@barnee
Thank you very much
I appreciate.
Tasos
Another Review – 1941 Scenario
-
Thanks for a good review! We found something of the same when we played the '41 scenario, opting for a South African IC, for example, and going for a SBR campaign.
But I differ in your judgments on these points:
- USA can afford to hit Europe with invasions before Japan reaches Moscow. That Italian fleet is easy to hit with bombers and then you just need to worry about German air attacks which 1 CV+2ftrs+1 cruiser+1 destroyer usually stops (that’s just 26 IPCs of naval warships, the rest is transports). The strategic change is that there are more areas between Japan and Moscow, buying you more time.
- Japan needs to have a more balanced strat than just taking all Pacific VCs and then going for Moscow. USA must be put off guard with moves such as invading Alaska or West US or Mexico or SBRing West US. If USA leaves the Pacific unguarded, it must pay for it!
- We found matching the Jap fleet just as hard as you. But in the long run Japan will maybe be forced to put a lot of fighters into the land battles around Caucasus or some fleet units vs. Africa, and that might be the solution to the seeming imbalance fleet-wise in the Pacific.
Basically, the default strategy is “Europe first” (just as it was historically) for the Allies, and the Axis will win if it somehow forces a derailing of this strategy!
-
@Imperious:
He should not have attacked Karelia on G1. Big mistake IMO. He cant get good odds until G2. If he went to Karelia he would have to bring his planes and since he used them elsewhere he lost alot of infantry. Russia cant do anything to prevent it but can even win the battle on G1 if he tries it.
He has to plan the targets with more care and may even perform a number of leaching operations on Caucasus or Karelia. So hes just killing enough and not taking and retreat back to a position where he can strike both north and south. He would take provided he gets support from Japans planes or Italian forces. Only in Karelia this is not really possible.
Good point about Karelia, IL. He definitely spread himself too thin, which gave Russia the time it needed to bulk up on infantry. Also, by “leaching”, I assume you mean “strafing”, which is not a bad idea either. I also think, upon reflection, that Germany should still buy SOME infantry. Not a lot, but at least enough to support strafing as a strategy. Because if I strafe, I’d much rather lose infantry and save my expensive tanks until I’m ready to move in in force.
@TG:
Thanks for your review Gamer.
Japan goes BEFORE UK? That’s insane.
Can someone please inform me of the proper turn order in A&A:50?If Japan is indeed that powerful, this puts a huge crimp on the game. Not from a balancing standpoint, but because I was really looking forward to the Pacific theater opening up. As it stands, USA has no reason to go after Japan even if it wanted to because Japan’s Navy is so strong.
So, in summary, the biggest change, the map aside, is the fleet rules, and they suck for the Allies, period. It’ll be interesting to see how the Allies compensate.
What are these fleet rules?
The fleet rules are as follows:
Cost differences – subs cost 6, transports cost 7, DDs cost 8, cruisers cost 12, carriers cost 14 and BBs cost 20.
Battle differences – subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period. Subs attack on a “2” and defend on a “1”. Transports die automatically if attacked and have no offensive OR defensive value whatsoever. Their ONLY function is to transport land units. So in the case of Germany’s Med transport, I could attack it with the Egypt fighter and automatically kill it without risk. So what this means in practical terms is that you still have to buy transports as the Allies in order to set up D-Day, but now that purchase does NOTHING for you in terms of fleet defense. Nor does buying subs, for that matter, since they cannot be taken as losses against air attacks (the most likely kind from Germany in particular). So you are buying DDs as fodder IN ADDITION TO buying transports. But the DDs attack and defend on a “2”, so that doesn’t get you any true defensive punch. For that, you will have to buy cruisers, carriers and planes. So, without any additional income for America (you start with 40 IPCs), and with a carrier in lieu of a BB from the West coast, you either go KIF/KGF, as always, while constantly watching your back for the stab from Japan – OR – you go on a MASSIVE spending spree buying fleet to try to compete with Japan. Say, a carrier and two fighters on US1 (34 IPCs total) off the coast of LA and moving your existing carrier and fighters up to the same sea zone. That MIGHT survive J2 depending on how Japan stationed her fleet after J1. But now you’re still 2-3 turns at least from seriously threatening Japan. Meanwhile, Japan is cashing out well over 50 IPCs, assuming it hits its NOs, which it should.
Oh, and your question about turn order, it is as follows (in the '41 scenario): Germany, Russia, Japan, Britain, Italy, US.
A couple more points:
1. Even though they are cheaper at 20 IPCs, BBs are not as good a deal in this game. They nerfed the BB by only allowing you 1 shore bombardment per attacking amhip unit. So you no longer have the option of dropping one guy in France and getting 6 bombards. The rules prohibit that, which makes the expensive BB much less attractive as a purchase when you can buy a cruiser for 12 IPCs and get almost the same benefit (attacks, defends and bombards at 3).2. The quality of the plastic pieces in this set was VERY disappointing. It was almost of the quality of the old Xeno Games W@W set – piss poor. For $100, I would have expected something more on the order of the quality pieces that came with A&A: Europe, which cost HALF as much as this game. In fact, IF I buy this game, I would be tempted to throw out the pieces that came with it and buy up odd sets of A&A: Europe pieces on e-bay or whatever to replace them. The map and counters are too nice to be played with with such crappy plastic pieces, IMO.
-
subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.
Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle. This will be in the FAQ.
-
Yes, so far it looks like once again there is little incentive for the US to fight in the Pacific. As noted above, Japan starts with a MASSIVE advantage in fleet firepower (made worse because they can kill off the only US BB while it is alone). In addition, there is little the US can do in the Pacific (that I can see) that will have anywhere near the same impact that European operations would have.
I think the situation is made worse because after 2 turns (which the Allies cannot contest), Japan is making as much if not more money than the US! The Brits have no chance to contribute that I can see either. They can build an IC in India or Australia, but Japan can take either if they commit to doing it. MAYBE with a heavy Soviet commitment to India the Brits could hold it long enough, but my experience is that Russia needs those infantry desperately in the first few turns.
Exactly. The 1941 setup and gameplay is a huge disappointment for me. They have made Japan a superpower with existing units and a superpower economically by turn 2. Whereas the USA is still nerfed. They should have given the USA larger ipc production to somewhat match historically. That is the only way USA can take on Japan realistically. This game will play KGF 99% of the time. What I would really like to know is how the playtesters(who post here ) missed this rather large fault in the game. Did you guys give feedback on it? Was it squashed or what?
I’ll play a few more games before I give up on the OOB rules after that I will introduce modified NOs like this one….
American NO…
-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level. -
subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.
Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle. This will be in the FAQ.
Really? I guess I missed that one. In that case, it is even more imperative for Germany to take out the sz6 DD on G1, because, if he doesn’t, the sz5 sub either will die anyway (if the Brits bring that DD to sz5 on UK1) or it will have nothing to do. Either way, it’s odds of taking out the DD are much better at “2” with air support than at “1” without air support.
-
subs can’t shoot at planes AND planes cannot shoot at subs, period.
Planes can shoot at subs if there is a destroyer friendly to the planes in the battle. This will be in the FAQ.
Really? I guess I missed that one. In that case, it is even more imperative for Germany to take out the sz6 DD on G1, because, if he doesn’t, the sz5 sub either will die anyway (if the Brits bring that DD to sz5 on UK1) or it will have nothing to do. Either way, it’s odds of taking out the DD are much better at “2” with air support than at “1” without air support.
You missed it because it’s not in the printed OOB rules.
-
Gamer,
Thanks for the fleet rules. I do like the fact that transports cannot be used as fodder, which is unrealistic and heavily favors the Allies. Also, buying subs for the Allies in the Atlantic shouldn’t be practical anyways; they were used as primarily offensive units.
I hate suggesting ways to “balance” the game when we haven’t had a large enough sample set or time to devise alternate strategies. But if these problems persist, we’re either going to have to give:
1. A bid for the Allies.
2. Remove Japan’s NOs (only) or at least nerf them.
3. Rearrange the turn order.
Out of these, I like #3 the most because it requires the least amount of change to the game. Do you think a turn order of Russia, Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, USA would balance the game?
Also, have you tried playing without NOs at all for 1941? Does that make a significant enough difference?
1. Even though they are cheaper at 20 IPCs, BBs are not as good a deal in this game. They nerfed the BB by only allowing you 1 shore bombardment per attacking amhip unit. So you no longer have the option of dropping one guy in France and getting 6 bombards. The rules prohibit that, which makes the expensive BB much less attractive as a purchase when you can buy a cruiser for 12 IPCs and get almost the same benefit (attacks, defends and bombards at 3).
I still like BBs because they take two hits to sink. Though, you’re right, the build costs should have been lowered to 18 IPCs. I never liked the unlimited bombardment rule. 1 infantry should not be able walk aboard a continent because of naval bombardment, they just didn’t happen.
2. The quality of the plastic pieces in this set was VERY disappointing. It was almost of the quality of the old Xeno Games W@W set – piss poor. For $100, I would have expected something more on the order of the quality pieces that came with A&A: Europe, which cost HALF as much as this game. In fact, IF I buy this game, I would be tempted to throw out the pieces that came with it and buy up odd sets of A&A: Europe pieces on e-bay or whatever to replace them. The map and counters are too nice to be played with with such crappy plastic pieces, IMO.
Urgh. I do not want to replace my fresh pieces before I’ve played with them. Yeah, Wizards bungled this department.
Flying Tiger
American NO……
-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint. It bogs the game down. The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific. The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.
-
@TG:
Flying Tiger
American NO……
-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint. It bogs the game down. The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific. The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.
I disagree, counting the value of units will be less than 30 seconds, unless your math skills are bad.
All this will do is evaluate your commitment to the Pacific theatre which if high will boost morale in the states and give you your bonus.
Sure there are NOs in the pacific for USA but the Phillipines are far away and protected by large japanese fleet. The NO for Midway, Wake, Solomans should be easy for the Japs to squash for at least 2 turns. The Allies are not getting France for awhile so the Americans are not represented correctly IPC wise when Japan starts with a huge navy and the ability to expand their economy larger than the USA by turn 2. Quite frankly, it’s bullshiat. They designed a game where Japan is more powerful than America. Give it time, in 2 months everyone will come to the same conclusion.
In the real war America fought in the Pacific, and Africa while building up in England for DDay. You can’t fight in 2 theatres with the income given. The bonus will make America fight in the Pacific and give them just enough to send something to the Atlantic which is ideal.
-
TG Moses, I think the most likely solution, ASSUMING everyone concludes after sufficient play time that '41 is unbalanced toward the Axis, is a bid to play Allies. That’s how all the other prior versions got re-balanced (with the bid going to the Axis). It’ll be the same for this version, only in the other direction. I could envision a 6 IPC bid for the Allies, placing 2 infantry in India to make an IC there more promising. Or perhaps as high as 10 IPCs, giving Russia a fighter to start the war. That’d be a big help, believe me. (Did I mention before that Russia starts out with NO AIRFORCE?)
-
and one tank one artillery…. they even lost the sub
-
Any bid would probably go to a KGF campaign. Never would have thought a global game like this would turn to giving allies a bid. It feels like that episode of Star Trek when they visit that planet where the guy from earth brings the Nazi ideology with him. He proceeds to conquer the planet. I wonder if that planet’s USA equivalent had a weak economy too……maybe they based this game on that planet’s war and not ours?
-
I’d bid at least 9 IPCs to China, 12 to being sure. All to Yunnan to let the last and lone chinese fighter survive. And to let more than zero chinese units survive by the way :-P
China is the greatest flaw in this setup (and in the whole game)
-
I’d bid at least 9 IPCs to China, 12 to being sure. All to Yunnan to let the last and lone chinese fighter survive. And to let more than zero chinese units survive by the way :-P
China is the greatest flaw in this setup (and in the whole game)
I don’t know about bidding units to China. Those IPCs would be put to better use elsewhere. A fighter for Russia, for example, would be useful the entire game, whereas any Chinese units will die eventually – it’s just a matter of time. (And probably sooner than later, the way Japan is set up).
-
But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?
-
4 inf to Yunnan lets survive them plus the starting 1 inf, 1 fig plus probably another inf (Japan cannot reduce you to a 1 inf popping status, so it’s better take only 2 territories) plus 2 inf from reinforcements. That’s a total of 7 or 8 inf and a fig, opposite to usual 1 inf. You have a China that can survive 3 or 4 rounds at very least, probably even 5 or 6, opposite to a China killed J1. That buys time for USA navy arrives or a possible India IC (that buggy no-out-of China rule damaged Asian fight for allies but still China can attack Manchuria :-P ). If Japan’s attacks take less than 2 territories, there is no chance Japan can beat the chineses in a long time with that bid, and remember the fig survives and now China can afford make small attacks (as she should). If Japan attacks Yunnan there is a big chance of Japan not killing the fighter and even maybe losing some fig if they get careless, and the resources needed are excessive and maybe they cannot attack rest of China (or Pacific) very well. Just for sure, I would even bid 5 inf to Yunnan (that’s 7 vs 7) or 3 inf, 1 armor (yummy chinese armor :-D)
Of course, It only works well with a Pacific navy, but I anyway think that KGF is hara-kiri for allies in this scenario (65-70 IPCs Japan)
I don’t like the soviet fig by the way. More guys to Egypt or India would work better than that (specially the egyptians)
-
To all,
But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?
I agree with this statement as much as possible. If we’re going to bid, it might as well reflect the changes in A&A:50 as a NEW game. I’m sorry but extra infantry/tanks in the Caucuses or in Egypt screams a retread of A&A over and over again. It may help the Allies win easiest, which is what they’ve always been doing with KGF.
Lets put those extra IPCs in China (or the Pacific) so that those 32243 extra rules about China are worth memorizing.
Suggested Topics
