Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

I don’t think Japan is too strong.
Well, ofc., compared to its historical counterpart, yes, but not in the balance of this game.

If the Victory Conditions would be 14 instead of 8/6, the allies would win all the time, so no, Japan cannot be too strong.
With the VC set to 8/6, both axis powers are too strong because the allies must focus (the USA its income) on 1 axis partner in order to achieve anything meaningful and, with much less to nothing from the USA, try to prevent the other from winning at the same time.

The allies are always able to achieve meaningful victories on the map they’re focusing on (so also on the Pacific map), but the axis power that is not getting the heat is then skyrocketing into someting uncontrollable, and then they will get their required number of VC…

The way I see it now is the USA has 2 options:
1. Focus on Japan. Japan will then quickly (within ~7 turns) be reduced to 50-60 IPCs income, at which point the USA must refocus to Europe, to prevent a German win. If they don’t (refocus), the allies will crush Japan into oblivion, but loose the game on account of German successes in Europe/ME/Africa. If they do (refocus), this will enable Japan to make a comeback and in the end, the allies end up way behind in economic situation, achieving nothing.

2. Focus on Germany. The Nazi’s advance east (all into the Middle East) will be halted after turn ~7 or so, and the allies will crush them. Japan however, will win on the Pacific. Nothing the allies can do against that anymore. In order to prevent this loss in the Pacific, the number of turns the USA can focus on Europe is very limited. Only 2, maybe 2½, but that’s about it. After that the USA must refocus on the Pacific again. So much for Germany first, but if timed and calculated very precicely, the allies may have a small window of opportunity to land in Western Europe and if they can land without being thrown back at once, this usually heralds an allied victory. I can’t stress it out too often, that the landing must be calculated and balanced very carefully because otherwise it fails. This is very hard but in short it comes down to buying only as much escorts as needed (depending on the German airforce) and the rest transports with men and equipment. Lots of transports. Also with the UK. The allies need at least 11 or 12 transports (total togehter) to make a landing during turn 4 (more if forced to land turn 5 because of whatever axis delay-tactics…). This is when Germany has invested a LOT into the Luftwaffe and the allies are forced to buy more escorts for their transports. If Germany has invested more into troops and keeps them west, the allies will need even more transports…

Maybe there is another option that may be the solution to the allied problems of late, but I never tried it because I always assumed it cannot work: spread the US’ s income evenly between the two maps… I very strongly assume this will not work, but if some1 thinks otherwise, please come out ;-).

Yeah, that’s what I am hoping for: at least a sophisticated reaction from the developers, saying that we (especially the league gamers) are all wrong. Nobody knows how to play the allies ;-). OR… they fix the rules and/or endorse or acknowledge some of the houserules indeed.

@Tolstoj:
You are absolutely right! I am perfectly fine with a WW2 game designed to be balanced. This means 1:1 that I’m OK with the allies not having as much production capacity and have less military forces as they historically did and the axis have even more military forces than they historically did, but I have problems with a WW2 game where all this is the case and time is also the axis friend… I am struggling with my love for A&A for that very last reason.

I am disappointed by the fact that the community had to come up with a bidsystem to give the allies a boost, and all we hear is that this bid system is not officially acknowledged. I can agree if the devs don’t like the bid-system, but then give us an official alternative, please. It is much needed!

@Young:

@ItIsILeClerc:

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.

The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

War Bond Campaign
The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

1940        1941      1942      1943        1944          1945
Allies      40            60          123      150          180            190
Axis        35            50          70        80            70            60

And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they  allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…

I agree with Young Grasshopper.

I think the developers overdid their balance effort (from ‘allies unbeatable’ in edition 1 to ‘axis nearly unbeatable’ edition 2) and we need an official correction. I have (personally) no fun in playing house rules that I know no1 else plays. Or, for that matter, only a handfull of people.

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.
I think it is the 8/6 VC indeed, but whatever the culprit is, the axis fear factor (time) needs to be introduced again. This is the least a WW2 game needs to offer. I mean, the very name of the game (WW2) implies a minimum of historical ‘correctness’ but even if only very very hard to find, if it’s a WW2 game there has to be at least 1 historical factor that is correct: time should not be the ally of the axis!

If reinstating the 14VC again makes this happen, than so be it but if this means the axis cannot win anymore (most likely), tone this down to 13VC or 12VC or whatever number will work. 8/6 clearly does not do it for most.

@Nippon-Koku:
I am looking forward to your allied essay :-). I know you advocate a (limited) Atlantic focus and it is currently also (still) my only hope for the allies. Yet I reckon the allies still need an extremely well calculated and balanced force in the Atlantic with extremely well co-operated production from the UK and USA. 1 ship built by the wrong ally, or simply just 1 too many or 1 too few, can mean the difference between failure and victory for the allies. I know this approach very well and I don’t get this balance right every time only because of the wide variety of strategies and the flexibility the axis have at their disposal. Let alone the limited time the allies have to do it and the fact that the dice can still kill the allied well-balanced fleet. Now imagine the UK and the USA are 2 different players…

Maybe a full KJF or P80E20 approach can also work but I have not enough experience with that. And since I don’t want to be forced into a Pacific-first line of thought, I don’t think I will anytime soon.
I know for sure though that I have no faith at all in a full KGF and only a very small amount of faith in a limited Pacific focus (only a few turns of 100% USA spending here). Played it a few times, only to see how incredible easy things become for Germany, while Japan cannot be reduced below 50-60IPCs per turn, even if they make a few mistakes…

In this game, it isn’t only about the weaker player being on the defence, but also the weaker side (even if played by a stronger player).
If the axis play a strong game without tactical errors, the allies have no place they can get a grip on. They can attack but will be driven off again and the axis will come out of it only stronger than before and gain the upper hand economically in the mean time. OR: the allies do get a grip on a certain map, but then the axis win on the other map…

What A&AG40 needs (as a whole, so it’s not just Japan), is the re-introduction of that fear factor for the axis. They should fear the passing of time again. They should really feel the pressure to win before turn 10 (I just picked an arbitrary number here) or else loose the game for certain.
As it is now, if playing as the axis, I personally do not fear the passing of time at all. I use it to crush the allied economy where they are not opposing the axis, always getting on top around turn 12 or so…

Three basic allied strategies:
1. USA puts more focus in Europe -> Germany has a hard time crushing/isolating Russia, Japan can grow into a monster.
2. USA puts more focus in Pacific  -> Japan struggles, but now Germany becomes the monster and can crush Moscow and/or the Middle East.
3. USA divides their focus evenly  -> The allies will not get any grip anywhere.

In those three situations, this is what the axis can make happen economically (IPCs per turn):
1. Japan gets >100. Germany and Italy ~70. Total axis 160-170, Total allies 140-150.
2. Germany + Italy will get to ~125 together, Japan struggles to keep 60. Total axis 175-185, Total allies ~160.
3. Never mind. Axis will get even closer to 200.

I know the economical situation is not the only thing that counts, but with the economical game, the allies do not have the military to drive the axis off somewhere to rebalance the economical situation. In such a situation, the side that is on top economically, will win if played out till the bitter end.
So in global, the allies have a focus-issue they don’t have when playing A&A Europe40 or A&A Pacific40. In both other games they have less to spend, but their income is less easily overthrown.

Therefore I daresay that the real issue with Global, is the income of the USA. In global their income is almost halved compared to what they have in each of the standalone games. I can see why that is because if the USA can spend in global what they have in A&AEurope + A&APacific combined, they can focus all that on 1 map and the axis can never win (much like the real war). One possible solution to that is to also split the USA economies AND their armies as well (built in the Pacific has to stay in the pacific). Same for Europe. To correct for such arbitrary rules, the USA should eventually be allowed to move parts of their navy and/or airforce from one map to the other but I haven’t yet figured out how…

I agree with the gentlemen before me.

To add a little food for thought about your second question:

Japan attacks turn1 (J1) is basically meant to conquer India + money Islands asap. Best read Cow’s thread about how-to.
Japan attacks turn2 (J2) usually means the same as J1, only a little delayed. With extra time to prepare, this is perfectly fine.
Japan attacks turn3 (J3), or even turn 4 (J4) is mostly used for other things than conquering India fast. Best example I know is the economic game, where Japan takes everything east of Moscow fast (including China), but does not conquer India as fast. Since India should be isolated and economically crippled, this is no problem.

The uncertainty in all those plans is, ofc, what the USA is going to do. If the USA is heavily focusing on Japan, then I think J1 is the best option for Japan. Thing is, turn 1 Japan cannot tell what the USA is going to do (unless you know your opponent well)…

@Gamerman01:

Come play a few games in the league and test your skills.  We have players of all skill levels and every skill level in between, and the rankings show you how good each player is, so you can cherry pick your desired competition.

I can tell you from what I’ve seen: the guys playing in the league are real good.
League games take the opposition you’ll get to the next level. Still depending on what tier your opponent is, but if you are confident, I’d challenge at least a tier 1 player. You can always drop down a few if needed ;-). I have played about 5 private games with a tier 3 player and I was very happy about the level of opposition. I must say though, I suspect my opponent’s status as tier3 is not quite correct, because he played only 2 league games (2014), which he both won. As axis, but still…

Anyway, if I had more time to play league, I definately would. So JamesA if you have the time to do it, I’d pick up Gamerman’s gauntlet 8-).

And apart from that,

there is a certain threat that forces Germany to attack: if they don’t, the allies take too much of Europe, possibly even Berlin.

But it’s still a very, very hard thing to beat with the allies. They must calculate, work very closely together and make no mistakes. Two different players for the UK and USA are almost guaranteed not able to work as closely together as required. Unless each player defeated the bomberstrat individually already!

Yeah I probably gave it too much words, I’m sorry :-D.
I just should have said that the surprise moves I made so far (in the past), were all killing blows for my opponent, where a more standard move would probably have lost me the game.

Given, my opponents were not aware (and thus unprepared) of the possibility of each particular trick and knowing they are mighty opponents indeed (well for my skill level anyway), they will probably not be tricked by the same surprise again.

@Kreuzfeld:

Most supprise moves are not as good as the regular move, this is why it is a supprise. I always take great care to check out any possible suprises. You should always check what happens if my opponent buys all air/subs/rs/tanks and what happens if my opponent just goes for one of my capitols/key terretories with everything he has(…)

I don’t agree with that, kreuzfeld :lol:.
A surprise move can be much more devastating than regular moves. That’s the very nature of a surprise. But ofc it takes some vision and/or calculation to test the waters (because some conditions must be met to consider setting one up).
Germany can even set up a surprise without risk; not spring the trap if they deem the allied positions too good and spring it if the allies are indeed out position.

Example: Germany looks like going for Moscow and marches all the way into Stalingrad, keeping the Russians honest in Moscow. As Germany, I could be planning to take Calcutta with this very army, allowing Japan to focus much more on their naval power. Ofc there are certain conditions that must be met before setting up such a surprise move should be considered, but if you can see what the enemy can do to you ~5 turns ahead, you’ll be able to set up surprises that’ll kill (given an opportunity, ofc).
By the way, knowing the (allied) playstyle of some of my opponents IRL, I could say to them about this particular example that they won’t know what I am doing for the first 9 turns because I know they will think I’m coming for Moscow and will be surprised by my Germany taking Calcutta while Japan grabs Hawaii to achieve victory in the Pac… All because I know them to focus a little too much on Germany with the USA (a little, but not a lot).

So yes, the possibility that the axis crush the allies after saying “you won’t know what I’m doing till turn 4” can either be a sign that your opponent (thinks he) can surprise you as much as him being a fool ;-). Either case, better plan for the worst: that he is not a fool (and knowing your opponent goes a long way here).

Limits, are you not forgetting something important?
If GE1 and GE2 places warships and TRS in 112, and the UK retreats its ‘Force H’ (mediterranean fleet IIRC) back to London, buying only ships themselves as well, the Germans have a few good options:

1. Ignore the RN placed UK2 and invade London from 109 (112 has a NB, so Germany can reach).
2. If the UK divides the RN over 109 and 110, Germany can attack either and invade from there, leaving the other alone.

In both cases: Buying ships makes the defenses in London that much weaker so The Luftwaffe doesn’t need to attack London and is instead free to attack the RN. The Wehrmacht should be able to crush London without aid from the Luftwaffe. Most likely, seeing UK1 buying nothing, GE2 doesn’t need to buy all TRS but can instead buy a few less of those to swap for some subs (for example).

I think the only things London can do against Sea Lion are either (without going much into details):
1. Prevent it all along, by buying max defenses (16INF +1FTR for example) and moving all med-stuff into Gibraltar UK1, moving it into London UK2 if Germany persists SL, or back east into the med if Germans back off.
2. Learn to deal with Germany (particularly with Russia) after they took London.

I can only think of two viable options that your friend may be referring to:

1. He’s going to mass German bombers, which is extremely flexible and depending on what the USA does, can be used to kill London or Moscow and perhaps take Egypt as a bonus as well. Your friend may be thinking to just open up with some standard play (except that building a lot of bombers is not very standard, but that aside), then wait and see what your allies are going to do and jump into your weak spot. Yes the axis can play an effective ‘waiting game’, as long as they keep expanding their economy.

2. He’s thinking G4J4. I better not go too much into the details, but if done properly, this is a very strong strategy for pursuing an ‘economic victory’. The typical path for the axis in this case is to crush Russia from both sides (Japan will ultimately take ~14IPCs/turn from Russia). This requires an extremely well balanced answer from the USA particularly. If they focus too much on Germany, Japan will get to ~100IPCs per turn during the late game and will eventually grab Hawaii -> game over. If, however, they focus on Japan too much, Germany and Italy can take Gibraltar (making it a fortress very hard to retake) and subsequently a lot of African/ME territories from the UK while Russia slowly collapses. Perhaps they even take Brazil… By the time the USA owns Japan, Germany should be able to take Moscow->game over.

Anyway, these are the two axis strategies I can think of and how their preferred road to victory looks like. It’s up to you as the allies to thwart this.
If you think your friend is a strong player, take his hints serious but like stated before, he may just be bluffing and not be getting anywhere. I hope you know your friend good enough to know what to expect ;-).

@Nippon-koku:

I agree that a 4 turn rush at Germany is too much for the US.  If you spend all of US R1 and most of R2 on the Atlantic map then you’ve done enough to combat a Sealion and make life tough for Germany.  But if they don’t refocus their efforts on the Pacific after that then I agree Japan will become too powerful to stop.

IIRC, you wrote more than once that you believe in a R1 + R2 Europe focus for the USA, with (almost) all of its income of the later turns going into the Pac. I always agreed with that strategy. As far as preventing Japan victory in the Pacific goes  .

@Young:

@ItIsILeClerc:

Greetings YG, here’s what I think you can do with Germany and Japan if your allied group comes at your Germany like you described:

Long story short: the axis can play an economic game.

Japan: Can do what it wants. Grow as fast and as hard as possible. Aim to get their income to >>90IPCs per turn while the USA is paying less attention to you. You don’t need to capture 6VC’s, but you should do if you can. Main priorities are to increase your economy + kill allied economy (i.e. kill China, Isolate/take Calcutta, take everything east and north of Calcutta (including Russian territories), don’t build too much mIC in Asia, deny ANZAC NO’s and convoy ANZAC base income). Depending on how and when the USA turns its attention back towards you, Japan should either play to take Hawaii/Sydney or ME/South Africa (and up from there) or simply to deny the allies to take back what you took.

Germany: Play to hold out against the USA + UK, while ever (but slowly) increasing your economy by destroying Russia’s completely (work together with Japan and be aware it means ~12 turns of play to get there). Leave the allied fleet be and position a very strong counterattack force in West Germany and another one in Finland. Axis Luftwaffe should be based so that it can reach Norway, Normandy, Southern France, etc. All the places the Wallies could invade…
Germany must build a LOT of land units to be able to do this but it is possible to ever grow the German economy while destroying the Russian and hold out against the Wallies.

With this strategy, it is very easy for the USA to overdo its attempt to kill Germany, making it impossible for the allies to stop Japan from taking Hawaii. If the USA however recognizes the Japanese threat, they are forced to let their investments into Europe run dry and turn their attention back towards Japan. That is what Germany has been waiting for: now they can once again focus on Russia and without any further possible (meaningful) USA investments in Europe, Staling will have to flee Moscow.

The axis will have a very good chance to get their economy stronger than that of the allies while also denying them an opportunity to restore balance. After the first ~12 turns or so, the axis partner that gets the least resistance should move slowly towards even more economic gain or the winning VC (Moscow for Germany, outer defense perimeter/Alaska/ME/SA/Hawaii/Sydney for Japan).
An alternative is to march the German army into Calcutta and use the full Japanese economic might to usurp Hawaii at the same time (close coordination with Germany taking Calcutta). Japan must still isolate India Asap for this.

Alas if your buddy Japan cannot hold out if the USA has first focussed on Europe first 4 rounds…

Great advise, conservative aggression right?.. what round should I start taking away Russian territories… G2?..G3?

I don’t think it matters much, YG. As long as Germany sinks the RN and takes Paris in force.

I think any DOW-scheme should work for the axis, as they try to use time to their advantage. Only scheme I am not sure about is a G1JX though…
As long as both axis players are aware that they must grab economy during the first 12 turns, not necessarily VCs. I could point out areas of interest for the axis, but let’s just say the axis should aim to get to a combined economy of >160IPCs per turn within those 12 turns. If China is dead and both Russia and India have no economy left (though they may still be alive), the allies won’t be having much more than 140IPCs a turn and the axis are most likely be doing very well.

On a sidenote:
a 4-turn focus on Europe by the USA is overdoing it. Japan should be unstoppable to get Hawaii around turn 9 or so. If Japan is not strong enough to also take Calcutta for whatever reason, Germany should probably be doing great by feighning some moves in Russia and suddenly march to take Calcutta around turn 9, even throug Afghanistan (to shorten the allied reaction-time). Maybe they can even stay in control of Berlin, though this is not necessary with a win in the Pac ;-)…

I’d say Germany must have it, as Germany -eventually- wants to attack Moscow and putting 6 units per turn into Russia collapses Russia double as fast compared to 3.
If there hadn’t been a mIC in Ukraine I probably let Italy take it.

However, I’ve seen it happen that Germany had no choice but to let Italy take it; sometimes Russia built such a strong counterattack army that Germany can’t move into Ukraine without a lot of Luftwaffe-protection or be destroyed. I’ve seen it a couple of time during DS-games, or games where Germany produced 1 or 2 ships too much. And Germany can’t base no Luftwaffe in Ukraine if it takes that area for itself so Italy will have to if Germany is to advance towards Moscow and/or Middle East.

Greetings YG, here’s what I think you can do with Germany and Japan if your allied group comes at your Germany like you described:

Long story short: the axis can play an economic game.

Japan: Can do what it wants. Grow as fast and as hard as possible. Aim to get their income to >>90IPCs per turn while the USA is paying less attention to you. You don’t need to capture 6VC’s, but you should do if you can. Main priorities are to increase your economy + kill allied economy (i.e. kill China, Isolate/take Calcutta, take everything east and north of Calcutta (including Russian territories), don’t build too much mIC in Asia, deny ANZAC NO’s and convoy ANZAC base income). Depending on how and when the USA turns its attention back towards you, Japan should either play to take Hawaii/Sydney or ME/South Africa (and up from there) or simply to deny the allies to take back what you took.

Germany: Play to hold out against the USA + UK, while ever (but slowly) increasing your economy by destroying Russia’s completely (work together with Japan and be aware it means ~12 turns of play to get there). Leave the allied fleet be and position a very strong counterattack force in West Germany and another one in Finland. Axis Luftwaffe should be based so that it can reach Norway, Normandy, Southern France, etc. All the places the Wallies could invade…
Germany must build a LOT of land units to be able to do this but it is possible to ever grow the German economy while destroying the Russian and hold out against the Wallies.

With this strategy, it is very easy for the USA to overdo its attempt to kill Germany, making it impossible for the allies to stop Japan from taking Hawaii. If the USA however recognizes the Japanese threat, they are forced to let their investments into Europe run dry and turn their attention back towards Japan. That is what Germany has been waiting for: now they can once again focus on Russia and without any further possible (meaningful) USA investments in Europe, Staling will have to flee Moscow.

The axis will have a very good chance to get their economy stronger than that of the allies while also denying them an opportunity to restore balance. After the first ~12 turns or so, the axis partner that gets the least resistance should move slowly towards even more economic gain or the winning VC (Moscow for Germany, outer defense perimeter/Alaska/ME/SA/Hawaii/Sydney for Japan).
An alternative is to march the German army into Calcutta and use the full Japanese economic might to usurp Hawaii at the same time (close coordination with Germany taking Calcutta). Japan must still isolate India Asap for this.

Alas if your buddy Japan cannot hold out if the USA has first focussed on Europe first 4 rounds…

Alternatively (instead of the W/S EBH and the VFB), Russia could get a real lend-lease NO for a change, to mitigate the economic castration that befalls Russia almost always, which is absolute bull––. As long as the allies have at least 1 ‘connection’ (free of axis warships) to Moscow during wartime, Russia gets +5 IPCs till turn 5, +10 IPCs from turn 6 to turn 10 and from turn 11 and onwards +15 IPCs per turn. Note that this also obsoletes the Russian SZ125 NO.
Basically this gives any extra income towards Russia instead of the USA.

BTW, I don’t think the axis ever have enough income to build an atlantic wall. Even if they had, the best cost-effective way to defend it still remains: build a large reaction force (mech + air) that attacks allied asses after they invaded. That way only Western Germany needs to be defended and the rest of the areas will be counterattacked, freeing up a lot of resources that Germany can still throw into Russia.

@CWO Marc:
The map of the boardgame where the computer version is based upon, is cut into a few pieces that fit to each other and the scale of the Asian maps is larger than the other maps.
The total of all maps cover all active theatres and skip theatres that are redundant because they will never see any action because there is nothing of value there, armies will only suffer from attrition and not being able to get any supplies, or it is simply impossible to get there (examples are the Sahara Desert, Gobi Desert, Siberian forests/swamps). The most notable exception is the USA-minimap. This extra map basically is only there to govern American production and unit placement (units can only be placed in home nation cities). The axis won’t be able to bring the action to the American coasts so it’s not for fighting.

Anyway, only the computer version has the complete worldmap. It can be scrolled over and zoomed in. The boardgame map fits on a large tabletop and looks like this (though I believe those maps are from an older version of the game):
http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq175/cdratik/WiF/Startup/WorldinFlamesMap.png

A&AG40 is one of my favorites for a ‘general’ strategic challenge, but apparently not so much for a WW2 one…

Talking about a huge board…

Check out the map of this game, on the webpage:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/296/details/World.In.Flames

Wargamers I know usually want more historical simulation than a more simple wargame like A&A offers. Because this creates more historical plausibility. But wait, some people may think… If WW2 is played with a lot of historical plausibility, the axis can never win! Wrong. The Axis side can never win the war, that is correct (barring astronomical differences in playerlevel/experience). But the axis player can still win the game. That is what I often see how victory conditions of WW2 wargames are handled: the axis will loose the war in the long run, but the axis player is given opportunities to score points while playing and can still win the game with a certain amount of points.

As far as balance in A&A goes… I think every1 who feels the allies cannot win without a bid must admit A&A is not balanced. Given equal opposition, and if playing with dice, equal luck, ofc.

These guys seem to me to be the types that would love A&AG40. They are no ‘real’ wargamers they say and all the ‘real’ wargamers that I know don’t like A&A because it is mainstream and too much deviating from historical plausibility.

Maybe they don’t know about how G40 is completely different from the original ('42) game. I know for myself that I like G40 but I certainly do not like the original A&A. I have problems with the balance of G40, but I still like it. Btw, I am a both a wargame and a ‘normal game’ type of gamer.

On the other hand…
It strikes me that a lot of the gamers that I know (wargamers and ‘normal’ gamers alike), do not like G40 mostly because, like I mentioned above, there is a lot of balance discussions about it.
They say things like: “the fact that so many people argue/discuss about the balance of this game and have to invent houserules themselves to create balance [because the devs do not seem to be doing so anymore], prevents me from trying this game.” Or they simply say that the game is not balanced and thus bollocks…

Who knows why the dice tower does not pick A&A as favorite; we cannot argue about taste ;-).

The allies can (and usually will) still win the game if being 30-40 IPCs behind, IF they can correct this pretty soon. Let’s say in ~5 turns max., they must at least get a total equalization of both economies.

Having said that, if there is no visible possibility to (at least) equalize, the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is only small. I have no exact figures here but I bet the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is 5 IPCs per turn only, if they have no possibility to repair this.

Sometimes every IPC (per turn) counts…

I agree with Cow and Variance both. Some additional overall strategic notes:

1. If USA goes (K)JF (either only the first few turns or even >6 turns), killing London will (should) start an intense fight with Moscow, that Germany is not certain to win/Moscow can hold out very, very long and may give Italy a chance in Africa/ME in the long run because reinforcements from the UK dry out. Meanwhile the USA has an almost unlimited free focus on Japan. In total, not healthy for the Axis combined economies.
     Going after Moscow instead (leaving London alive) forces the USA to not focus a nearly unlimited amount of time on Japan and divide its income sooner rather than later because Germany can grab Moscow easily and way before Japan is in real trouble, threatening a subsequent fall of London or Cairo (or both, even)…

2. If USA does display a certain ‘focus’ on Germany (only first 2 turns because KGF is absolutely impossible in the 2nd edition and especially with a J1DOW), Germany has all the more reasons to go after Moscow first.

It seems to me that it is much more trouble for the axis (as a whole) to achieve victory if Germany takes London first, even though it looks like much less trouble for Germany to take London in the first place. With the exception of Germany spotting the allies making certain mistakes:
->Giving london away too cheaply;
->Throwing away US resources (spending on units/theatres that will not get the allies started anywhere).

If this happens, taking London first will just result in a stunning success! I have seen this once because the USA focused on Germany indefinately but did not get anywhere because they built a wrong unitmix. Germany was able to take London, hold off both the USA and Russia, giving Japan an unlimited and absolutely free reign in the Pacific… But I think even with the right allied unitmix the axis would’ve won because allowing Japan free reighn in the Pacific for an unlimited amount of time will just win the game for the axis: Japan can win the Pacific way before Germany is in real trouble.

Ai, and here I was thinking Angry Bird was just another name for Dark Skies.
Apparently memory failed me there

@General:

Someone needs to crunch the numbers to see what kind of offensive force Germany can get to the Caucasus by the 4th or 5th turn.

I did this once and if it is of any help, this is roughly the force I mustered to march into Calcutta(through Afghanistan to speed up the game 1 turn):

30INF + 15ART + 25ARM + 30 MECH + 5FTR + 5TAC + 2STR.

Like Cyanight stated, with a very bomber-heavy German build this could be like 15/15 and probably 20-30STR, 5FTR and 5TAC.

Note that these are rough numbers (out of scratch). Basically, it is the entire ‘eastern front’ army that marches on, bypassing Moscow. Obviously this means Russia will break out but that does not matter much if they (or any other ally for that matter) cannot throw a spanner in the works anymore.

Considering an allied non-KJF approach:

If Japan can keep India isolated + grab Sydney/Hawaii, the Germans can(and should) take India without much Japanese help. Taking Australia/Hawaii is such a heavy drain on Japanese resources (even if they make >>80IPCs/turn), that the Japanese will be weaker against India/Russia (and perhaps China too). Unless the USA goes full KGF (which is a mistake, but that’s another thread).

But that is the idea anyway, the reason why Germany takes India (as far as I know). Japan cannot take India, keep it, and at the same time take Hawaii/Sydney on time.

Russia must be watched closely though, as they will regain strength with this approach. If the axis timing is right, all Russia can do in Europe is to knock on the doors to Berlin, but those doors will remain shut. The danger lies in Russia liberating China and also exorcise Japan from one or more VCs on Mainland Asia…