G40 League House Rule project

[gamerman01]

It is even more clear to me now that it was time to make Tier 4.
I just realized I needed to make a separate subtotal for the wins and losses by Axis and Allies for the new tier -

Separating them, tier 3 now has a .389 win pct as Axis and .250 as Allies, which is much higher than before the separation, and creation of tier 4.

This is interesting (and is always at the right side of my spreadsheet):
Tier 1 win pct; Axis/Allies: .802; .683
Tier 2 .638; .548
Tier 3 .389; .250

Axis has 17% more wins than Allies among tier 1, 16% among tier 2,  and 56% among tier 3.

However, consider this: A big reason the Axis is getting more wins is because tier 1 has played many more games as Axis than as Allies.

Games played as Axis/Allies
Tier 1 96, 60
Tier 2 69, 84
Tier 3 72, 84
Tier 4 23, 32

So you shouldn’t just look at the overall win % of .577 and .423 as Axis and Allies.
The disparity would be much smaller if the top 15 players weren’t disproportionately taking the Axis.

Tier 1’s who love to take Axis:
Boldfresh
Wheatbeer
Zhukov
Hank
Arathorn
Stalingradski

If these guys had taken the Allies as much as they had taken the Axis, I think the # of Allied wins would be close to the same as Axis wins right now.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

If these guys had taken the Allies as much as they had taken the Axis, I think the # of Allied wins would be close to the same as Axis wins right now.

This is ambiguous.
I didn’t mean if these players had played Allies the same number of times as Axis, I meant….
Well, here’s an example.

Wheatbeer played 22 games as Axis and 4 games as Allies.

I’m saying if he had played only 4 games as Axis and 22 games as Allies, and the other tier 1’s had done the same, Axis and Allies over all right now would be close to equal, or maybe the Allies would even be ahead.

Basically, a major reason the Allies are getting beat up so bad overall is because many tier 1 players strongly favor taking the Axis and they are beating up on weaker players, many times.

[gamerman01]

And this is where the record keeping for each game really pays off.
If we had merely tracked # of Axis wins vs. # of Allied wins, we would conclude that that Allies need a bid of at least 20.  Seriously.  At least 20.

However, since I have tracked Axis and Allies results by player and by tier, it is easy to analyze what may actually be going on in the league.
The fact that tier 1 players as a group have played 60% more games as Axis than as Allies makes it very difficult to project how much, if any, advantage the Axis has over the Allies.  One thing I am sure of, is the disparity between the .577 to .423 winning percents is greatly inflated by the fact that weaker players have taken the Allies far more than the stronger players.
Or is it that the players in tier 1 who have taken the Axis so often are over-rated because they took the stronger side, and just got easier wins?  And the tier 2 and tier 3 and tier 4 players are where they are in part because they are players who took the Allies more??  I think that’s a fair question, too.

I leave it here for you to decide/discuss now.

[Cow]

I love the Axis, simply because I get to decide when the game ends whenever I feel like it.

In AA50 I could actually take berlin/italy… In global… GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. So basically the axis decide between 1) economic game 2) vc win or bust. At any point in the game they can decide vc win or bust.

So yeah.

[Cow]

So basically I prefer the axis because the allies sometimes get super boring. Like my game against hobo, is really boring and in hindsight I wish I just shoved everything in front of him round 2 and start skirmishing hard rather than block him from as many islands as I could.

[Cow]

Oh wait, you didn’t have me listed as one of the tier 1 players who played the axis heavily.  Well Zhukov feels the same way, he prefers to dictate the pace of the game.

[arathorn]

I have always been an Axis-player at heart - especially with Germany. Ever since I had a 32 IPC starting income, struggling if I should go with 4 inf and 4 tanks, or 6 tanks etc. :) Oh the memories. Not only because of my interest in German military history, but also because I always liked to be the “underdog”.

Historically, I think that Axis has “always” been the harder part to play well. All the way back to Classic, where people needed to put in home rules such as “USSR restricted” or give a heavy bid to the Axis players. Though this might have changed a little up through the years, I still feel that a “weaker” player has a better chance of doing well with the Allies than with Axis.

This is due to the fact that the Axis player has to hurry up and get a consistent strategy going, or else the combined economy of the Allies can just wait them out. Of course, against a skilled Axis player, the Allied player has to play well to prevent a fast win, but if the Axis player gets “stuck” or the momentum slows down, it usually favours the Allies, which is why a less strong player could have a chance at evening things out.

I remember with Classic/Europe/Pacific, I never lost as the Allies, since I was usually the stronger player. Though I didn’t always win with the Axis, that was the only way I could get a challenge, since it was much tougher being the Axis.

That’s just my two cents for what it is worth.

Deutshcland Über Alles!

[gamerman01]

It’s not easier to take the Allies in G40, or AA50-41 (with Dardanelles open).  Before that, yes.

[arathorn]

I don’t disagree with you - but I do think that it takes a little more to push for a win with the Axis, due to the need for a quick, consistent strategy to slow down the Allied economic advantage. A good Axis player will know what to do, whereas a weaker Allies player playing against a weaker Axis player will have the advantage of only needing to slow down the Axis sufficiently enough.

[Karl7]

I used to think I was a good Axis player, but most my losses to Tier 1 players has been by me playing the Axis.  I think the Axis have become a lot harder to win with now that Allied play seems to be picking up.  Indeed, as Cow and I have been discussing, I don’t see a very good counter against the Allies just killing Japan and then reinforcing Moscow with fighters at the critical moment.  I can usually get Germany to Moscow, but when they get there in force there’s not ever a slim chance they can take Moscow.

Cow thinks the solution is to use Japan to flank the Allies in the Middle east, but in my experience this allows the US and Anzac to go insane – producing multitudes of planes that end up in Moscow anyway.

[boldfresh]

@Karl7:

I used to think I was a good Axis player, but most my losses to Tier 1 players has been by me playing the Axis.  I think the Axis have become a lot harder to win with now that Allied play seems to be picking up.  Indeed, as Cow and I have been discussing, I don’t see a very good counter against the Allies just killing Japan and then reinforcing Moscow with fighters at the critical moment.  I can usually get Germany to Moscow, but when they get there in force there’s not ever a slim chance they can take Moscow.

Cow thinks the solution is to use Japan to flank the Allies in the Middle east, but in my experience this allows the US and Anzac to go insane – producing multitudes of planes that end up in Moscow anyway.

yeah, cow tried that against me and it failed miserably (flanking middle east with japan that is).

[Stalingradski]

@Karl7:

I used to think I was a good Axis player, but most my losses to Tier 1 players has been by me playing the Axis.  I think the Axis have become a lot harder to win with now that Allied play seems to be picking up.  Indeed, as Cow and I have been discussing, I don’t see a very good counter against the Allies just killing Japan and then reinforcing Moscow with fighters at the critical moment.  I can usually get Germany to Moscow, but when they get there in force there’s not ever a slim chance they can take Moscow.

Cow thinks the solution is to use Japan to flank the Allies in the Middle east, but in my experience this allows the US and Anzac to go insane – producing multitudes of planes that end up in Moscow anyway.

I’m in the middle of learning this the hard way against Allweneedislove. He will soon change his name to Allweneedisbombers  :-D

Allied play will improve as more people adapt to this style - it’s a winning formula for the Allies. But, as with anything, something is lost for what is gained. The trick for everyone facing the decimation of Japan by air is to find out what has been conceded by the Allies, and exploit it. I haven’t accomplished this yet!  :-)

[Jennifer]

If it’s air power, the concession is probably boots on the ground.  So where are they lacking in ground forces?  I mean, other than India, Australia and the United States?

Perhaps if Japan went balls to the walls on an invasion on US Soil to keep them off guard while snatching VCs in the Pacific?  In my mind’s eye, I am seeing a round 3 DOW on the US to prevent them from collecting all that money that a Round 1 DOW gives them.  (-45 IPC + 6 IPC = net -39 IPC just from that, not counting Hawaii NO, etc just Philippines and that stupid as crud Continental NO.)

Might have to ignore China for a few rounds just to really hammer the south hard while keeping pressure on America’s fleet making ability.  If Japan can get annoying enough, those planes won’t be flying to Moscow at all.  Or at least the way I envision it….not sure how to really go about putting it in practice just now, but that’s just a matter of playing a few games and seeing what develops.

[Stalingradski]

Yes Jen, agreed - it might also be good to get entrenched early in the Carolines and be able to manipulate the DEI/economic game to effect against the heavy air strategy. Like you said - maybe China is a sideshow?

Like all winning strategies, if people see it enough there will be a correction, and the play of Japan will adapt. Still, it’s pretty hard for Japan to face alone.

[allweneedislove]

the allies should be able to crush either japan or germany/italy. what makes the game interesting is seeing if the noncrushed side has enough to pull out a vc win.

[Jennifer]

Honestly, until I play it a few times, I won’t be able to say China is ignorable.  I used to ignore it successfully in Alpha 2, but that was 2 renditions of the game ago!

By ignore, of course, I mean not allow to build up, but not really go hard and strong for all the Chinese territories.   Â

I wonder if a crush India really is out?  If you could set up an assault of that and take them out before the US came in, even if you lost Kwangtung all the way up to Korea for a short time, it might be worth it, if only to secure your flank.

I’m not a fan of sitting in the DEI.  Securing it yes, but sitting there leaves the north too exposed IMHO.  The Carolines are good, even the Hawaiian Islands (which are way better!) if you can achieve it.  Of course, there’s no setting up invasions of Alaska AND crushing India AND setting up an assault on Australia all in the first 4 rounds of play, I don’t care how good your dice are!   But maybe one of those could be used in such a way to negate the 48 bomber to Moscow (and other fighter) strategy?  BTW, that strategy isn’t all that new, it’s a hold over from Classic.

[gamerman01]

With all due respect, Jennifer, you are talking way too much about strategy prematurely.  You need to play several games first, and see how it goes.
2nd edition is dramatically different than Alpha2.

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

With all due respect, Jennifer, you are talking way too much about strategy prematurely.  You need to play several games first, and see how it goes.
2nd edition is dramatically different than Alpha2.

:P  Talking only theories from an outsider’s perspective. lol.  The complaint is Allied air power.  There may exist a solution in where you bring pressure on the allies in some other area of the game.  Hardly takes 100 games of Second Edition to theorize on that. =^_^=

[gamerman01]

Not 100, but it might take more than 0 or 1.

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

Not 100, but it might take more than 0 or 1.

I might agree, but I do have some recollection of the game. lol.  Fighters can’t move 12 spaces, I don’t give a darn how many air bases there are between the start of your flight path and the end!  (I actually had that argument with someone in Alpha 2.  It was the first game for both of us, and he was claiming each airbase added +1 movement.  Which explained why he was building them left and right all over the map!)  And cruisers, as much as I may dream about it, will never move 3, or 4 with naval base support.

Therefore, looking at the map, and having Alpha 2, and Alpha 3 memories, I can safely say, there are some things that will work and others that won’t.  At least to the point of knowing some things I would like to try that seem feasible and others I wouldn’t mind sounding off other players to look for holes.  After all, I am the Queen of Implementing Unusual Battle Strategies!  98% of them don’t work, but when you find that 2% that does, oh my goodness, you have dozens of players to use that against. lol.

That said….

This is a game about taking and holding Victory cities.  I don’t really care how good your navy is, if you can’t stop Japan from getting 6 VCs on the Pacific board and holding them for a round, you lose.  Yes, you may have them out numbered 5:1 in every class of unit - but you still lost!  Likewise, you don’t have to invade Europe with Russia to win the game, you just have to stop Germany from getting 8 VCs and as the defender, you get to pick which VCs you work hard to hold.  (Obviously Moscow is one you have to hold!  As is London and Washington DC, but seriously, if you lose DC you deserve to go to the vet and get fixed. :P  Or is that too mean?  Sorry, on my first cup of coffee, I am permitted to be mean until I start my second cup!)

Strategies of some merit in Alpha 2, which yes is a while ago, included ignoring Russia altogether, even if they invaded you, and mostly ignoring China (as long as you kept the Road closed.)  Since Russia and China are not exactly going to be defending any VCs anyway, and this is a game for VCs, I don’t know if it really is all that necessary to go kill them off to the detriment of other uses of that money.  Not saying global domination is a bad strategy, just offering a thought.  (global domination really has not been a winning strategy per the rules since Classic with the M84 bull p00p anyway, it has always helped, but it was never a victory condition is what I am saying.)

What about focusing on Australia?  Is there a strategy currently that does so?  I would think with India being basically a useless carcass, China being held back and Russia focused on Europe, if you could get Australia before the US officially enters the war at least your DEI acquisitions would be safer.

I know there is/was a crush India strategy at one point. Is that really out, or has it just been negated so no one tries to set it up anymore?  What if you don’t see India do it’s required round 1 moves/purchases to stop the Crush India strategy, could you set up Japan in such a way to exploit it?  Things cannot be in two places at once, but gosh darn, if those Japanese aircraft don’t have HUGE ranges of motion to cover a large patch of the SE Asian portion of the globe!  There has to be something there exploitable that depends on what the allies do r don’t do!

Yes it’s probably suicide, but what kind of hostess would I be if I didn’t at least bring up the thought:  What about invading the United States of America?  They have that ridiculous NO, which in my opinion has always been a bit over powered (feel free not to share my opinion) and no one thought it was ever possible even in classic until C-Sub came up with American Shield (which yes, was eventually beat down and it’s failures discovered, but how many games were lost by the allies while they figured out how to stop it?)  Is there something that can be done on this game for Japan?  Between he Philippines and Hawaii that’s both 2 victory cities and 13 IPC lost by the US (territories and NOs.)  Yes you have to get some BS territories to take the NOs, but it may be possible to achieve.

Odds are horrible you’d get the Central American or Continental American NOs out of America’s hands, but who’s saying you cannot try?

For the record, I am thinking a round 1 dow on anything with a heart beat might not be the right path.  Just my personal thoughts.  Anything else might be worth a try, at least once. Hell, try it against the idiot (the AI) if the idiot can win, then it’s a horrible horrible idea and you should go sit in the corner for 5 minutes to think about what a bad person you were.  If it goes off REALLY well, maybe try and think of how it can be disabled, if you cannot think of a way to stop it, try it in a game!

And remember, games are to be FUN! Personally, I never cared if I was 0 and 547 as long as I had fun in every game!  Used to play a guy called Emperor Mollari here and we’d have 6 or 7 games going at a time and I’d probably lose all but 1 in 14 because I’d do weird stuff just to see what would happen (to include all submarine purchases for 2 rounds with Germany.)  It was FUN, ineffective most of the time, but FUN!