA50 w/o NOs are biased or balanced.

    The statement: Axis have advantage in AAR could be true if you’re not an experienced player, same goes for AA50.

    Now we know that in AAR axis needs a bid, we will also know if allies need bid in AA50 -41 with NOs, or if axis needs bid in AA50 -41 w/o NOs.

    At least all discussions on this subject should include weather we’re playing with NOs or not, because this alter the game balance to the extent that a bid for either side is probably needed.

    It is also possible for axis to win in AAR w/o bid, both in LL and regular dice. It has happened, and I don’t think I’m the only one who has been an AAR noob, before I learned how to play.

    I can go back to the Classic days. the first few games we didnt know what we were doing, then axis started winning because of the Japanese IC + tank rush to Moscow. Then after more games we finally learned how to KGF and coordinate the allies, and then we ended up with allies winning all the games.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

    1941:
    Allies - 6
    Axis - 19

    1942:
    Allies - 8
    Axis - 2

    But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.


  • @ogrebait:

    Baloney…. I’ve proven on multiple occasions that I can lose no matter which side I play.   😮

    here here, i’m with ogre.


  • In the normal world, full of casual players…

    There is NO WAY the Allies can win in 1941 with NO’s… NO WAY!

    FACT!

    (note that the exclamation marks make this all fact… FACT!)

  • 2007 AAR League

    @allies_fly:

    @tcnance:

    of course the axis can win, im just saying i think i will win 65 to 70 percent of the time if i play allies

    How many games have you played as the allies against how many different axis players?

    im not sure of the numbers
    just won a game against jen as the allies
    losing the tourney game against fun as the axis
    maybe im just a terrible axis player
    of course it looks like im gonna lose a 42 game as the allies vrs 505, i might be the first online player to lose as the allies in 42

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, but to be fair, TC, I screwed the pooch by waiting an extra two rounds to take E. USA with Japan.  Had I taken E. USA on time, the axis would have won that battle handily.


  • @tcnance:

    of course the axis can win, im just saying i think i will win 65 to 70 percent of the time if i play allies

    I don’t think you will win 65%-70% of your games against me, if you’re playing allies in 41 with NOs, no tech, no bid and LL.

    I’m not sure how high bid is needed, the highest bid I won against is 7 ipc.

    Could be possible to hold back Germany to get only 10 ipc of their NOs for a few rnds, with a 6 bid and higher?

    I think we all agree that allies have advantage w/o NOs in 41, and probably in 42, but I didn’t play enough -42 games yet.

    I have lost games with allies in 41 w/o NOs, but I have never lost with axis in 41 with NOs.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    Yea, but to be fair, TC, I screwed the pooch by waiting an extra two rounds to take E. USA with Japan.  Had I taken E. USA on time, the axis would have won that battle handily.

    here lately, when i win it is only due to my opponent screwing the pooch at some point

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @tcnance:

    @Cmdr:

    Yea, but to be fair, TC, I screwed the pooch by waiting an extra two rounds to take E. USA with Japan.  Had I taken E. USA on time, the axis would have won that battle handily.

    here lately, when i win it is only due to my opponent screwing the pooch at some point

    No, I didn’t say you would lose if I had attacked USA on time, just saying I screwed the pooch waiting an extra two turns to attack.  Had I not waited, USA would have fallen just before Germany and a whole round before Italy giving me two rounds to build up in SE Asia and put a navy in SZ 10.


  • @Cmdr:

    Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

    1942:
    Allies - 8
    Axis - 2

    But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.

    This is different than the after action reports. The stats are: 10 axis victories and 6 allies victories.
    So it seems that the 42 scenario with NOs favors allies. The 41 numbers are mostly the same for games played but not recorded in the after action reports, as the stats recorded in the after action reports thread.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Dunno what to say Subotai.  I only know for sure the games I have recorded and could gather data on games played here.  But my data shows a very significant Allied position in 1942.

    I should note, the two games where the Axis won they scored well in the first couple of rounds.  We know, from experience, that early successes can be compounded to better chances of victories near the end of the game and early losses (of significance) can cost you the game.

    BTW, looks like my count may go from 8 Allies to 3 Axis if Botider surrenders.  But I had to do a lot of, what I consider, reckless attacks to even have a chance of victory.


  • Our gaming group has yet to see an Axis victory in 1941.


  • Hi
    This is my first post, but i have been a frequent reader of these forums for quite a while.
    I play AA50 using tripleA aswell as a real life gaming group (consisting of 6 people). I/We always play with NO’s, LL and without tech.
    My experience is that unless the axis player makes a mistake it seems close to impossible to win with the allies. I can see that alot of people have a similar view of the matchup, but those of you who do play with a bid for the allies, how high a bid is needed? and do you have any restrictions on where to put it? and in either case where do you put them?

    I dont know if i am doing something wrong with the allies, but i have tried alot of different things in the past, including going all pacific or atlantic with the US. But what seems to work the best for me is going something like 70-80% pacific and 20-30% atlantic. What i am interested in is how those of you who have played with the above mentioned setup (with NO’s, LL, no tech) have won your games as allies? what kind of tactics do you use with UK/US. I know its different from game to game and have alot to do with what the axis player does. But if we for example imagine that he starts out by having
    the bomber go to egypt,
    2 fighters and a sub to seazone 12,
    1 sub and 1 fighter against destroyer at seazone 6,
    1 sub against 1 destroyer and 1 transport at seazone 9.
    This have been a often used opening in our gaming group as germany (ofcourse taking the three eastern european states aswell). germany buys 10 inf first turn and 8 inf and 2 bombers second turn, and generally plays a bit defensive on the eastern front and prioritize inf and planes highest (ofcourse also investing in some armor from time to time). Our general feeling is that time is with the axis, since japan will put to much pressure on russia way before allies are able to get into europe or help significantly from the african way to persia. I hope someone higher up on the allied learning curve can give some guidance on how to for example crack open fortress europe. All help is greatly appreciated.


  • I strongly feel that I can improve my strats and tactics when I play allies in AA50. But my learning curve has been to acknowledge the need for bids. Allies need bid in 41 +NO and no tech. I can also improve my axis play, there’s a lot to learn in AA50 from Revised.

    There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent. LL is close to average dice rolls, but luck is reduced, not removed. If it is true that axis is better of with LL than regular dice than you also assume that allies is more lucky than the axis side…  :roll: and that this is happening not only in one game, but several games, more than 50%…  :roll:

    I have yet to find good allied strats if playing w/o bids, thats why I don’t  😉

    Imo we could start with a 6 ipc bid to allies, or bid down from whatever amount is appropriate.

    The main reason why there is an axis bias in 41 +NOs is that it’s much easier for Japan and Germany to get hold of 10-15 each of their NOs, while allies have a hard time getting the same income level as axis, because for allies it will be proportionally more difficult to get their NOs as it is easier for the axis side. You don’t have to be an expert player to know this, and quickly learn how to play axis so that you get your cash by grabbing NOs and TT’s which used to belong to allies. W/o bids you will not be able to deny Germany 15 ipc NOs from rnd 1-2 and rest of the game, if Germany wants to, and why shouldn’t the axis player try to get maximum amount of cash? Unless I make grave mistakes, you will not stop me from owning Karelia most of the game, thus I’m getting my 15 ipc for Germany, either by trading Karelia or by stacking it enough so that Russia or UK cannot take it back. This is why allies need a bid.

    Same goes for Japan, although UK+US can possibly hold or trade India for some rnds, same goes for Australia. If allies makes it their goal they can stack Australia, but none of this helps allies win w/o a bid. I only need one landing in Bury J2, then the rest goes south to Frindo, and towards India. If India is stacked then i take Australia. I get my 15 ipc with Japan most of the game. This is why allies need a bid.

    Seriously, I can’t see any point in discussing strats for either side in AA50 if the setup is 41 +NO, without mentioning where to place the bids, and what units should allies buy with their bid.


  • AA 50 is a fail imho revised is a better system for serious game play(most people agree that you place a bid to fix most problems and turn off tech).  I think that is possible that some one will be able to find a break through some where some day but this game system seems to be failing pretty good.  Most players seem to want to play with no NO’s.  NO’s were a huge part of the game system of AA 50 and now they have to be taken off to have fun game?  As whole AA 50 needs to go back to drawing table I think.  It really does not matter if you think the allies win too much or axis win too much.  To much game system has to be altered has to go on for AA 50 and in the end is it still AA 50 or something else that we play?  It is something else imho. 
    *See the above post as well.  Everything is withing the axis’s reach very quickly and the allies for the most part cannot en devour to save it.  The main problem being the Pacific it is an epic fail.  For all the work they did with Germany and Italy it is a real shame to have a game ruined by something that was not play tested well the whole map needs changed to work.  I am not sure a bid can really save the game either.  Just coming from a prospective that there are 5 victory cities in or close to Japan.  There is 18 production for UK in the Pac counting India well I do not think I have to get into that I think by now people should be getting the point.


  • @ kindwinds, experienced players never use the VC system to decide who’s winning and who’s loosing the game. You concede, or even better, your opponent concedes  🙂

    In the unstable TripleA lobby most people use the NOs.
    Also here on this forum most players play with NOs on.

    I’m not so sure if the bid needed is higher than Revised, I still didn’t get any 9 bids. I have seen a game with a 10 bid to allies. Imo the bid will be closer to AAR than Classic.

    As for tech, NOs, Dardanelles closing and SBR interceptors, these are all optional rules so if you want to include them you have to turn them on, not off. They are off by default. That is what separates optional and original rules, if you change the original rules then you’re using house rules, else you’re playing whatever optional rules combination which is most enjoyable.

    So far it seems that it’s more fun to play with NOs than w/o NOs. Using NOs = make money fa$t  :mrgreen:

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 5
  • 6
  • 63
  • 8
  • 4
  • 25
  • 15
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

16.0k
Users

37.6k
Topics

1.6m
Posts