Who has advantage in 1941?

1.)Because its so easy for them to get their NO’s and get economy going.  2.)  So easy to knock china into oblivion and then if USA tries to counter attack in Pacific Japan already has a bigger fleet and larger economy then USA by turn two.

Axis powers. Japan is so powerful. Starting with a laughable 17 IPC, it can reach 42 IPC at the end of turn one and can reach the 60 IPC level by the end of turn 3.

If Germany/Italy can hold on (and they are able to survive long enough) until Japan kill the Soviet Union or the United States, it’s a win for the Axis.

Also, if Germany really wants to capture the U.S.S.R. early and put all efforts accordingly, it should get it.

I think the real question is how negligible is the difference both with and w/o NO’s

@dondoolee:

I think the real question is how negligible is the difference both with and w/o NO’s

One poll at a time  :wink:  8-)

@axis_roll:

@dondoolee:

I think the real question is how negligible is the difference both with and w/o NO’s

One poll at a time  :wink:  8-)

point taken

Axis should have around 60-70% chance of victory with NOs if they play the following moves:

Germany: G1: Attack egypt with all land+bomber, sea zone 2 with 2 subs+fighter, take baltics with enough to hold off russian counterattack, take Karelia on turn 2 or 3. Build France IC on turn 2, build inf+arm only, don’t bother with air, continue sending troops east while also protect France from any invasion w. heavy inf defences.
Japan: J1: Attack Yunnan, clear fighter, invade Burma with 1inf+1art, take India on turn 2. Build 2-3 ICs in the Southeast Asia region, pump out Armor and go for Caucasus. Build bombers to use against Russia and some DDs+subs if USA threatens your back door.

Who has the advantage?  Whoever wins Egypt G1.

With German 2 tanks in Egypt, Germany will hold the majority of africa at the end of turn 2.  This creates a 15-20 IPC income difference between Germany and UK for the next 4-6 turns.  If Germany fails to capture Egypt, they should be shredded by UK invasions in no time. Taking egypt with just 1 tanks leads for a pretty close game.  Given the odds of these outcomes are pretty equal (40/20/40), I think 1941 is pretty fair.  However 80% of games will be a pushover for one of the two sides (flip a coin).

@Telamon:

Who has the advantage?  Whoever wins Egypt G1.

With German 2 tanks in Egypt, Germany will hold the majority of africa at the end of turn 2.  This creates a 15-20 IPC income difference between Germany and UK for the next 4-6 turns.  If Germany fails to capture Egypt, they should be shredded by UK invasions in no time. Taking egypt with just 1 tanks leads for a pretty close game.  Given the odds of these outcomes are pretty equal (40/20/40), I think 1941 is pretty fair.  However 80% of games will be a pushover for one of the two sides (flip a coin).

I almost agree.  I have still seen the Axis win if they lose Egypt Germany turn one.

I have almost NEVER seen the allies win if they lose Egypt G1

About Egypt, in one game, I taken it as germans, survived the counter, put a IC there, build units one round and then UK stolen the IC (it was not a wise move for me putting that IC)

And still I won. When my opponent surrendered, Egypt was still in UK’s hands

@Lynxes:

Axis should have around 60-70% chance of victory with NOs if they play the following moves:

Germany: G1: Attack egypt with all land+bomber, sea zone 2 with 2 subs+fighter, take baltics with enough to hold off russian counterattack, take Karelia on turn 2 or 3. Build France IC on turn 2, build inf+arm only, don’t bother with air, continue sending troops east while also protect France from any invasion w. heavy inf defences.

BUT the problem with those attacks on G1 is they aren’t gimmies.
2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm, bom (to Egy) is 75% win (but only ~40% to take with at least 1 arm)
2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 bom is 92%  (I couldn’t remember if a ftr can reach)

Sz 2 - 2 subs, 1 ftr is 85% win

However, I think this leaves only 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca in Sz 12 which is only 50% to win.

.92 * .85 * .5 = 40%
.75 * .85 * .5 = 32%

Even if may odds are off a bit the results of the attacks that must be made are going to be favorable less than 50% of the time.  This even excludes the Russian attacks.

As an Allied advocate, I’m willing to concede if Germany (and Japan) win ALL of their round 1 battles or get “expected” results for each battle the Axis definitely have the adv, unfortunately for the Axis the odds of that is going to be less than 50%.  Now that doesn’t mean they automatically lose if they lose one of these battles or the Allies automatically win, it just means the odds of the Axis starting out with with some type of overwhelming start isn’t that great, and I wouldn’t be counting on that for long term strategic planning.

It is the equivalent of me saying if the UK BB and Egy survive the Allies have an 75-85% chance to win.  That may be true but the odds of that happening are relatively small and basing a long term strategy on that scenerio probably won’t do much good.

DM, your math is off. With a Egypt attack with the bomber, you have the following percentages for surviving attackers:

zip 25%
at least 1 bomber 75%
at least 1 arm, 1 bomber 60%
at least 2 arm, 1 bomber 40%

Some players might actually sacrifice the bomber to take EGY, but that’s debatable. The sz2 attack is a bit flaky, but not as important as EGY. If you attack sz12 to safe against a survival of the fighter in Egypt, you would in most cases retreat after 1 round, you don’t want both fighters to be downed.

Yeah, I was using numbers to take with at leat 1 arm, no sacrificing of planes.  IMO the important aspect is Germany’s ability to blitz in rd 2 so I was just using the take with 1 arm numbers.

Sacrificing air is a judgment call so you’re right that is an option.

I still hate the Egy attack, you have to do it, but I hate those rolls.

Although I also hate when Russia attacks Finland and loses 5 inf and Germany takes no losses, then Germany slaughters the Allies in Kar.  :-D

So perhaps its best to not look at any numbers and just go with the gut feelings on a battle per battle basis.  :-)

I have yet to see anything that would make me think that the game isn’t balanced over the entirerty of playouts.

By that I mean that when the board is set up, and before the first dice is rolled and your playing yourself (equal foe!) you don’t know who is going to win.

I have played both sides against players’ claiming “unbeatable” stratagies.  With good play and an expectation that the game will run many turns to allow the key battles’ luck to even out both sides win.

Any game that is over in three or four turns is the anomoly, not the norm, and I feel that way too many people quit after the first couple turns when it may look bleak, not giving themselves the oportunity for the dice to balance back to the middle.

@PGMatt:

… allow the key battles’ luck to even out both sides win.
… not giving themselves the oportunity for the dice to balance back to the middle.

I wouldn’t rely on luck balancing itself out in any one game.  Apart from the fact that dice have no memory, early luck has a decisive effect that isn’t cancelled out by equal and opposite luck down the track.  E.g. if germany has an atrocious first turn (I’m sure you’ve been there), the game’s as good as over against a decent opponent.  I wouldn’t be banking on a late comeback.  A win in the first 3-4 rounds is uncommon, but in most games you should be able to predict the winner with a good degree of confidence by that stage.

Aside from my nitpicking, happily agree with the rest of your thoughts  …and nobody likes a quitter!    :-D

Allies have the edge.
They can count on what lynxes point out :

• G1: Attack egypt
• G2: Try to Take Karelia
• J1:  Grabs it’s land while positioning for India
• J2:  Try to take India.

There is other variants but the very fact axis moves are pretty much previsible means they can be exploited or countered.

There is NO reasons India and Karelia should fall round 2 if you know what you are doing and if they do fall, it’s because you choose to do so in order to exploit other openings.

The worst threat to allies is a conservative Russia that ignore Japan.

well germany moving heavy in BST its quite tough to defend, even if you send all allied planes in range and buy 2 ftr for russia there… pretty much the same in india. if it turns out that KGF is more “effective” than a combined global allied strat …(keeping russia alive, uk focus africa first, us pacific first > see note) this will  become even more true for both since BST and  burma will then become top priority (imho).

note:
keep in mind thoose NOs. imho ppl underestimate brit vs jap/ita NOs… its hard to get the europe NOs for allies in the first 4-6 rounds, but you can get 2-3 UK, deny ITA its 2 (japan possibly one but that ones a biggy -9J +4B )

ps:
“effective” doesnt mean just because KGF is faster, its better.  strictly strategically thinking brings me to the conclusion that it aims for a decisive battle(since axis cash out bigger), and i personally dislike that. i’d  rather outproduce the axis and that means meet them where the IPC are.

/corbeau blanc

Agree with you on Karelia, even though Germany can take it sometimes it’s not too difficult to take it back by Russian counterattack and/or UK invasion. Only once Germany gets heavy inf reinforcement east can they hope to hold it, and if you do a good UK/US invasion combo into Europe there should be tied lots of Germans tied up manning the West wall. In my games, Germany and Italy often seem to end up being inf-heavy hedgehogs, leaving it to Japan to finish Moscow off.

India, on the other hand, isn’t easy to hold at all. This is due to Japanese number of transports and fighters, which will overwhelm you sooner or later. I think ICs in SAF and EGY are a better UK focus, better fighting a delaying action over India and reinforce Russia with aircraft to make it impregneable.