One good change I was thinking about…. it might be too much though.
Change the turn sequence. Change England to before Japan. The Austrailian and Indian fleet will get away to help in Egypt or against Italy, and India would be secure without Russian help. I think it would change the game a ton… but I bet changing Japan to before England was a last minute change anyways, because it really hurts England to the point of being unable to defend anything but England itself (and Canada with USA help).
Germany
Land 171
Naval 44
USSR
Land 142
Naval 6
Japan
Land 163
Naval 106
England
Land 142
Naval 100
Italy
Land 45
Naval 51
USA 107
Naval 87
China - 22 Land
These numbers are misleading though because of Japanese ACs. There are 6 fighters on there so take off 60 from Land and add 60 to Japanese Naval…
That gives them 213. That’s why Japan’s such a beast. With the USA having 1 loaded AC… really that means that Japan has just as much as England and the USA combined? That seems way out of whack. Especially given they have the initiative and doesn’t get separately destroyed like England.
Rolls: 1@4 1@3 1@2; Total Hits: 31@4: (4)1@3: (2)1@2: (2)
test
Well…. Japan can run wild in China but Russia can still threaten Manchuria if Japan uses too many units.
That was one person’s major beef with this version too. He’s a historian and said that historically Japan had 80% of thier army in China in WW2. In this game China is a speedbump and can barely defend itself.
One change we made was China gets one unit per territory instead of 1 per 2. Haven’t played it enough to see if I like it or not, but it seemed OK.
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.
Well I played it again and yea, G1 taking Egypt with the bomber is the right move. Let England keep some fleet.
At the same time J1 move 1 AC off Burma to take out the fleet off of India and setup J2 to take India.
It’s a strong move, the only downside is when I did it I didn’t take the Phillipines J1, only the fleet, so the USA was stronger.
There was a player who heard the Axies have the advantage so we tried some ‘house rules’ that were, imo, terrible. Non-aggression between Japan and Russia and China gets 1 army per territory instead of one per 2. All the non-aggression did was free up more troops to take India and China while the freed up Russian troops never made it to the Russian front.
The allies can win with no mods, I think I’ve pretty much figured it out but my buddies have soured on the game already. In A&A skill level plays a big factor so it’s just not as fun if you’re not as good.
I’m not convinced there’s a need to rebalance anything.
If so, the only change I’d make is to put a fighter on India.
Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…
Here’s what I’m going to try next game;
R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
(counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
Japan goes…
E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
E2, build stuff on India.
Next I’m sure people will say I’ll lose Caucaus if I do that G2, well… I don’t think so…
Karelia will be safe with the extra English 2 fighters, infantry and tank.
Caucaus will have 6 infantry on it (2 from Kazakh and 4 production) for G2, I think it will hold, if not then Russia will be able to counterattack, and will still have the tank from England helping out in Karelia if they had to counterattack a Karelia G1 move.
Ta-dah! All is right in the world, the allies should fare better now.
I want to test it out.
You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.
You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do. It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters. If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan. That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.
I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone. Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.
Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties… If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles. Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.
Yea, I see what you’re saying. It might be baggage from the original AA I’m bringing with me into the anniversary version, where I should be looking at it as a completely new game so I don’t cloud my judgement.
With that being said, I relooked at the situation with Egypt.
Taking Egypt on G1 is a bad idea, much less weakening an attack somewhere else to do it.
If I was playing England I’d counterattack with 2 from Trans-Jordan and an infantry and artillery from India. If you do take Egypt, even with using all the material available, you’ll lose it E1.
My Australian fleet would then move to SZ 39 in the noncombat round…. and I would produce an industrial complex on India.
Japan has 0% chance of taking it on J1.
If Japan moves aggressively to take india on J2, I’d move an infantry and artillery from Australia to India, and produce on India as defensively as possible.
India should stand barring Japan dumping everything possible into taking it.
Anyways…
On E1, England retakes it.
On G2, I don’t believe they’ll have a counter attack to retake Egypt. It depends on airforce placement… there’s a good chance Germany will have fighters on Morrocco… but even then, with a really aggressive Germany, you won’t have much airforce left anyways. I’m undecided on whether to build an industrial complex in South Africa or not… that’s what I’d always do in the original AA. It would depend on what else was going on… if Germany looked intent on Africa in G1 I would, depending on how the G1 fleet battles went.
You do?
Hum, if I recall, you start with 2 subs off france, plus a cruiser and sub in the baltic. For airforce you have 3 fighters and 1 bomber.
I would consider it necessary to destroy the destroyer in the north sea, and the cruiser and destroyer off Gibraltor.
I usually try to keep my cruiser and sub, so keep them in the Baltic.
That leaves 2 subs for soaks.
What I generally do is attack the cruiser and destroyer with 1 sub, 1 fighter and the bomber. If you use the bomber for the BB, only 1 sub and 1 fighter can reach against the cruiser and destroyer, which is bad odds. This is a key battle too, because if you lose you put the Italian fleet in jeopardy.
I then use 1 fighter and 1 sub against the destroyer, maybe 2.
If playing against you I held onto either the destroyer or cruiser off Gibraltar (you’re attacking at even odds so there’s a good chance) I’d throw what’s left with the bomber in England, plus the fighter on Egypt against the Italian fleet… even at bad odds. It might be bad odds, but bad odds to get the Axis off Africa is worth it.
If you moved your fleet out of the Batlic, I’d attack what you have with all my airforce instead. If Germany loses that fleet, it’s a lot harder to get a G2 Karelia.
Then again, it would depend on dice rolling and how things played out, but it’s not my style.
@Gallo:
in G1 you should be trying to wipe all the english navy out of the seas (except for the annoying battleship off Iceland) .
can’t you take that one with a bomber, a fighter (land in Norway), and a couple of subs? (not sure about the fighter)
You could, but it would be very risky. You’ll need to wipe out the British fleet off Gibraltar or England will destroy the Italian fleet with the Bomber on England.
You also need to get rid of the destroyer right beside the Baltic… oh and at the same time, anything that moves out of the Baltic… well consider it dead.
It’s possible, but you’ll incurr too many casualties. I just hope that I keep my Baltic fleet and England will stay 3 spaces away (like off Iceland). Then if they move closer, move in with my fleet to crush them with my airforce. If England wants to win the fleet battle, they will, it’s about how much production they have to devote to do it … and how much they can get you to sink into trying to win it.
For this reason I don’t buy an aircraft carrier and just a destroyer (defend against subs) and a sub for a soak. That way if they attack with all airforce it will bankrupt them, and if their fleet moves to attack I get first shot since they’ll be the first person to move within 2 spaces away.
I built a fleet the first turn. You’ll need infantry so I bought some, but I also bought a destroyer and sub too irrc.
The real English threat is from their airforce, in G1 you should be trying to wipe all the english navy out of the seas (except for the annoying battleship off Iceland) . Then if you attack your fleet with just their airforce it’s like giftwrapping Karelia.
I need to play the game more, but that’s my opinion on it.
You need to take out the Battleship in the north sea and the fleet off Gibraltar. Then leave your fleet in the Baltic, only move it out for soaks for your airforce to attack them if they step closer.
Hey,
I took a look at your thread. You were really aggressive! I only saw up to turn 1 though.
How did you take the Dutch East Indies on turn 1? Your notes say TRN…. is that transport? Either way it’s 4 squares away.
Are you leaving your transports unaccompanied too? I’d be scared with the Indian fighter there and the Australian fleet, I hope to hear how it turns out. If the fighter flies over the transport it’s auto-death.
@TG:
Alair, thank you for your after action report. I love forward to reading more of them.
General Observations
Ah, yes there’s nothing greater than the sight of an Axis Control Marker in Brazil. It’s such a slap in the face to the Allies.
How did Japan bungle Pearl Harbor J1?
What are your thoughts on National Objectives? Do you think they benefited the Axis too much?
Japan, well I reread what I wrote and I wasn’t clear. J1 Japan moved to do Pearl Harbour and tried to take the hawaiian islands mainland. They divided their airforce between the fleet and mainland. Since fighters can’t participate in the naval fight if they’re going to be used on the mainland… those fighters never fought that round. Instead what happened was USA got some good rolls and Japan had to retreat. I think Japan devoted 2 fighters and some infantry to attacking the ground troops.
Once USA kept their battleship, Japan retreated more and took some islands and tried using unescorted transports to take the islands in the south pacific. They would have been out of range of anyone’s airforce… but USA rolled long range aircraft. They used the long range aircraft to wipe out almost all of Japan’s transports.
Japan seemed far from overpowered when we played, but you know… we haven’t played enough. We’ll see when I play Japan 
The national objectives are good. I liked them. It’s a good way to make people concede. I almost never play games to the end, I’d rather end early and if the axis are fullfilling all their objectives it’s a good way to point towards packing the game in.
With USA’s airforce, well Japan retreated after losing Pearl Harbour and then went south when the USA came for the Japanese fleet. USA’s fleet was parked on Japan and it looked grim for Japan, then USA attacked mainland Japan which was a huge mistake. It was the person calculating bad odds (all too common). When they calculated odds they looked at number of troops and hits per round, without calculating that Japan would be losing a defense 2 defender and USA would be losing an attack 3 fighter. You know, the usual mistakes you see people do who then blame it on bad dice.
Japan was able to recover and attack USA"s fleet afterwards once USA had lost most of their fighters and I’d taken Moscow as Germany so we called it quits.
In retrospect… there’s only one change I’d like made…
Lend lease:
USA can lend UK and maybe Russia a bit of money and Germany can lend Italy money. That’s it.
About National objectives, one thing… people seem to be thinking of them in terms of what they need, and not in terms of what to deny your opponent. I’m 100% convinced that UK needs to move all their fighters onto Karelia and maybe some troops the first turn to deny Germany from taking it. If you try to deny your opponent from getting their objectives, and not just to get yours it works. If the allies don’t work together then the Axis will win, it’s similar to the original A&A.
I don’t understand what makes Japan so powerful, I haven’t seen it yet in the games I’ve played.
I think the best strategy for the allies is defend Karelia at all costs. If Karelia falls then Moscow falls soon afterwards, it’s a huge bonus to Germany.
Japan on the other hand, they didn’t do squat in the game I played but maybe it was due to a weak player…. when they did pearl harbour they devoted some land units and fighters to trying to take the island, then had to retreat in the naval battle. Then USA got long range aircraft and wiped out most of the Japanese navy (they had unescortered transports that would have been out of range).
I’m playing this coming weekend, so we’ll see.
Is it really? What makes Japan such a monster that it gets so much production?
Here’s the way I usually approach the Axis in the first AA. I think it translates over into the 2nd AA as well.
1. You start off poor so keep your expensive units. Don’t throw them away for short term gains, because once they’re gone, they’re gone. You can’t afford to rebuild them.
2. Take out the British Navy, all that’s possible without losing airforce… or if you do lose airforce, make sure that England is losing something like a battleship. If they can keep the fleet they’ll be able to land all along the coast. This is bad, and is pretty much the end of the game for germany. It will mean you’ll need to defend along the coast, plus have either some airforce or tanks ready for a counter attack… because if they want something, they can take it with the RAF getting in the attack.
3. Expand fast, but try to only lose infanty in battles. If when you caluclate odds you’re calculating that you’ll lose tanks/fighters… it’s not worth it.
4. With the new game, study the bonus production criteria… aim to take it away from your opponent. It’s like a guide to what your opponent will do, plus it shows you how to stop them… for example…
Japan: Has to take an English territory in it’s first turn or England gets extra production.
Germany: It’s about either Karelia or Caucassus. Take one or the other, but try to take one at all costs.
Italy: Brazil is undefended and the USA gets extra production, if it’s available and undefended, might as well nab it.
Looks like I’m the Montgomery of the forum
Well, the way I always play the Axis is I think of the game in terms of keeping my initial production. There are some things where if you lose them, you can’t afford to rebuild them. I would include most of the German airforce like this.
So really, if you lose a ton of production points worth of materials to gain a short term advantage … what have you really gained?
The allies can afford to throw away production since they’re so rich at the beginning, so they can throw stuff away to slow the advance, I don’t think throwing away production will work against a good allies opponents.
When I played I took my German units out of Africa and just tried to hold England with Italian troops. Then I focused on blowing the English navy out of the waters… if England keeps it’s fleet and can attack all along the coast, I think it’s over for Germany. Africa, you can lose it and still win the game so it worked for me. I haven’t played enough to comment on whether this will always work though, we’ll see.
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.
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.
There’s an easy solution, move the RAF fighters onto Karelia. Problem solved.
It’s one turn of 5 less production for Russia… well, 3 really, since losing Karelia is 2. It’s not a big deal. That 5 bonus is for when Russia’s strong enough, which they aren’t at the beginning as everyone has shown.
Remember Germany also gets 7 (2 for the territory and 5 bonus) production from Karelia, and can start producing armies there. That’s a huge negative, because without that factory the German line gets stretched out and weak on infantry. The negatives from losing it are steep, very steep.
I’d never put the game on bad odds. Fight the battles on bad odds you can afford to lose, and make sure you win the battles you need to win.
If you’ll lose the game if you attack and lose the battle… I wouldn’t fight it, if you’d lose the game and have bad odds, that’s just silly.
IBut I really think that their main strenght is the fleet they can use to control the mediterranean.
Italy is weak, but you’re right. The problem really is once you lose that fleet Italy is a lost cause.
I don’t think Italy will necessarily win Africa as well, the odds are in England’s favor.
mmmm Burma
That is intriguing isn’t it
If it comes down to a production race, that would definitely put more pressure on Caucasus.What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?
I like your thinking.
I’ve only ever played the '41 scenario, but let me tell you… the game has changed. Now it’s setup so that America HAS to contend with Germany and devote resources there. Let America come, I wouldn’t even factor it into your first turn’s build. If they come for you then you’ve already won the game, because Germany will steamroll Russia without American assisstance.
You have to look at the big picture, scaring USA off is doing a disservice to your team.
