with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning
How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)
-
Here is what I would do to make a global war.
Allies:
Make South Africa a VC and nix Ottawa.
Give a IC to the Aussies. It’s not like they can out produce Japan.
Give Russia another fighter. C’mon what were they thinking.
Axis:
Beef up the Italian Navy. I’m still weighing out what ships get the most blood for the buck so it will be a wile before I decide what to add. Japan shouldn’t have to augment the Italian Navy. I would say at least a few subs but I need to do more homework.
Put a few more German INF in Libia. They can hold back the allies long enough for Italy to get a decent foothold in Africa. By making them German INF Italy can gain ground Germany can hold it for them.
I think a few German subs in the Brazil SZ wouldn’t be out of order. They did have influance in S. America. Heck even Mexico had thought going Axis until reality hit and they concluded the Texas National guard would launch Operation: Aztec Sunrise.
Just my opinion.
LT
-
After one 1941 game it is clear to me that Japan starts with too many units, and is very hard to stop.
My first suggestion to rebalance is a simple one. Use the 1942 Chinese setup for the 1941 scenario.
-
As for balancing, I am leaning more and more towards employing standard pre-game FIDA bids.
Max 50% of the Bid may be in pre-placed units.
The rest must go to starting cash for the Allies.Suggestions such as adding capital ships to the standard setup , just distort the base game too much for me.
-
It’s already balanced, but you have to have National Objectives and Technologies.
The only changes I could see would be:
- -4 Russian Infantry in the East, +1 Fighter in the West
- Move the Chinese Fighter from Yunnan to Chinghai so it can live one or two rounds.
-
its not proven to be unbalanced yet
-
You have not to prove is unbalanced. Basic gameplay with Pacific USA fleet leads to axis economic advantage too soon (round 3-4). Simple mathematics. Sub-optimal KGF gameplay leads to greater axis economic advantage (also at round 3-4) if Japan attacks America by Alaska. Sub-optimal SBR strat leads to a even more agressive Alaska path or to a axis SBR strat over Soviet Union.
You have to prove me that the scenario is balanced. I still fail to see a way allies could have a 50-50 win ratio, or even a 40% of victories unless wacky dices or bad axis playing.
-
No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.
You have to prove the positive, not the negative.
BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out. Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.
-
The sub can be considered offensive too
This simply made my day :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D
-
The sub can be considered offensive too
This simply made my day :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D
Yes, many a submarine has offended me. They are usually on my side and dieing, which is why I get offended!
-
@Cmdr:
No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.
This I agree with. You have to assume that the game is balanced and then prove that it is or is not.
BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out. Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.
This I do not always agree with. There is more than 1 way to skin an axis cat.
@Cmdr:
It’s already balanced, but you have to have National Objectives and Technologies.
The only changes I could see would be:
- -4 Russian Infantry in the East, +1 Fighter in the West
- Move the Chinese Fighter from Yunnan to Chinghai so it can live one or two rounds.
This just plain puzzles me. If you think that the game is balanced, then why suggest changes. Leave the game alone if it’s balanced.
Furthermore, while techs and NO’s are both optional parts of the game, NO’s are necessary, but techs are not.
-
I just suggested two minor changes if you wanted to make changes. IMHO, it’s okay the way it is.
And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy. But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.
-
@Cmdr:
And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy. But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.
Why would I cry when the US would be having pasta and wine in Rome and the British would be having shnitzel and beer in Berlin? I did notice that you went all the way back to classic to dig up the JTDTM for our game.
And for the record, I didn’t say I don’t agree with you. I said I don’t always agree with you. Sometimes I do think a US strategy of harassment in the Pacific can be helpful. I just disputed your claim that you must ALWAYS invest in the Pacific with the US.
As a matter of fact, in every 41’ game that I have been the Allies I have invested in the Pacific with the US for experimental purposes and I have concluded that in a couple games it has been a waste of money.
-
Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.
Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.
Also, not sure what JTDTM is
-
Japanese tank dash to Moscow.
-
Oh, I’ve pretty much been doing that in AA50 forever because it’s the only time convenient way to get to Moscow…otherwise it takes like 40 rounds to march there!
-
@Cmdr:
Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.
Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.
Really, ever try an efficient KGF? By round 3, Germany can be looking at massive navies at Z3 and Z12 each landing 12 units of material with air support-yikes. Russia gets stronger in the east and pushes back, Italy loses Africa.
Personally, I think the Allies are at the advantage in 41- if you play them right- they just out produce and squeze the life out of Germany. The new Geography makes the Japs too slow- they just get there too late.
Brit Z3 navy and American Z12 navies bring multiple threats and Germany collapses.
Want some details??? :?
Questioneer -
yes pls :D
efficient? what about KUSF :P ?
-
@Cmdr:
No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.
You have to prove the positive, not the negative.
My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I’m seeing). It doesn’t mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn’t want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.
I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.
With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you’ll have proven the game can be balanced.
I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one jap trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I’ll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.
-
I do not think that KGF (or KIGF) is dead. Infact it could possibly be even deadlier since Germany can’t send inf directly to Ita, they have to go through WE or Blk first.
The Axis may get an economic lead, but it should not last long. Japan will always be strong, but this is no different than Classic or Revised.
If I go KGF I’d go with the heavy shuck from Wus-Wcan-Ecan starting in round 1 (similar to my Revised strat). You buy something like 10 inf, 1 ftr, a bom + inf could make more sense in AA50, but as long as you buy 6-8 inf for Wus you are good to go to start.
Can Japan annoy you in Ala later? Sure.
Will it be effective? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the US player.
No longer can Japan land directly into Wcan. And can they put a dent into the 8-10 unit shuck? Not if the US player is good. For the US Inf + ftrs (or boms) is a killer deterant.The Allies can do a Heavy Afr landing in rd 2 and then shift the UK to Sz 6 while the US helps in Afr and puts a token threat on Ita.
Japan cannot get to Mos until like rd 5 (perfect scenerio), but can’t have a sizable army until rd 6 or 7 or later. This gives the Allies 6 rounds to sink the Ger ships, sink the Ita ships, 2-3 Afr landings, reclaim Kar for Rus and start dropping either 14-18 units in Europe or splitting them between europe in Afr and this is all very doable.
The US can get inf from Ecan to Mos in 4 turns, and can get inf from Ecan to Cauc in 3 turns. Both are shorter than Japans supply lines.
Also, once the Ita fleet is sunk, the US, if played right and they wanted to, can turn its entire income to Japan now since you should still have 3 shucks that are ready for Europe or Afr and if you know Germany won’t be able to take Mos in those three turns.
Depending on how you play and setup the Allies sometimes the Mid-Pac switch (US switches to Pac strat mid game) is better and sometimes it is better to just finish off Europe, depends on the game and Ger inf stack in the core of Europe. -
Alaska is a dead end in AA50. You were hard pressed in Revised to use it as a staging ground to take W. USA or E. USA, it’s impossible now that America has +5 IPC more than before!
Suggested Topics
