Bonehead European setup?

[LHoffman]

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

You on the other hand admitted that the Allies need a little “buff” but also that your strategy with the Allies is less perfected than yours for the Axis.

@LHoffman:

How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise?

@LHoffman:

I know that Cow and Axisplaya are experienced, but less so, by their own admission, with the Allies

The less one could say is that you have put some emphasis on this aspect…So let’s talk about it for a minute.

You do realise that this is true for the huuuge majority of players right ?
The Axis is just plain easier to play than the allies. Playing allies demand more calculation and more tactical awareness than playing axis.
The way the game is structured, i’m not saying it’s a good thing to do, but you could play a whole game with axis without ever using a can opener, a concerted defensive NCM with one of your ally or without building any facility (AB, NB, IC) to “help” any of your ally…Now if you do that when playing the allies, you’re going nowhere.
From what i have observed, this is also true for experienced players. I mean, most of them handle the axis better than the allies, even if they score very well with the allies.

Perhaps it is true for the majority. And maybe I have made it seem like the Allies are unbeatable if you experienced enough… if so I wish to clear that up and say that I did not mean this discussion to be like that. I was speaking only from my own experience. I will say that it is not necessarily easier to play with the Axis, even though it may be simpler. If you dally or make a couple poor decisions which put you back a turn or two, it will likely cost the Axis the game.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

If anything, the game will always appear that the Allies need a bid to begin with because they are vastly underpowered and underprepared compared to the Axis. The Allies are designed to get their butts kicked for at least the first 2 turns, but usually 3 or 4. If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win. The Axis have the advantage in the beginning and if they make good use of that and roll well, they can win, I do not argue that. What I dispute is that because the Axis can convert early does not mean the Allies are weak and need a bid to survive.

I agree with you, exepted for this :
@LHoffman:

If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win.

I think this comes from experience (maybe numerous years) of AA original, revised, 42, anniversary, whatever….
When you’ll have played something like 30-50 games of Global, you will perhaps change this number, or at least be much less categorical about it. :wink:

My experience is not as vast as you assume, so you give me a little too much credit. I am fairly young, most likely younger than you, so I have not played years of A&A Original (only one game in fact), but I have played the others extensively. I have played perhaps 20 live games of Global, but not 30-50. Again, I do not, or have not, played online. That being so, you are probably much more experienced than I. So I give your insights a good deal of weight. Maybe I will change my numbers if I play a significantly greater number of games, but as of now that is my perspective, and that of some others too which I have pointed out.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

What the hell does a 6 IPC bid really give you anyway?

A 6 IPC bid makes about no difference, i agree with you.

Now a 10 IPC bid is a fighter in Scotia.

This thread started as “the complaint of poor UK fleet sunk G1”.
I’m not saying a fighter in Scotia is THE answer to this, but it helps a lot. This figther makes the situation more complicated for sz111, sz110 and even sz106 when you think about it.

Now, a fgt in Scotia will not save the UK fleet against a determined axis player, we’re clear on that, but it makes thing much more interesting.

Maybe much better players than i am will say that 10 IPC is too much of a bid for Allies, and maybe one day i’ll change my mind about it and i will be more confortable with allies. I don’t know.
Actually, i’m all ready to believe you that for a really good player, Allies wins more often. I’m just not there at the moment.

Would a fighter in Nova Scotia for bid deter you Axisplaya? If you would agree that Germany needs to take out the UK fleet to be successful, I don’t think the possible counterattack from an extra fighter would be a deterrant to sinking all the UK ships. It would not be to me. It could make a Sealion invasion a bit more difficult, but that apparently is a seperate issue from the topic of this thread. Did you mean a fighter in Scotland, or United Kingdom? Those seem like much more logical and effective choices. A fighter in Nova Scotia cannot even counterattack SZ 111 or 110 on turn 1.

Getting back to topic, which I apologize for having derailed… maybe a bid can be a solution for some people; Der Kuenstler for instance. In his case it is more likely that a change in the rules or setup will be needed… because from my perspective, … well, you already know my perspective. Maybe you predominantly Axis players can back me up on it. It is not historical for the UK fleet to be destroyed, but that is only because Hitler never attempted it. We can debate if Germany was even prepared to, but it will not change the fact that it is necessary in the game. Perhaps Der Kuenstler would need an even larger bid than 10; to throw some more significant deterrents in the mix?

[Cow]

Sadly I think the bid is being upped to 15, because in the re-release they took away an inf from egypt. I will have to play the axis and give opponents 15 to see how things go. Not sure how a sub and dd or 5 inf or whatever the allies get will impact the game in the long run.

Yes, the setup is really silly to watch the strongest navy go poof right away.

[LHoffman]

@Cow:

Yes, the setup is really silly to watch the strongest navy go poof right away.

Silly or odd, yes it is. But is there a solution for having that not happen? That is the question, which no one has definitively answered yet.

[Cow]

Would be interesting to see 111 moved to the dd transport, but I take it they don’t want the fleet to merge into the med with the other fleet.

hmm. Just bids I guess or put 111 in iceland or something.

[Guest]

I wouldn’t want to play axis against anyone with a $10 bid (especially someone like Axisplaya!).  An extra fighter in scotland would ruin all my wicked plans.  6 or 8 is probably fair.

The hard thing about playing allies is that you have to coordinate all the powers and always be thinking several turns ahead when you do your builds.  The axis can just play two more or less separate games - Europe and Pacific.  The difference gets multiplied in a team game, where the allies have to be really on the ball with coordinating their moves.  Axis can get away with a broad strategic plan (e.g. you take India, I’ll take Leningrad, we’ll met up in Stalingrad), where the allies have to coordinate every tactical move and not screw it up (e.g. US will clear the sea zone and take losses on planes, ANZAC will take the island and land planes on the US carrier, reinforce the fleet with cruiser and destroyers).

[Axisplaya]

@LHoffman:

Would a fighter in Nova Scotia for bid deter you Axisplaya? If you would agree that Germany needs to take out the UK fleet to be successful, I don’t think the possible counterattack from an extra fighter would be a deterrant to sinking all the UK ships. It would not be to me. It could make a Sealion invasion a bit more difficult, but that apparently is a seperate issue from the topic of this thread. Did you mean a fighter in Scotland, or United Kingdom? Those seem like much more logical and effective choices. A fighter in Nova Scotia cannot even counterattack SZ 111 or 110 on turn 1.

Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).

If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup.

[Zhukov44]

a couple observations….

1. every A&A game starts with Germany destroying UK naval units with its subs/airforce…this dynamic has nothing to do with historical accuracy.  It’s about starting the game off with action where Germany must make choices and take risks.  It’s about playabilty, fun, and diversity of outcome.

2. It’s an excellent sign for Global that people complain equally as much about Sea Lion being too strong as Barbarossa being too strong… It demonstrates the game has depth and that vastly different approaches can succeed.  Somehow, the individuals starting these threads are going on the TripleA lobby and coming to opposite conclusions about the strategy “everyone” is playing…that’s some nice diversity there.

3. IMO, Axis has the advantage… However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play.  So when a game is young, an experienced player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player.  Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.

[Axisplaya]

@Zhukov44:

3. IMO, Axis has the advantage…. �However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play. �So when a game is young, an player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… �but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player. �Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.

See there LHoffman ? you have the advice of one of the top players of this site (which i’m not).

[LHoffman]

@Axisplaya:

Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).

No problem, it happens. At leat I was able to decipher your intent. So does “Nova” in French translate to “New” in English?

@Axisplaya:

If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup.

Yeah, I do think that complicates things for Germany, but not significantly so. Taking out all or most of the UK fleet still is the #2 priority of G1 (#1 being taking France), so it will have to be done one way or another. At least with an extra fighter the UK can hope to do more damage to Germany.

The point of this thread was Der Kuenstler’s dissatisfaction with the Royal Navy not existing after G1. Even with a reasonable bid, the Royal Navy will still not exist after G1. I don’t see any way for them to exist post-G1 unless their starting positions are moved or a rule is instituted. Or because of something in which it becomes a  ludicrously bad idea for Germany to try attacking the UK ships.

[Guest]

@LHoffman:

@Axisplaya:

Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).

No problem, it happens. At leat I was able to decipher your intent. So does “Nova” in French translate to “New” in English?

Scotland = Ecosse = Scotia in English/French/Latin, so yeah all are the same thing.  New = Nouvelle = Nova

@Axisplaya:

If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup.

Yeah, I do think that complicates things for Germany, but not significantly so. Taking out all or most of the UK fleet still is the #2 priority of G1 (#1 being taking France), so it will have to be done one way or another. At least with an extra fighter the UK can hope to do more damage to Germany.

The point of this thread was Der Kuenstler’s dissatisfaction with the Royal Navy not existing after G1. Even with a reasonable bid, the Royal Navy will still not exist after G1. I don’t see any way for them to exist post-G1 unless their starting positions are moved or a rule is instituted. Or because of something in which it becomes a � ludicrously bad idea for Germany to try attacking the UK ships.

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too.  A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

[LHoffman]

@Axisplaya:

@Zhukov44:

3. IMO, Axis has the advantage…. �However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play. �So when a game is young, an player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… �but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player. �Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.

See there LHoffman ? you have the advice of one of the top players of this site (which i’m not).

Haha, thanks. I take Zhukov’s points into consideration, and your own. But gave a number of the same qualifiers that I did.

It is impossible to say who is equally skilled I guess, but if we theoreticall pit equal opponents against each other Zhukov’s opinion is that the Axis will win more often. That is fine; I cannot dispute it if he has played more than me and with more skilled players.

To resolve this discussion, it would be logical to have a match, or two, to see if equally skilled Allied players can defeat equally skilled Axis players without a bid… and if they cannot, then perhaps play again with one to see if they can do it then. To be scientific we should play multiple matches for each to see the typical results for each situation, but I doubt most have the time or patience for that.

[Razor]

@Hepps01:

……is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration. Â

This game miss a landing craft unit, and that is part of the issue. The real Royal Navy was not a threat to Germany in 1940 because they did not have the capacity to amphibious land combat formations into a defendet shore. They had tranny capacity to debark one division to a friendly port, and thats all. But this A&A game has a magical rule that allows for building unlimited tranny capacity in the short time a turn represent, and land a million men army on any defendet shore any time. The other part of the issue is that A&A dont have terrain  that favours the defender, not even a Blockhouse unit to make landings harder. A&A dont have winter turns neither, where landings would be impossible. The last part is the lack of a supply rule. In a real war the supply line is essential. But again the A&A unit dont need supply, it can be cut off on a desert island and still survive and even keep its combat strenght forever. In a real war 100 men without food are 100 dead men.

If you want a historicall correct set up with a huge Royal Navy, and the game to be playable, you’ll need  a set of house rules:

1. Each turn is equal to 3 months, so you need to keep track of autumn, winter, fall and summer turns. Amphibious landings can only be allowed in a summer turn.
2. Sort out what territories have mountains, and let all defenders hit on 3 or less.
3. Production limit, you can only build one tranny each turn.
4. Supply rule, you need an unbroken chain of friendly territories and seazones from a friendly factory to the units that are going to roll combat dice.
5. Make a Landing craft unit for Amphibious landings. The Tranny unit can now only debark units into friendly territories.
   5 ) Make a Blockhouse unit that defend against Amphibious landings.

Now I guess we wont see a lot of the typical Battleship sniping every turn  :evil:

[LHoffman]

@Vance:

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too. � A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

Okay… I would not say that one extra fighter would ensure it. One extra unit, be that a fighter or a destroyer, should cause the loss of one, perhaps two, extra German units. More than likely only one unit because I would divert at least one extra fighter to that sea zone to make sure all UK units are dead on the first round of combat.

Plus, don’t you need an airbase to scramble (which if I remember correctly Scotland does not have)… or has that rule been ammended?

[LHoffman]

@Razor:

@Hepps01:

……is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration. ��

This game miss a landing craft unit, and that is part of the issue. The real Royal Navy was not a threat to Germany in 1940 because they did not have the capacity to amphibious land combat formations into a defendet shore. They had tranny capacity to debark one division to a friendly port, and thats all. But this A&A game has a magical rule that allows for building unlimited tranny capacity in the short time a turn represent, and land a million men army on any defendet shore any time. The other part of the issue is that A&A dont have terrain �� that favours the defender, not even a Blockhouse unit to make landings harder. A&A dont have winter turns neither, where landings would be impossible. The last part is the lack of a supply rule. In a real war the supply line is essential. But again the A&A unit dont need supply, it can be cut off on a desert island and still survive and even keep its combat strenght forever. In a real war 100 men without food are 100 dead men.

If you want a historicall correct set up with a huge Royal Navy, and the game to be playable, you’ll need �� a set of house rules:

1. Each turn is equal to 3 months, so you need to keep track of autumn, winter, fall and summer turns. Amphibious landings can only be allowed in a summer turn.
2. Sort out what territories have mountains, and let all defenders hit on 3 or less.
3. Production limit, you can only build one tranny each turn.
4. Supply rule, you need an unbroken chain of friendly territories and seazones from a friendly factory to the units that are going to roll combat dice.
5. Make a Landing craft unit for Amphibious landings. The Tranny unit can now only debark units into friendly territories.
   5 ) Make a Blockhouse unit that defend against Amphibious landings.

Now I guess we wont see a lot of the typical Battleship sniping every turn �� :evil:

These are all very good points and ideas, which I agree with. Ideally, this would be a good solution. The unfortunate part is that things rapidly get so complicated and microscopic in detail that the game bogs down and loses some of its playability. As much patience as we all have to sit and play this game for 12 straight hours, I don’t think we’d want 3 turns to take up 12 hrs. There also becomes a good deal more technicalities to remember.

My rationale for the absence of things like supply ships and oil fields and landing craft etc… is that they are invisibly accounted for in the game. Adding them would make things more realistic, but also only more painful to keep track of. Geography and fortifications would be harder to model accurately in an “invisible” sense.

A solid idea I think, but perhaps impractical for most people.

[Razor]

Lhoffman, my reply was to derKunzler, he asked how to get the game more realistic. Of course we all want to keep the game simple stupid for fast play, but then we cant have a historicall correct set up.

[Guest]

@LHoffman:

@Vance:

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too. � A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

Okay… I would not say that one extra fighter would ensure it. One extra unit, be that a fighter or a destroyer, should cause the loss of one, perhaps two, extra German units. More than likely only one unit because I would divert at least one extra fighter to that sea zone to make sure all UK units are dead on the first round of combat.

Plus, don’t you need an airbase to scramble (which if I remember correctly Scotland does not have)… or has that rule been ammended?

Scotland has an airbase.  If you want to see a beat up Luftwaffe, run some battle calculations with TripleA and look at the number of “Attacker units left” (i.e. german planes), NOT the “Attacker wins” percentage.  Try it with the standard setup, then look at what happens if you take out a sub or 2 from the attack, or if you add an extra UK fighter.  Now try it with or without scramble, and see at what point it is actually in UK’s best interest to scramble.  You might find that adding just 1 defender or dropping just 1 attacker is enough to tip the balance in favour of making scramble a wise choice.  Then the royal navy and airforce are wiped out, but so is the Luftwaffe.  The doctrine that UK should NEVER scramble pretty much goes out the window IMHO.  Again, to heck with Taranto if you can reduce the Luftwaffe to a size where there can be no sealion or a really hard slow Barbarossa with minimal aid to Italy.

[LHoffman]

@Razor:

Lhoffman, my reply was to derKunzler, he asked how to get the game more realistic. Of course we all want to keep the game simple stupid for fast play, but then we cant have a historicall correct set up.

Oh, my bad. You didn’t specify.

[knp7765]

Hey Vance,
That is just the point I was trying to make a while back. Yes, the Royal Navy gets just about wiped out, and perhaps the RAF if they scramble, but the Luftwaffe also gets decimated most times. Granted, there are times when the dice go weird. I’ve seen battles where some of the Royal Navy actually survives and the Luftwaffe gets wiped out in the attack. I’ve seen others where the Luftwaffe gets almost no losses and wipes out the RN. Those are oddball situations though. The vast majority end up with England losing it’s navy, and perhaps air force but the Luftwaffe also being ground down to 2 or 3 planes left. That’s not a lot to support a good Barbarossa or Sealion.

[LHoffman]

@Vance:

Scotland has an airbase.  If you want to see a beat up Luftwaffe, run some battle calculations with TripleA and look at the number of “Attacker units left” (i.e. german planes), NOT the “Attacker wins” percentage.  Try it with the standard setup, then look at what happens if you take out a sub or 2 from the attack, or if you add an extra UK fighter.  Now try it with or without scramble, and see at what point it is actually in UK’s best interest to scramble.  You might find that adding just 1 defender or dropping just 1 attacker is enough to tip the balance in favour of making scramble a wise choice.  Then the royal navy and airforce are wiped out, but so is the Luftwaffe.  The doctrine that UK should NEVER scramble pretty much goes out the window IMHO.  Again, to heck with Taranto if you can reduce the Luftwaffe to a size where there can be no sealion or a really hard slow Barbarossa with minimal aid to Italy.

No, I trust you and I agree: if Britain can beat up on the Luftwaffe then do it. I am only saying that if you are Germany you plan for that as best you can, be that bringing in more units or just going for it and hoping to God you don’t get slaughtered. I mean, in many ways it is still better for Germany to attack on G1 facing 1 extra UK fighter, because if they wait the situation will only get worse. Compounded by the fact that if Germany were to wait to attack 111 or 112 it essentially follows there will be no Sealion and therefore no need for Britain to waste money on a ton of infantry. Instead they can beef up on more ships and planes.

[Zhukov44]

@LHoffman:

To resolve this discussion, it would be logical to have a match, or two, to see if equally skilled Allied players can defeat equally skilled Axis players without a bid… and if they cannot, then perhaps play again with one to see if they can do it then. To be scientific we should play multiple matches for each to see the typical results for each situation, but I doubt most have the time or patience for that.

If enough players are playing on TripleA or on the forums, then with enough play the average or median bid emerges.  There is alot of disagreement over the bid because the pool of players for Global is very small and the skill set among these players is uneven.  I think those players with alot of experience with Revised and AA50 tend to figure out the optimal strategies faster.  Japan in particular takes experience to get right. Once there is a larger pool of players who have faced and developed counters vrs. the best available strats, then we’ll have a better idea of what the bid actually is.

At this stage I’m seeing little hope for the Allies in a no-bid game outside of dice luck or Axis mistakes.  But there is a bid number that would make the game more or less fair…we just don’t know what that is yet.