Weighed toward allies

[sherminator1]

i've been having an argument with "someone" *Cough* Papa Joe *cough* about how the game game is wieghed towards the allies. He thinks its way to easy for the axis tow in in all editions of the game. I think he's only saying this because i've never lost a game to him. Who is right?

[Moderator Sinister]

played against opponets of equal high level and with no bid the axis should lose barring any awful luck on the allies part. Revised in far more balanced than the old MB version BUT I still think if you are playing box rules the with no bid the Allies should win.

Often people who think its too easy with the axis are playing people beneath their skill level.

[sherminator1]

thank you! Now i have it in writing!

[sherminator1]

:mad: Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! He Still Doesn"t Believe Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lt M Cotten]

I agree. If Lady Luck stays neutral, then in games where equal players face off, the Allies should win. :eek:

An Axis Victory should require a successful execution of daring maneuvers by Generals of greater skill and ability, regardless of which version we are talking about. :eek: After all the odds were against them.

I realize that the statement I just made will turn a few heads and probably get flamed, but I think it is true. After all the game may not be a history lesson but it is based on history, and history is our perception of reality. :D

[sherminator1]

Please any one reading this post your opinion so i can prove him wrong

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

Maybe I'm just an aweful, terrible player but, at least in the beginning the axis is definetly better off. And if the Russian player is just a bit unlucky then germany can quickly take 2 vic cities. And if the germ. take africa and threaten india while japan threatens india, well there's just another city for the taking. I could be terribly off on this but that is my train of thought right now. We can all agree that the allies can win if the US brings in it's might and invades but until invasion is complete then it looks pretty bad.

If I'm totally wrong just tell me.

[Papa_Joe]

WELL......
Your not totaly off, the game is better off for axis in my opinion AT LEAST in the beggining I mean Germany has at least a two to one ratio of units on the second turn.
Don't go on and say oh ya the allies should hit hard early on but seeing as how Russia gets 24 ipcs vs germanys like 40 (I think thats right) i find it increasigly hard to sacrafice My few unit i have. And on the 3rd or so turn germany has already outnumbered me to a ridiculus amount. Earlier I started a thread asking how to start Russia off. I followed that strategy to the fullest extent just to be cornered in Moscow So tell me what I am doing wrong word per word or I am going to continue to "whine" about how overpowered the Germans are

-and to top that off sherminator continues to use Japan AND Germany on me if you were wondering

[sherminator1]

ok. for some reason he thinks that a playing both axis powers adds some sort of unheard off advantage. Team axis roll please back me on this!

[Papa_Joe]

Not true in the slightest we (being the people i play with sherminator and anyone else who wants to reveal themselves) have already proven you combine both powers and coordinate attacks

[sherminator1]

Welll DUH!!!! so does any decent team!

[Papa_Joe]

So what are u trying to say then?

[sherminator1]

that there is no diffrence between a good team or one GOOD player doing two powers

[Papa_Joe]

ok you either just made a huge flaw in what u just said this is what I understand from what u just said

Ok basicaly in the actual war the axis didn't talk much... not much else to be said so from what u said if there are two players they have to be "good" BUT since they are so overpowered if one player controls them both they don't have to be good (notice you didn't say that the one player is good) So either think before you post or think of a new argument

or maybe im just crazy who knows

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

Both powers ganging up on you must be the result of a terrible US player and a unthinking UK one. The japanese shouldn't focus on you if their busy with the US. And the UK should be able to releave some pressure by invasion or something like that.

But the Sherm has a point, any good team should work together.

[sherminator1]

:confused: hey hey hey, isn't japans purpose to take away i.p.c.'s from russia so that germany can wear russia down?

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

You're right that the REAL Axis didn't work together and historyh will back it up, but this is a board game. We wouldn't have all these threads if it was accurate. Anyway, as I said before, the axis won't be able to cooperate if both are too busy.

[Moderator Sinister]

Well I think the adding of the Econ Victory in the old game was a way to give the axis a shot, very similar to the victory point game of Pacific.

The axis are in a better position in the beginning of the game because its designed that way. If they don't act, each round swings more and more in the favor of the Allies.

But to win a total victory game for the axis is just near impossible if equal skill levels are playing.

[sherminator1]

Thanks alot sin

[Moderator Sinister]

You're right that the REAL Axis didn't work together and historyh will back it up, but this is a board game. We wouldn't have all these threads if it was accurate. Anyway, as I said before, the axis won't be able to cooperate if both are too busy.


Yes they didn't work together but they might of if they had a giant board of the world and each territory was worth IPCs, then they could have seen plain as day that a tank drive, (even in winter) by the japanese to moscow was in order.

LOL

[Papa_Joe]

Ok fat albert heres what i have to say to that Japan should be way more focused on America to worry about taking i.p.cs away from russia which brings us to Swedishes point of U.S and or U.k should be distracting all the enimies so i'll rest the argument with germany and or japan are way too overpowered or my teamates are not helping me out enough

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

Yes they didn't work together but they might of if they had a giant board of the world and each territory was worth IPCs, then they could have seen plain as day that a tank drive, (even in winter) by the japanese to moscow was in order.

LOL

LOL :)

But you see the thing about that was they didn't. Anyway I think the Japs were a bit preoccupied with China and the US. The board doesn't do justice to the terrain, the various com. and anti-com. forces, etc...

[Papa_Joe]

But that brings us to the fact mod that any decent player EVEN I (who usualy plays as russia) would attack early with
Germany earlier in the game because if you have been listening at all i have been saying they have a ton of guys to start with and if it looks like russia is losing (which it is) then why would japan need to help out they have their hands full with the U.S

[sherminator1]

:confused: wait huh?

[Papa_Joe]

basicaly i just said your points are just dodging around the fact that they are overpowered mod said that if axis hits early then they get a good start but if they falter then theywill get beaten mercilesly my response was why would they not attack because all this time i have been saying they have so much stuff

[Moderator Sinister]

But that brings us to the fact mod that any decent player EVEN I (who usualy plays as russia) would attack early with
Germany earlier in the game because if you have been listening at all i have been saying they have a ton of guys to start with and if it looks like russia is losing (which it is) then why would japan need to help out they have their hands full with the U.S

Yeah well I have been listening. Yes you would attack early, that's no secret to this game what we are arguing is that if you played against your a clone of yourself (you playing the axis) the clone playing the allies with NO bid, your clone wins 8 or more times out of 10. Because the game is slanted that way.

[sherminator1]

ok
1) the axis only has lots of units but it has no chance of competing economically
2) even if they don't falter i think they will be beaten mercilessly

[Papa_Joe]

by the way mod sin i didn't call u fat albert i called sherminator al because he said hey hey hey

-just thought i would clear that up

[Moderator Sinister]

that's ok as long as sherm thinks its ok.

[Papa_Joe]

answer to mod- Then WHY would i lose 8 out of 10 you still havnt said any reason to make me think that the axis is or is not as powerful as i think they are

answer to sherminator-what are u talking about has no chance of competing economicaly? i said earlier u get like 16 more i.p.cs more a turn AT LEAST and since you are undeafeated what makes you think they will be beaten if they falter?

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

But the economic aspect is redundant if the Germans are annihilating the russians and the US is unable to do anything due to ineptitude. Is that your sinario Joe? if it is then you need a better US.

[sherminator1]

answer to mod- Then WHY would i lose 8 out of 10 you still havnt said any reason to make me think that the axis is or is not as powerful as i think they are

answer to sherminator-what are u talking about has no chance of competing economicaly? i said earlier u get like 16 more i.p.cs more a turn AT LEAST and since you are undeafeated what makes you think they will be beaten if they falter?
i mean that the allies combined are more powerfull economically than the axis combined, even if germany kicks the crap out of russia on the g1 i'm only undefeated because i A) practice a lot
and B) play against mediocre players

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

If there is a experienced US and UK playing then you shouldn't be so hard pressed. It all comes down to the US.

[Papa_Joe]

which brings me to yet another previous statment when i said either the axis is too powerful or the allies aren't helping out enough

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

Combined yes, but only if Africa is held so UK isn't forced to survive on mere pennies. And if the US doesn't do something dumb.

[sherminator1]

i'm not saying anything about the allies not helping i'm saying that if the allies have competent players they will win more often than not

[sherminator1]

also it doesn't make a diffrence if there is one axis player and multiple allied players

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

But a competent player is a player who helps out. The entire allied victory is based on helping.

[Papa_Joe]

OK for the last time it DOES make a difference if there is one person controlling two armies because the multiple people can't coordinate attacks if the enemy is there while the two enemies can coordinate attacks without fear of exposure and i might agree with if there are competent players the allies will win more

[sherminator1]

YES ALREADY, if they help each other they will win thats what i mean by a COMPETENT player
god i'm actually standing i'm so into this argument

[Moderator Sinister]

answer to mod- Then WHY would i lose 8 out of 10 you still havnt said any reason to make me think that the axis is or is not as powerful as i think they are

answer to sherminator-what are u talking about has no chance of competing economicaly? i said earlier u get like 16 more i.p.cs more a turn AT LEAST and since you are undeafeated what makes you think they will be beaten if they falter?

30+24+42 = 96 Allied dollar vs. 70 Axis dollars. That's why you'll lose. unless you can change that amount by the time you "extra" german resources are exhausted. This means you must take 13 IPCs and the allies take 0, for it to be a fair fight after your extra resources are gone.

[sherminator1]

YES EXACTLY thanks again m.s.

[Papa_Joe]

ah ah ah your dodging again you didn't say anything about the fact that the one player has an easier time attacking with both super powers to his advantage

[Papa_Joe]

mod its not like we get to split the money up evenly among us we all have to build our own things so this is the last time i am bringing up the fact that some decent players on allies might help for a victory
and sherminator stop being such a yes man to mod

[sherminator1]

m.s. will you please explain for me, it seems everything i say has no affect on him

[Moderator Sinister]

I'm dodging?

Not me. KGF is sound strategy.

[Papa_Joe]

no not you mod sherminator is srry i keep typing while your posting

[Moderator Sinister]

actually I can REALLY argue this by revised rules.

US - Buy nothing but bombers and strat bomb germany. By revised rules my bombers would keep you out of IPCs by the 5th game turn. More so with super forts.

[Papa_Joe]

and as for you sherminator your argument isnt working thats why

[Papa_Joe]

ok mod just told me the missing peice of the puzzle a way to hurt him economicaly

[sherminator1]

mod its not like we get to split the money up evenly among us we all have to build our own things so this is the last time i am bringing up the fact that some decent players on allies might help for a victory
and sherminator stop being such a yes man to mod

ok
1) i'm only agreeing with him because he's saying exactly what i'm trying to tell you
2) it shouldn't matterthat you can't split up the money your a team remember?
Your all working towards the same goal

[canvasback]

Not true in the slightest we (being the people i play with sherminator and anyone else who wants to reveal themselves) have already proven you combine both powers and coordinate attacks


Is that so unheard of on the Allies Side of the Equation? Seems to me you have a problem with the other player's tactics. It's not a rules violation, and if it works, he's under no obligation NOT to use winning tactics. If you don't like feeling like Little Orphan Annie, don't play Russia, particularly if the Russo-Japanese Non-Agression pact is not in play. The German player is right to smack the Soviet Union down if he or she is able in the first two turns, it's the only way the Axis can win (consistently).

[sherminator1]

THANK you canvasback (another believer in common sense)

papa joe is being incredibly obstinant. If he thought the earth was flat there would be no way to sway him

[Papa_Joe]

GAH sherminator are u listening im saying that the u.s isnt able to give me money to hold off the attack there fore how can i hold back an attack from an unstoppable wave of death

[sherminator1]

i know that but that doesn't matter. germany can only do so much damage on t1 then u.k./u.s. will be able to distract germany or u.s.s.r. can just use lend lease

[Papa_Joe]

now thats not true even if its an analogy and i didn't say its a problem with the rules i said it was a problem with him being too powerful and he has better tactics BECAUSE he has more peices to use not because im incompetent

[Moderator Sinister]

from an attack from germany?

You don't need lend lease. Fly british and american fighters into moscow if it gets that bad. All the allies really have to do is HOLD the capital and wait.

[Papa_Joe]

ok for the last time (for real) its just going back to the poor allied players on my team

[sherminator1]

ok thats a valid point too ( mod sins poit i mean)

[sherminator1]

shure but if there were average players on your team you would win most of the time right?

[Papa_Joe]

i realy don't think so not with germany's wealth over russias

[sherminator1]

crap my hard boiled egg just exploded! thanks a lot

[sherminator1]

so then it doesn't come down to bad players on your side?

[Papa_Joe]

woohoo score one for the boys back home

[sherminator1]

no answer the question!

[Papa_Joe]

why woudnt it not be the bad players fault you are the ones that are saying the wealth bonus should help me out are u not

[sherminator1]

yes but you said it was your bad players' fault

[Papa_Joe]

dude your talking in circles

[Papa_Joe]

u said that my team "the bad players" are suposed to suport the wealth well the "bad players" arent helping so it comes down to the bad players fault right?

[sherminator1]

ok i am so confused by you

[sherminator1]

all i'm trying to say is that with average players on both sides the allies will usually win

[Papa_Joe]

Just read it again I said everything pretty clear I thought

we could use a third person to clear this up

- by the way have u noticed how long this thread is?

[Papa_Joe]

and im not repeating it all again

[sherminator1]

ok! why do you think the think the game favors the germans? (wipes sweat from brow)

[Papa_Joe]

BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MANY UNITS TO START THE GAME WITH AND THEY HAVE A HIGHER I.P.C COUNT

not to mention you play as Japan too so you can coordinate attacks without being heard

[sherminator1]

DUMMKOPF! this is wrong. The axis doesn't have a higher i.p.c. count andjapan will always coordinate with germany

[Papa_Joe]

*hands sherminator a handkerchief* please thats repulsing lol

[Papa_Joe]

WE are talking about germany and Japan vs. Russia because the team is incompetent remember?

[sherminator1]

listen to what everyone but you is saying, you are wrong. Most of the ppl on this site are better and more knowledgable players than you and alll of them say you are wrong please just accept that you are wrong
-sherminator out

[Papa_Joe]

but they havn't given reason for me to be wrong yet

[Papa_Joe]

they say im wrong but does that even mean anything without reason?

[canvasback]

Ok, my guess without even having seen the game taking place is Papa Joe didn't buy enough infantry or artillery, bought too many tanks in turn 1, lost his fighters for some reason, or some combination of all three. Am I right? Am I getting close to what the problem really is? Or maybe his initial counter-offensive spluttered? What really happened in this game to cause him to think that the Germans are simply too superior?

Because IIRC, USSR has a decent shot of taking two, three if the player is cheeky, territories from Germany right off the bat.

I've played a few games of A&A Revised and frankly the Allies have always won because USSR never fell...

[sherminator1]

ok i'm leaving after this post (I swear to god) p.j. everyone has given excellent reasons on how you are wrong. just beacuse you've never won a game doesn't mean that the other player is cheating, has an advantage, or was lucky. It means they are good or you are a wretched player.
-Sherminator out (really)

[Papa_Joe]

ok canvas this entire post is refering to the start of the game (the anmount that everyone has) basicaly im refering to how easy it is for germany to win because of how many units they start with and how much more money they get for reinforcements next turn so far ive got half assed answers like just sit there and wait for your teamates to come or your an idiot russia has all the advantages WELL if anyone listened to my side of the story they wouldn't be talking much so im guessing we either mod doesn't care or he knows that this is getting stale and repetetive
not only that nobody even aknologes (spelled wrong i know it) that HE IS THE ENTIRE AXIS he makes all of the moves for his team while im stuck trying to convice some one stupid on my team not to invade germany with 3 infantry so why am i being singled out as obstinent? I think it's because sherminator doesn't want to be wrong i think he is in denial and he thinks it's his military genious that is winning his games

[Papa_Joe]

and to explain why im in bad shape right now well it's because of all of that *points to above post* but seriously if your going to argue don't beat around the bush GET TO THE POINT MAN

[canvasback]

....not only that nobody even aknologes (spelled wrong i know it) that HE IS THE ENTIRE AXIS he makes all of the moves for his team while im stuck trying to convice some one stupid on my team not to invade germany with 3 infantry so why am i being singled out as obstinent? I think it's because sherminator doesn't want to be wrong i think he is in denial and he thinks it's his military genious that is winning his games


The fact that he is the entire Axis is not the real issue. I've seen two Axis players do exactly as you describe him doing. Sorry, but it's a good strategy. He is under no obligation to try and NOT win a game. You may have a point about your Allied players not being of much help... That really isn't Sherminator's fault either. I suspect it might be the case because as someone else mentioned, if the U.S. does its job in the Pacific, the last thing Japan will be able to do is intervene in the USSR.... What can I say except if you had the choice, you should have picked non-Agression pact with Japan.

In the older version of the Game, I played the entire Axis against the Allied players and won an economic victory because I 1) Got real lucky against the USSR in the first and second turn; 2) The U.S. player did a Fortress America type strategy that let Japan run wild, 3) The British didn't do anything either... In short, the Allies didn't cooperate after the dice went my way for about two turns. If they don't cooperate, the Axis WILL win. Whoever is in the right or wrong at your game table, the fact remains that in your game the Allies aren't cooperating. That is the reason your side is losing, not that Germany is so much more powerful than you...

Having played as the all of the sides in the revised version, I know there were things you could have done in the first two turns that probably would have improved your situation as the USSR. You have to play it a bit differently than in the old game. My advice is to buy just enough tanks for a counter-attack every turn but the bulk of your spending should be on infantry and artillery. Think about it, for 10 IPCs you can have either 2 tanks that hit on 3s or 2 infantry and an artillery. You pair up one infantry on the artillery and you've got 2 pieces that attack on a two and a bonus piece that attacks on a 1, or looking it strictly from defense you got three pieces defending on 2. For 20 IPCs do you want four tanks or 4 infantry and 2 artillery? How about 3 infantry and three artillery for 21 IPCs? That's six pieces attacking on 2s as opposed to only 4 on 3s. Buy one tank to go with them and you got a pretty effective force in attack and if your casualties are low, a good defense... It's a better deal. People ignore depth of numbers for High combat values at their peril in this game, and if you're the USSR you can't afford to make a mistake like that.

Lately, I've been very effective with the British. You don't have to leave the job of bombing Germany to the Americans and you can really mess with Japan badly, especially if you do get an I.C. in India. I'm drifting....

You are losing on your own merits and because your team can't pull together. It really is that simple and it seems to reflect everyone else's experience with the game. Don't feel beat up by it, try playing Germany next time if you feel like they have an advantage.

[sherminator1]

he never wants to play germany (coincedence?)

[steben]

In fact, revised is worse for the axis.
That's my opinion.
- Too broad an Eastern front with no supplies ( it forces me to buy 8 german armor in round 1, infantry is far too slow -> stacking: no way!)
- Allied fleet can be built too easy at a safe range

In fact, that is/was reality off course. Winning with the axis is just tough strategy. It doesn't have to be completely impossible, right?
I guess USSR only falls too quickly when the allies are too damn numb lazy.

[sherminator1]

Ok papa joe you want facts? here's a fact. U.S.S.R. gets 24 i.p.c.s u.k. gets 30. u.k. needs to buy 3 tanks every round forindia so 30-15 =15 that means that grany has 39 i.p.c.s worth of enemy in direct contact with them On two seperate fronts! Not only that in 2-3 rounds u.s. can hit germany what do you say to that?

[TomJag3]

Given equal players, the Allies should win the game. The Allies (Russia, US, and UK) need to work together towards the win. Russia should be taking in an income of around 29 IPC's per turn versus the German income of about 45. If the US and UK each fly a fighter each turn to Russia, Russia will be strong, defensively. The US and UK need to work together against Germany, if UK takes a territory, the US can move fighters in for defense. On turn 1, Russia can get 6 infantry to Bury. Japan can't take it with its 1 transport, it needs to kill the US Fighter in China. The US can fly both the WCst Fighter and the Pearl Harbor fighter to Bury, giving you 6 Russian infantry and 2 fighters on turn 2, a formidable force for Japan to assault if it want to do anything. Besides, Japan will want to drive on Moscow or India rather than mess with a 1 point IPC territory that will burn up its land units. From there, the US planes can get to Russia and you can pull back the 6 infantry. If you're playing the Russia/Japanese truce, you don't need all 6. The thing is that the Allies need to look for ways to put pressure on the Axis. I like to send the UK CV and DD from India after the lone *** transport and leave the UK transport of FIC to block the Japanese southern fleet. This forces the Japanese to either kill the US fleet or the UK fleet, not both. The point is that you have to look at your options and influence your opponent's options.

If the 3 Allied nations don't cooperate, they're doomed.

[psychotropic]

[QUOTE=TomJag3This forces the Japanese to either kill the US fleet or the UK fleet, not both.

I don't agree.

Sub, fighter, bomber, destroyer to Pearl
2BB, CV, 2 fighters on UK fleet
3 fighters 5 inf into china

[TomJag3]

Nope, psycho, look at your map. Leaving the UK transport at FIC keeps the carrier and BB from the south from getting the UK CV,DD off the coast of Kwangtung. This leaves the Japanese awfully thin, especially if the UK sub takes out the *** sub.

[psychotropic]

Nope, psycho, look at your map. Leaving the UK transport at FIC keeps the carrier and BB from the south from getting the UK CV,DD off the coast of Kwangtung. This leaves the Japanese awfully thin, especially if the UK sub takes out the *** sub.

Right. I'm going from memory here. Again no map but couldn't they bring in the destroyer from Carolines with a BB and a fighter and send the other fighter out to Pearl. Take it as a casualty so as not to have to move the CV in. Is the UK fighter on the CV or in India? How often does the sub hit? Usually just results in submerge.

[sherminator1]

ok canvas this entire post is refering to the start of the game (the anmount that everyone has) basicaly im refering to how easy it is for germany to win because of how many units they start with and how much more money they get for reinforcements next turn so far ive got half assed answers like just sit there and wait for your teamates to come or your an idiot russia has all the advantages WELL if anyone listened to my side of the story they wouldn't be talking much so im guessing we either mod doesn't care or he knows that this is getting stale and repetetive
not only that nobody even aknologes (spelled wrong i know it) that HE IS THE ENTIRE AXIS he makes all of the moves for his team while im stuck trying to convice some one stupid on my team not to invade germany with 3 infantry so why am i being singled out as obstinent? I think it's because sherminator doesn't want to be wrong i think he is in denial and he thinks it's his military genious that is winning his games


i am not in some sort of denial or anything, i don't think that i'm a genius at this game. I don't think i'm any better than most ppl on this site in fact. I actually believe (with no offense to any one i play with) that i'm just playing with average to below average players and that helps me win.

and i'm not talking about you having bad players on your side or w/e i'm talking about if both sides had perfectly equal players the allies would always win. I'm not trying to make it sound like i'm some sort of genious by saying that the game is tilted towards the allies. I'm just frustrated that my victories are being dismissed "because i have an of unfair advantage"

[psychotropic]

I'm just frustrated that my victories are being dismissed "because i have an of unfair advantage"

That's why i always like to play the axis. If you play the allies your expected to win. So the only thing you can do is meet expectations(win) or under achieve(lose). As the axis your only options are to meet expectations(lose) or over achieve(win).

[sherminator1]

i would be willing to play allies but no1 ever wants to play axis with me

[psychotropic]

i would be willing to play allies but no1 ever wants to play axis with me

Well if you ever find yourself on the west coast of Vancouver Island and want to do some fishing, surfing and have a game give me a call. I love playing the axis. It reminds me of the Kobiashi Maru. You know the unwinable battle all star fleet captains have face as a test of character.

[sherminator1]

ok you either just made a huge flaw in what u just said this is what I understand from what u just said

Ok basicaly in the actual war the axis didn't talk much... not much else to be said so from what u said if there are two players they have to be "good" BUT since they are so overpowered if one player controls them both they don't have to be good (notice you didn't say that the one player is good) So either think before you post or think of a new argument

or maybe im just crazy who knows
ok i've changed my reply

[sherminator1]

But that brings us to the fact mod that any decent player EVEN I (who usualy plays as russia) would attack early with
Germany earlier in the game because if you have been listening at all i have been saying they have a ton of guys to start with and if it looks like russia is losing (which it is) then why would japan need to help out they have their hands full with the U.S
japan needs to help out because even though russia is losing to germany, germany will lose to u.k. and u.s.

[sherminator1]

also i've just found that the axis IS NOT superior in force, the allies start with 623 i.p.c.s worth of units the axis starts with only 523

germany 292

japan 231

us.s.r 126

usa 266

u.k. 231

add in regular i.p.c.s and i'd say we have a definite allied advantage :eek:

How's that for cold hard facts joe?

[nlentz88]

Nope, psycho, look at your map. Leaving the UK transport at FIC keeps the carrier and BB from the south from getting the UK CV,DD off the coast of Kwangtung. This leaves the Japanese awfully thin, especially if the UK sub takes out the *** sub.

Assuming the UK makes the naval moves described above (Indian fleet & FTR takes out TRN and blocks w/ TRN in FIC) and takes out the Japanese sub with his own SS and TRN, then Japan does indeed have some tough decisions to make. I might go with:

BB vs. TRN (SZ 36, FIC)
5 INF, FTR vs. China (gonna be tough, but should be doable)
CV, 2 FTR, DD, BB vs. Pearl Harbor (another tough battle)
3 FTR, Bomb vs. UK Fleet (SZ 59, Kwang)

I might be tempted to bring another TRN to take a hit in SZ 59, but I would probably want to save it to move INF & ARM to Kwang in non-combat (to be met by a CV in non-com too). If the Japanese SS survives UK1, this helps Japan some. Regardless, Japan's situation is rough. He might be better off concentrating on one fleet (Pearl Harbor) and preparing for an attack on the other fleet (UK) on J2.

In Enhaced, instead of UK attacking the Japanese SS, the UK could move the SS to SZ 47 (New Guinea) and Aussie TRN to SZ 44 or 42; the UK SS blocks and also threatens to convoy raid Tokyo on UK2, while if left alone the TRN (Aus) can head to the safety of the coastline of the Americas (and from thence to the Atlantic). This gives Japan the choice between stretching himself thin and risking heavy losses or allowing some Allied ships to survive for another round.

I've been playing around with combining the UK Indian and Australian fleets in SZ 30 and building an Austalian IC (sometimes with the Colonial Garrison NA) on UK1 (and sometimes an Indian IC too), but I think Japan has an easy counter. If he moves a Japanese CV into SZ 38 in non-com, then:

BB, CV, 4 FTR vs. SZ 30
5 INF, 2 FTR vs. China
BB, DD, SS, Bomb vs. Pearl Harbor

China should be in good shape, but there's a chance the Japanese fleets in the south Indian Ocean and around Pearl Harbor will be severely weakened. The US might even have a chance with a counter-attack against the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Any thoughts? Has anyone else tried combining the Indian and Aus fleets into SZ 30 on UK1?

Anyway, as for the topic at hand (who has the advantage? Axis? Allies?), I'm definitely going with Allies. Others have given more than enough evidence on this subject already. I will add, however, that the Axis case is not as bleak as it looks. A coordinated plan of expansion (and the capture of key victory cities) early in the game (rounds 1-3) can balance the two sides by mid-game. However, experienced Allied players are bound to make this quite difficult while steadily building a solid KGF or KJF strategy. Thankfully, there's always lucky dice rolls to keep things fun!

Lastly, I'll add that the Allied advantage can be controlled through: a bid for the Axis, playing a variant ruleset (Enhanced is pretty balanced), allowing players with less experience to play the Allies against more experienced Axis players, or otherwise handicap the Allies or bolster the Axis using a set of house rules (like the old house rule for the MB edition where Russia was not allowed to attack on R1).

That's just my 0.02 IPC, though.

[steben]

also i've just found that the axis IS NOT superior in force, the allies start with 623 i.p.c.s worth of units the axis starts with only 523

germany 292

japan 231

us.s.r 126

usa 266

u.k. 231

add in regular i.p.c.s and i'd say we have a definite allied advantage :eek:

How's that for cold hard facts joe?

Need to say even more? The superior allied unit quantity and ipc totals are OK and very realistic. Yet German units WERE tougher and more experienced.Germany needs stronger units. Especially defensive, no mather what some axis lovers may suggest. Post-1942 WWII was (and A&A is) an axis-in-defense war (or game). That's the reason why it took 3-4 years to eliminate them (12 to 16 rounds). In A&A a "typical" game (allied victory) it lasts "only" about 2 years (6 to 10 rounds).
What the heck about game length? It's strategy god d***. If you don't want it, go gardening.

[psychotropic]

Assuming the UK makes the naval moves described above (Indian fleet & FTR takes out TRN and blocks w/ TRN in FIC) and takes out the Japanese sub with his own SS and TRN, then Japan does indeed have some tough decisions to make. I might go with:

BB vs. TRN (SZ 36, FIC)
5 INF, FTR vs. China (gonna be tough, but should be doable)
CV, 2 FTR, DD, BB vs. Pearl Harbor (another tough battle)
3 FTR, Bomb vs. UK Fleet (SZ 59, Kwang)

I might be tempted to bring another TRN to take a hit in SZ 59, but I would probably want to save it to move INF & ARM to Kwang in non-combat (to be met by a CV in non-com too). If the Japanese SS survives UK1, this helps Japan some. Regardless, Japan's situation is rough. He might be better off concentrating on one fleet (Pearl Harbor) and preparing for an attack on the other fleet (UK) on J2.

In Enhaced, instead of UK attacking the Japanese SS, the UK could move the SS to SZ 47 (New Guinea) and Aussie TRN to SZ 44 or 42; the UK SS blocks and also threatens to convoy raid Tokyo on UK2, while if left alone the TRN (Aus) can head to the safety of the coastline of the Americas (and from thence to the Atlantic). This gives Japan the choice between stretching himself thin and risking heavy losses or allowing some Allied ships to survive for another round.

I've been playing around with combining the UK Indian and Australian fleets in SZ 30 and building an Austalian IC (sometimes with the Colonial Garrison NA) on UK1 (and sometimes an Indian IC too), but I think Japan has an easy counter. If he moves a Japanese CV into SZ 38 in non-com, then:

BB, CV, 4 FTR vs. SZ 30
5 INF, 2 FTR vs. China
BB, DD, SS, Bomb vs. Pearl Harbor

China should be in good shape, but there's a chance the Japanese fleets in the south Indian Ocean and around Pearl Harbor will be severely weakened. The US might even have a chance with a counter-attack against the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Any thoughts? Has anyone else tried combining the Indian and Aus fleets into SZ 30 on UK1?

Anyway, as for the topic at hand (who has the advantage? Axis? Allies?), I'm definitely going with Allies. Others have given more than enough evidence on this subject already. I will add, however, that the Axis case is not as bleak as it looks. A coordinated plan of expansion (and the capture of key victory cities) early in the game (rounds 1-3) can balance the two sides by mid-game. However, experienced Allied players are bound to make this quite difficult while steadily building a solid KGF or KJF strategy. Thankfully, there's always lucky dice rolls to keep things fun!

Lastly, I'll add that the Allied advantage can be controlled through: a bid for the Axis, playing a variant ruleset (Enhanced is pretty balanced), allowing players with less experience to play the Allies against more experienced Axis players, or otherwise handicap the Allies or bolster the Axis using a set of house rules (like the old house rule for the MB edition where Russia was not allowed to attack on R1).

That's just my 0.02 IPC, though.

I've tried combining the fleets and even took Royal Navy NA to bolster it. Didn't work the first tim but has some possibility.

I notice in all your scenarios you take a BB into Pearl. I never do. assuming the sub is lost it would be fighter, bomber and DD and might take a second fighter in and lose it as a casualty so as not to have to commit my CV. All I'm worried about is taking out the American CV so I only need 2 hits.

[smo63]

Again,

I believe one needs to justify what victory conditions you are playing under and what system is being used.

If you say you are going to play a straight up game of AA with no time limits, no bid and total domination, yes the Allies would win almost every time.

But when you place conditions on the game as in the rules, you are dealing with a whole different ball of wax and in many scenarios, the Axis might get the edge...

I agree, anytime you have three on two, it makes perfect sense that the Allies should win...but then again, this is NOT a perfect world, unless you live in la, la land...

GS:)

[squirecam]

Again,

I believe one needs to justify what victory conditions you are playing under and what system is being used.

If you say you are going to play a straight up game of AA with no time limits, no bid and total domination, yes the Allies would win almost every time.

GS:)

Funny that I should return after a long absence and see this same debate.

If you know how to play axis, you can win. Straight up. "almost every time", well probably not. Only if you are me... :)

Squirecam

[Papa_Joe]

he never wants to play germany (coincedence?)
when did i ever say i didn't want to play germany i don't think i ever said that and i think i would mop the floor with you if i did

[Papa_Joe]

also i've just found that the axis IS NOT superior in force, the allies start with 623 i.p.c.s worth of units the axis starts with only 523

germany 292

japan 231

us.s.r 126

usa 266

u.k. 231

add in regular i.p.c.s and i'd say we have a definite allied advantage :eek:

How's that for cold hard facts joe?
but that doesnt change anything ive said at all you still have many many more units at the begining to crush the i.p.cs from us making it tilted way towards the axis. So much for your cold hard facts

[sherminator1]

my last post was proveing that the axis DOESN"T have more units but you refuse to belive that. It's correct, i've done the math. It is a cold hard fact that the allies have an advantage in i.p.c.'s and number of units

[canvasback]

The only way I see this being "resolved' is if Papa Joe takes on the mantle of the the Axis (or at least Germany) and Sherminator1 takes Russia.
And with statements like this....

when did i ever say i didn't want to play germany i don't think i ever said that and i think i would mop the floor with you if i did

A confrontation NEEDS to happen. Get out the gameboard and let the dice fall where they may gentlemen.

[squirecam]

also i've just found that the axis IS NOT superior in force, the allies start with 623 i.p.c.s worth of units the axis starts with only 523

germany 292

japan 231

us.s.r 126

usa 266

u.k. 231

add in regular i.p.c.s and i'd say we have a definite allied advantage :eek:

How's that for cold hard facts joe?

I think an important distinction is that the USA pieces are far from the front, with the exception of the china forces. Also, the germans have an advantage on the russian front.

Yes, more allied pieces are there, but by the time the they into play, the axis should have used its localized advantages to gain IPC.

Squirecam

[AdunIncarnate]

Volumes have been written on this subject, and I don't think anyone on these forums will have a definite answer to the question. But here are a few thoughts to consider:

The allies can support each other much more easily than the axis powers can. It takes serious time for Japan to get to Africa or Germany to get to India. They _can_ combine on Russia, but at the expense of their other fronts.

on the other hand,

The axis have much stronger starting positions. Germany _does_ have a good chance of eating GB's navy first turn, and likewise Japan and the US. They both have a lot of IPC worth of troops in active places, ready to be used. The US clearly takes a while to get moving, and to a lesser extent GB does as well. So the axis has the chance to make some major victories early on that can change the tide of the game.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that with perfectly matched players the axis have the advantage in the early/mid game but if they do not take that advantage they give it to the allies instead.

[TrimChris]

Volumes have been written on this subject, and I don't think anyone on these forums will have a definite answer to the question. But here are a few thoughts to consider:

The allies can support each other much more easily than the axis powers can. It takes serious time for Japan to get to Africa or Germany to get to India. They _can_ combine on Russia, but at the expense of their other fronts.

on the other hand,

The axis have much stronger starting positions. Germany _does_ have a good chance of eating GB's navy first turn, and likewise Japan and the US. They both have a lot of IPC worth of troops in active places, ready to be used. The US clearly takes a while to get moving, and to a lesser extent GB does as well. So the axis has the chance to make some major victories early on that can change the tide of the game.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that with perfectly matched players the axis have the advantage in the early/mid game but if they do not take that advantage they give it to the allies instead.

Yes, the Allies can combine their troops, but their need to is more of a hindrance than an asset I think. The fact that the Axis aren't too reliant in each other allows greater flexibility, especially when playing with more than 2 players.

[sherminator1]

Ok as a follow up to this argument I have been hounding Papa_Joe to play me for weeks but he refuses to evenwhen I say he can be axis (his excuse being he has no strategies for axis) because he says that the game is boring because I always win. (Which according to him is mostly becauseits tilted towards the axis :confused: )

[admiral_yamoto]

actually if you play minor victory, its wieghed towards the axis

[sherminator1]

I am so not getting into this again.

[admiral_yamoto]

well i dont know, i havent read the rest of this thread

[xxstefanx]

Game is pretty well balanced!
Very, very slightly in favour of the Allies so a bid < or = 5 for Axis equals up!

Axis have some crucial fights/rolls at the beginning (R1) which better do not have under-average results because that can hardly be compensated!

[gravyluvr]

played against opponets of equal high level and with no bid the axis should lose barring any awful luck on the allies part.

I would go one step further. I think that the Axis powers will continue to win in games that feature newer players to the game. Most players that start playing axis and allies have no idea what to do with the USA and are fairly perplexed by both the Japanese and UK. That leaves Russia and Germany as the "no brainers." If Russia fights Germany one-on-one, Germany Wins.

Until players (myself included) get experienced enough to know how to effectively get the Japs, Brits, and Yanks into the fight the edge will go with whichever side controls the biggest mainland army, which is Germany.

Most people on this site (not me this time) are very familiar with the powers and how to play Axis and Allies, therefore they know how to handle Island based powers (UK and Japan) and how to get far away powers involved (USA).

I keep thinking that eventually I will be playing the game one day and it will all just click in and I'll laugh at how long it took to figure out the Allies grand strategy.

[newpaintbrush]

Just play a lotta games is all. Find out that way.