I think it’s a very interesting idea - perhaps something like this could make it into a future version.
They’re probably a bit strong - perhaps $8 and can produce infantry equal to the value of the territory minus one (otherwise you risk sidelining transports). But i like the concept - it might heat up the action in different areas (india, africa in particular).
Whether you count them as the infantry rolls or just redo the whole thing, it doesn’t really matter as long as you take a consistent approach.
But I’d say that letting the opponenet choose would be overly magnanimous. If it were me, I’d be happy to count them as the infantry rolls (given you probably meant to type 2@1 3@3) and then roll the fighters.
Anyway, have fun :-)
I agree with you Bugoo - but is there a reason we’d want to discourage KGF? For all the reasons you and dondolee describe, it’s an attractive and effective strategy (as they found in the actual war too…).
Perhaps I haven’t understood the direction you’re trying to move the discussion?
Nope, sorry. Planes can only hit subs if a friendly destroyer is present. In this case the sub can’t be hit, or fight back.
@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
/Telamon
I agree totally with you, I prefer ICs in FIC, BUR and IND, and once you get started Russia is in trouble. Why don’t you jump in on the bids thread (‘part 2’)? Bids of China inf are right now in lead for what kind of bid people prefer, and I’ve been arguing for that myself. If China gets say 4 extra inf at the front, Japan will be more stretched and it will be easier for Russia to help out both China and India. However, you could argue that UK inf in India would be even better, but that might be harder, to limit bids to just one territory is a bit difficult (free bids will probably be EGY-bound). Also those China rules are a big part of the rulebook and I think people are intrigued by the idea of them getting in use more. Since AA50 did many things to avoid the KGF as the single game-winning strat, a bid system going further in that direction is logical.
Thanks Lynxes. I think a China bid has a lot to recommend it, but it also has some drawbacks.
I like the idea, but I’m not sold on it quite yet…
Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.
That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!
I largely agree with this. I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings. Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly. Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific). You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.
But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…
Quick side point: why on earth does Japan make 60-65 / turn. It’s 50% more than the US. It’s absurd.
I realise that the game’s an abstraction, but I have trouble suspending disbelief on this one…
Clever thread title… +1 karma.
Edit (title is completely relevant to your post - sorry, was reading very late at night)
I second Dondolee’s thoughts. When starting out bear in mind how the game is ultimately won - for the axis, by taking Moscow before the allies can take either Rome or Berlin. It’s a race to see who holds out longer.
Japan should efficiently grab land in the first two or so turns, build up factories in South Asia (rounds 1-4) and then ply tanks and infantry through India > Persia > Caucasus > Moscow. Send enough troops through China and Siberia that you’ll have enough to punch through, but sending the bulk of your force on the southern route. As you play more games, take note of which strategies allowed you to occupy territories faster and get a better flow of troops to russia.
Italy and germany’s role is to stay rich and keep russia poor. They generally don’t have enough power to crack russia without some early luck, so you just need to treat 'em rough and keep 'em honest. Never let russia get their 10 IPC objective - this is a death knell. While you want to deny and pressure russia as much as possible, your main task is to not let UK/US kill you - a tough balancing act of agression/defence. There are many ways to skin this cat, but piles of infantry and scattering of tanks are the best place to start from a learning perspective. You’ll soon find the limitation of infantry - while extremely cost effective, they can only be in one place at a time. It’s hard fighting two wars that are 5 spaces apart. While boats and planes pack less punch for the money, they can threaten a much larger area. Once you get a handle of the flow of the game, you’ll find many ways that german planes and boats can improve your effectiveness. As dondoelee points out, this is playing with fire and you expect to get burnt a few times while you figure it out - start simple.
Cheers
You can’t really go wrong. I lean towards FIC, or burma if it’s safe. The Manchuria IC gives better short term results as it pops 3 units on the continent, but the others are more strategically located for later in the game (they are closer to the action). It depends in part how well your J1 attacks go. If they go poorly, you may need to build in Manchuria to consolidate your position in Asia. Otherwise, look south to pressure russia.
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).
Vegryn, I thought the same as you first time I came across the term. I understand it means attacking the US through alaska.
I agree with Zhukov - Japan’s resources are much better sent to moscow. Japan doesn’t have an income ratio sufficient to actually take the US (you’re looking at 60 to 45 or so) and no decent US player will let you actually snatch Los Angeles. At best you slow down an american advance on europe, but at an equal (or most likely greater) cost to Japan’s advance on moscow.
Japan’s attack through Caucasus is much more effective in this version (meaning Japan’s money is “worth more” than the US’s). With factories in India, Sumatra, Burma (and optionally FIC) you can have 9-11 ground troops popping up right on russia’s doorstep. You can quickly overwhelm them. America is relatively further from Europe - they can only shuck troops on transports which is less efficient than Japan’s mainland factories.
That south asia romp for Japan is powerful in AA50.
…that the German u-boat in sz8 can attack the US destroyer/2trans in sz10 on the first turn? :-o
There’s a 40% chance you lose the sub, 20% of a draw (transports live) and a 40% chance of WHAM :evil: - 24 bucks worth of american navy dead. Pretty hard for the allies to recover from that, and it means the dice are having the final say…
Though there are some nasty ways japan’s J1 attacks can pan out in 1942, so maybe all is fair in love and war?
Cash bid is definitely my preferred option - it’s just you don’t know who needs it until G1 Egypt attack has been rolled…
But it still wouldn’t be AA50.
True, though I guess you could say the same about any changes - cash bids inclusive :wink: Do what feels good I reckon - whether that be China mods, low luck, bidding or whatever happens to tickle your fancy. There’s certainly someone around who’ll give you a game :-)
Until the game becomes predictable (if it does), I’ll enjoy playing straight up AA50, balanced or not.
The number of posts in the 1942 forum completely overwhelms the 1941 forum…Why is that so?
Is it that we would all like to learn the 1941 game , before putting our mind into a new setup?But why was it 1941 that got instant popularity, instead of 1942? :?
Just curious. Why are YOU less interested in the 1942 scenario?
Lol, because human psychology can be quite predicatable with these things… :-D It’s the same urge that makes us start books at chapter 1. Im guessing most people (myself included) played 1941 first because it seemed like the right place to start. Then, it was so much fun they kept playing it. No need to change till you’ve worked out what you’re doing with the first one.
I’ve just started playing 1942 now I feel I understand the flow of 41 pretty well. I think I’ll end up liking 1942 better. It seems to offer more options with Japan and Germany being roughly equal in power. In 1941 Japan is unstoppable - the challenge for the allies is to cripple the western axis Germany before Japan makes its power felt on Russia.
This is true, and even more true in 1942 scenario (I think this one is the most balanced)
Agree on all three propositions of your statement Func. I’ve only just started 1942 but it seems promising - it’s certainly fun and interesting.
@Axis Roll. I think the solution of reducing NOs value would improve balance, providing the assumption is correct that axis have an edge. But I’m not all that keen on a solution which reduces the value of NOs - I think their addition was one of the best things about AA50. Having extra cash for all makes decisions more interesting (Germany has realistic options to just buying infantry, the US has to think more carefully about what to buy and where to send it…). Reducing NOs would encourage US to ignore the Pacific (which already is tempting enough). Others have suggested elsewhere tweaks to make allied NOs (particularly UK’s) easier to obtain, or Japan’s harder to get (e.g. when occupying russian territory). If deciding to go the path of fixing balance through NOs, I’d support these proposals rather than reduce the value of NOs.
Maybe it’s me being Canadian, but Canada should be worth more. During WWII, we were already 10 millions or so, with a relatively good economy and war economy :/ If UK can keep some stable amount of IPC, maybe things would change.
Thanks for your thoughts Robert. I agree with you that Canada should be worth more - and perhaps south africa and australia, if going down the route of this solution.
Most African territories are worth 1, so this is already fine. It still take 3-4 turns for a tank to blitz through Africa. Plus, the 2 men in South Africa usually just block the tank from ever getting SAF.
The issue for me is they all add up to so much and it makes the battle for Egypt in G1 have such a decisive influence on the outcome of the game. When germany gets two tanks there (40% of games), they get 7 of the 13 income from Africa on their second turn and 10-11 from the next round on. This is being added to germany’s pocket and denied from englands. If the allies contest africa they’re spending their (now greatly limited) funds on low value territories and giving up the main theatres. If they don’t, the axis will walk all over the allies. Germany and Italy on ~65 income can hold out against the three allies far longer than, Russia on 25-33 can against pressure from all three axis.
You’re right that with one tank (20%), it will take germany longer to pillage africa and allied reinforcements can arrive in time to contest. The game will then be pretty well balanced, IMHO. When the attack fails (~40%), Germany doesn’t have enough income to hold off very long against british landings and can expect to get trounced in short order.
Now, I’ll return to the topic of this thread (bidding). While opinions vary on game balance, I now feel comfortable enough to settle on my own view. The game is ‘overall’ extremely well balanced - it’s just that so much rides on Egypt G1. Bidding won’t fix this. Unit bids will just decide who wins the africa advantage. For cash bids, you won’t know who needs it until after the Egypt attack. What about doing the Egypt attack before anything else and then cash bidding for sides!
(Obviously works only where the bomber does not attack egypt - but I’ll glady be allies against any axis who makes that decision)
Judicious use of subs will mark the difference between a good player and a better player. They are a specialised unit, requiring careful planning, but they offer the best value for money of any unit that can fight in sea zones.
Don’t be fooled that subs are poor defenders - they roll dice and they are the cheapest casualities in the water. They defend better than DD’s against naval attacks (obviously not against pure air attacks - you must have enough capital ships to ward that off) in practically any situation except having only subs. Mixed with DDs, CVs or BBs, subs are fearsome on defence.
I’m talking cost/value terms of obviously, not one SS for one DD - the latter is obviously stronger, but significantly more costly. You can only get 3 DDs for the price of 4SSs. 3DDs will beat 4SSs on a slight majority of combats, but add equal numbers of any other units to both sides and look what happens - the subs are always stronger on defence than DDs.
Subs are a powerful tool in your arsenal. As Dondolee points out they are highly specialised. They have strengths and weaknesses, but boy can you make a difference with them if used adroitly.
Some valuable uses:
I haven’t even touched on the ways you can use the submerge and first strike abilities.
Subs are not an all round unit. As Dondolee implies - if you’re not sure exactly what your buying it for - don’t. They have many great uses and add another layer to the game allowing stronger players to leverage their skill (and thus fewer games decided by dice).
And subs are fun :-D
Func, the idea would be UK would have the same income, but added elsewhere (and perhaps by removing that stupid NO about controlling japanese territories which makes no historical sense, and is virtually impossible in any normal/close game anyway). The reason for reducing the value of africa is it seems disproportiantely valuable, and whether that benefit goes to Axis or Allies is decided in a coin flip on G1…
(Pero gracias por la respuesta - y haber leido - mi anterior consulta larga :-))
Darth, thanks for your first post above - some very interesting thoughts. You raise some good reasons for why unit bids might be a helpful solution. I think unit bids should remain a last resort however, only if more agreeable (less game changing) fixes can’t be found.
I agree whole-heartedly with your impression that Egypt G1 is important. In fact, I think it is largely determinative of the game. But I don’t think it’s so much about the assets that remain as a result (i.e. the british fighter, or the BB in sz2 etc.), but the income difference dictated by who gets early control of Africa. The problem is that there are so few units in Africa, it is so far out of the way and it is worth so much. A 20+ IPC swing rides on who controls (I’m talking relative income difference, not territory/cash value. I.e. if both sides were on 100 income and then africa changed hands it would become 90/110). And it’s not worth seriously contesting africa after the opening becuase those assets are more needed and useful at the proximate fronts. So whichever side ends G1 with armor(s) in Egypts looks good to win I’d say - as in previous editions, he/she who holds Africa wins the war.
If you’re with on this up to here, then neither a cash bid or a unit bid will be a terribly effective balancer. You’ve highlighted well some deficiencies with the cash bid above. The unit bid will result the same way - however it turns out, whoever gets the extra units in Egypt wins the war.
It’s clear there’s a dynamics problem here, not a balance problem (in fact I believe the rest of the board is extremely well balanced). You can basically flip a coin (well, a biased 70/30 one for the axis…) on who starts the game with the advantage - i.e. wins in Egypt G1. A cash bid of 20 or 30 to USA for example will still come down to the same to a coin flip (and if allies win egypt, the game will be close, if they lose it they will instead get trounced).
Solution
I think a more appropriate solution would be reducing the value of all those central african territories. I don’t think it improves the game that Africa is worth so much - it certainly doesn’t help game dynamics, and I’d welcome the views of people with good historical knowledge whether it is even accurate that it was so valuable income-wise during WWII.
For example, make all African territories worth zero except the three north african ones + Saf. You’d then have to rebalance the UK’s income. The value of Australia could be increased (perhaps splitting Australia into two territories with WA worth 1 and the east/south worth 3), which is both more realistic and has the added benefit of keeping the US interested in the pacific (and thus improving the dynamics of the game).
Darth, if you’d like to workshop these ideas (maybe try a game?) i’d be keen. I think something along these lines would sort out what is nearly a masterfully designed game, but is just not quite right…