Balanced Multi Theater Play, is it plausable?



  • Probably not for AA50, though I think it is a step in the right direction.  Using the same basic game mechanics of AA, is it possible to come up with a model for this game where there could be balanced multi theater play on a regular basis?

    Example being: The allies could win against germany, italy, and japan simultaneously  in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and Europe (and likewise lose).  While this seems ideal to me at 1st thought, part of me thinks it is a model that can’t happen as the game mechanics won’t allow it.



  • I think it’s plausble, but except for one player being better then the opponent, if one side usually wins against the other side on a global scale, and it’s not caused by luck, how about the game balance?

    In AA50, either it’s 3 vs 2 for KGIF or US 100% against Japan, in the first example Germany and Italy will be reduced somehow, and Japan will grow very big. In KJF Japan will be reduced, or grow slower. A KJF means less pressure against Germany and Italy.
    If the game mechanics shall not work this way, then it’s not enough to modify AA50 to a custom mod. You have design a game that’s totally different than both AAR and AA50.
    Maybe a game where there is no production, like chess or similar…? Or all TTs have excactly the same production values?



  • First, someone should fix a broken game. Then, we could talk about a global approach. But probably one of the reasons AA50 is so broken is because the global approach (also called KJF) is not a option if allies want to win, and the other is because a KGF approach is not a option to win (and is even worst) 😐



  • @Funcioneta:

    First, someone should fix a broken game. Then, we could talk about a global approach. But probably one of the reasons AA50 is so broken is because the global approach (also called KJF) is not a option if allies want to win, and the other is because a KGF approach is not a option to win (and is even worst) 😐

    To be honest, I am thinking ahead to the next world version of AA and not really AA50.  So far AA has evolved wonderfully I think, I am just wondering if it is even fathomable for a multi theatre game to exist in the AA format/ philosophy


  • Moderator

    I think the best way to get Pacific fighting is to revalue the Islands.  First get rid of NOs and then make all Pac islands worth at least 1.  I’d up HI to 3-4, Mid and Wake to 2 and AL to 2-3.  Make Sol and Car worth 2.

    I don’t think NO’s are enough.  The US can usually get by with just the bare minimum (maybe only buy a few subs to deter the J fleet)to maintain the HI NO.  Even if you buy 2-3 subs per turn you’d still have 30-36 to spend in Eu.

    Also EI/Bor/Ngu/Sol should start as Japanese (I guess 42 setup), b/c in AA50 it is hard for the US to find any incentive to go heavy Pac.  They simply can’t gain until they get to Phil and if you can get there in the mid game it is probably over for Japan and the Axis already.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    Also EI/Bor/Ngu/Sol should start as Japanese (I guess 42 setup), b/c in AA50 it is hard for the US to find any incentive to go heavy Pac.  They simply can’t gain until they get to Phil and if you can get there in the mid game it is probably over for Japan and the Axis already.

    Saving Solomon (that was british) the best solution would be making them dutch. So, in 1941, they start as UK occupied (but not native, any allied could free it at get to itself -> USA) and in 1942 as japanese occupied. It could lead to some odd situations if italians pass Suez channel …  😄


  • Moderator

    That could work, as long as the US has the option to build ICs on EI/Bor it would be fine.  😄

    It might be neat to make Aus worth 3 too.  If you adjust the setup it might make a UK IC there more playable.


  • Customizer

    My friends and I have a gentleman’s agreement that USA must go multitheatre, but gets an additional 10 ipcs each turn



  • What about a 12 VC game without NOs? A victory would represent a tactical victory for the Axis rather than a total war victory, but I think it could be good for the game and much more balanced and closer to the war as it was. Allies would be forced to defend India or Hawaii heavy early on, or else Leningrad+all Pacific VCs means Axis wins. The Allied economic advantage would kick in if the Allies make it the first three rounds, turning the tide of the game. I think the game would be very tense and exciting from the start, and we would avoid transportation stages of the game, just moving units forward.

    We could think of Churchill and Roosevelt as the players rather than the countries UK & USA, and if either of them lost India or Hawaii, I’m sure they could have been evicted from office…  😉



  • @DarthMaximus:

    That could work, as long as the US has the option to build ICs on EI/Bor it would be fine.   😄

    It might be neat to make Aus worth 3 too.  If you adjust the setup it might make a UK IC there more playable.

    Yea, and I would like Australia divided in 2 territories. It’s odd conquering Sydney from a landing on Darwin. Maybe NW Australia 1 IPC, SE Australia 2 IPCs



  • Two big changes that would need to happen would be a larger Atlantic where it took the US a bit longer to get into the fight against Europe, and a stronger Russia that could actually fight Germany.  In all honesty though it would take a large change.

    And I still say KGF works.



  • @bugoo:

    a stronger Russia that could actually fight Germany

    In fact, soviets can fight pretty well against germans. But they cannot do it if japaneses are approaching from Siberia, China and India. And there is nothing in 1941 that can prevent this

    I have no complains about Europe and Africa fronts. Even the Pacific is not too much broken (well, japs start with 2 more trannies than needed but one can fight that). Is mainland Asia the broken front, with no hope of real resistance from China and India. Japan should no be Godzilla so easily



  • Give Uk a starting IC in India! (Would that balance things or turn it one sided?)

    But I have to agree that Europe is pretty much ok. Germany can and will deeply go into Russia. But the deeper he goes in, the weaker his armies. Eventually, there wont be any infantry left to take some hits and he will die because troops take too long to arrive to the front… just like they did in Stalingrad 🙂



  • It is far too easy for G to shove nearly 10 armor a turn into russia while Italy plays can opener and defends France when the US goes pacific.  There is no way to keep G from all 3 NOs without UK/US aid once you have to defend moscow from the can opener, and at that time G is making far too much money.  Europe is where the underlying problem is, without significant US aid you cannot keep germany in check, and even going all out pacific you cannot keep japan in check, so we are left with attacking the closer threat, germany.  Also, you go where the money is, going against japan will net the UK a few extra bucks and the US one more NO.  But going all out against G will net you a 10 IPC russian NO, plus when you take france that makes up for the cash you loose in the pacific, as well as finland/norway and the territories you are trading like Poland or NWE.  In my typical KGF games russia is making 40+ by turn 4 on average, UK is back up near 40, and US stays at nearly 50, while germany and italy struggle just to keep 1 NO combined around turn 4.  If I go pacific my income is no where near that nice!

    As far as splitting the US between pacific/atlantic, that is foolish as well.  It will take you several turns before your even a threat to Japan and by then she is making her 70 IPC anyway with the factories up and running and your still fighting to keep your 2nd pacific NO as US as you bet i’ll sac a trannie or two for the steal.  All Japan needs to do is keep her starting carriers, build some figs and sprinkle in a few subs if you get too large, with 3 starting carriers she can drop 12 figs on you typically with good positioning, and she usually has around 8 left after turn 1 to start!



  • Not for AA50, but I think a 2nd IC for the UK may help somewhat, along with a weak but fully independant China for the next version (whenever that may be).  I think the set up would have to work something like, that maybe if one theater collapses (other than maybe Africa) a victory is almost inevitable.  So if Japan busts out of Asia there would be little prospect for an allied victory.



  • The best way to do it would be to beef up UK holdings in the pacific along with china to create a stronger buffer between Japan and Russia.  Follow that up with something that makes Russia die if Japan goes threw those two and it could work, but not with the AA50 map or setup.



  • @bugoo:

    Also, you go where the money is, going against japan will net the UK a few extra bucks and the US one more NO.  But going all out against G will net you a 10 IPC russian NO, plus when you take france that makes up for the cash you loose in the pacific, as well as finland/norway and the territories you are trading like Poland or NWE.  In my typical KGF games russia is making 40+ by turn 4 on average, UK is back up near 40, and US stays at nearly 50, while germany and italy struggle just to keep 1 NO combined around turn 4.  If I go pacific my income is no where near that nice!

    That’s the problem: USA must face Japan (I mean, if Japan plays right). They have a choice: fighting them in Pacific waters or in American mainland. You cannot send much (or any) aid to Europe if you are busy defending the Alaska-Vancouver-San Francisco line. Of course, Japan could make the error of not attacking mainland America, but you cannot count for that. Polar Express could be done even in Revised, but now is simply too easy

    Japan starts with 5 trannies and probably will by 2 more J1. If they send 5-6 plus AC fleet to Hawaii (round 2-3), you cannot defend both Alaska and WUSA, so you’ll have to retreat from Alaska and japs will make a secure landing there (or maybe attack any stack you left in WCan). This will halt your shuck even if you start it in WUSA (it will be a bit more difficult there but still should work) -> no reinforces to Africa/Europa -> economic advantage for Axis even if they fail to grab Africa and Karelia -> game lost, because Euro-Axis can hold Euro-Allies pretty well



  • I have never seen the polar express being much of a threat, only once in a game (41, NOs, LL, no tech, no bids) rnd 5-6, axis already had a big advantage, not b/c of polar express, but b/c Germany and Italy was stronger than UK+Russia, and Japan had already secured the Asian mainland, axis had an economic advantage, and so US had to build a lot of stuff to take back Alalska, but the game was already lost before this happend, instead of going straght for Moscow, Japan slowed itself down, but with big enough production advantage, it was the economic factors which decided the game, not the polar express.
    And also, in LL, allies need a bid. Not so obvious that allies need a bid or the same amount in ADS. And most discussions here are with ADS setting, b/c most players who frequent aa.org uses ADS not LL.

    The inferior strats which can be used sometimes, is related to lack of experience and playing skills, and a possible unbalance, not nessecarily the strat itself. Like in AAR, allies can probably win many games with a KJF strat, if axis don’t get any bids.



  • @Subotai:

    Like in AAR, allies can probably win many games with a KJF strat, if axis don’t get any bids.

    Well, at least in Revised allies can win with KJF, and that even with axis bid. I don’t think KJF is a inferior strat in Revised by the way

    But in vanilla AA50, 1941, allies cannot win, KGF or KJF, unless bad axis strat or bad axis dices (and better a combo of both)



  • @Funcioneta:

    Well, at least in Revised allies can win with KJF, and that even with axis bid. I don’t think KJF is a inferior strat in Revised by the way

    But in vanilla AA50, 1941, allies cannot win, KGF or KJF, unless bad axis strat or bad axis dices (and better a combo of both)

    I have never lost to a KJF, and I’m not an expert revised player.



  • @Subotai:

    I have never lost to a KJF, and I’m not an expert revised player.

    Well, playing online, I also never lost to KJF in Revised, mainly because nobody tried it  😐 But I was 5th in last revised league using KJF as default strat (I only had to shift to KGF one time). And in fact I improved my results as axis when I changed from JTDTM to Polar Express

    So I have my doubts of KGF being superior even in Revised



  • @Funcioneta:

    So I have my doubts of KGF being superior even in Revised

    Then you should join the TripleA warclub ladder at: http://www.tripleawarclub.org/

    Most players use KGF, so if KJF is more effective than KGF, you’ll soon be at the top of the ladder.

    I don’t play revised anymore, b/c AA50 is much better. In a few months AA42 will be released, and AAR will be replaced by AA42.



  • Funcioneta: I have a simple question for you.  Why do you contently jump into every thread and claim that AA50 41 is unplayable and completely broken needed insane bids like 30 + saying what you believe works and doesn’t work even when others disagree with you when you have said that you will not even play the 41 game anymore?  Yesh just make a single rant post/thread about your hate with 41 then move on if you don’t like it.



  • I’ll not play vanilla one to one 1941 anymore. I decided not to play more 1941 league games because of the unjust bid system, who gives axis bid units and allies bid cash (it makes the bid go to 30s, while unit bids could be enough with 12-15 being the absolute minimal 6). When a system that let allies a unit bid appears, I’ll back to 1941 league. Until that, I’ll stick to Revised or 1942 scenario games

    You would be also a bit sad if axis would recieve cash bids and allies units bids and you would think axis needs a bid

    But I agree with you, I have few convincing power. Maybe is lost time trying give economical, TUV and positional reasons of unbalance when many people use KGF as a magic wand 😐



  • I just read the rules thread in the PBF forum, and on this specific rule issue I agree with Func, even if I don’t do PBF, I can’t see any reason why there are different rules for the two sides.

    This is only a technicality though and is not near as important as if either side needs a $9(+) unit bid to survive.

    This shouldn’t be any problem in reality if you get axis with 0, and if allies need a $12 unit bid then you certainly win all the games you play. I would not mind playing allies (in revised) every game in ladder/league system against a $0 axis bid. Could be fun, but whats the point?

    So why are you not at the top of the aa.org league Func, when you can have axis every game with a $0 bid and win every game, b/c this is what you should do if allies need $9 unit bid or more.

    The reason why some players prefer KGF in AA50 is the same reason why many of us prefer KGF in revised, it’s b/c we think it’s the most effective way of winning the game with.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 23
  • 6
  • 8
  • 7
  • 43
  • 296
  • 6
  • 22
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts