Pointlessly Broken

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Imperious:

The game had a bid before, and not due to a failed discovery on your part.

Not really sure what your point is. Would an allied bid of 9 for this game really have been spent on 3 infantry for USA before Sword rocked my US military? Was a bid for allies an official rule?

I don’t see why saying the game is fine with a bid means the official game is fine.

[gamerman01]

Dude, you are out to lunch.

Like I said, if needing a small bid makes this broken, then pretty much every Axis and Allies game I’ve ever played was “broken”, with Classic being the worst.

Like, what’s your point?
Of course Krieghund would like to avoid changing the starting setup.  No, bids aren’t “official rules” but EVERYBODY uses them on this site, in leagues, tournaments, every single game.  We don’t go around saying all the games are BROKEN.

Do you get some thrill out of announcing that there’s an elephant in the room?

[gamerman01]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Like it seems you said, the ANZAC trns can be blocked fairly easily.

I ALSO said that perhaps the USA fleet staying at home in Z10 as it did in the Sword game might be enough to get the ANZ transports in.  THERE IS INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE NOT READING OR COMPREHENDING A LOT OF THINGS I POST, EITHER.  In the Sword game, Japan didn’t attack the fleet until J4.

Another thing that needs to be considered is if the USA should send their fleet south and not tangle with the Japanese at all, since we have agreed there is nothing they can do (unless they can see the ANZ reinforcements in safely).  This could make a big difference for the Allies in the post WUS era.

Our game was the very first I’ve ever tried in this edition against this strategy.  Naturally, I would change a couple things.

There is no need to send the 3 UK air all the way up to China.
There isn’t a huge need to immediately send a single UK bomber to WUS.  That money would probably be better spent preparing for war with Japan after J4.

So 3 ANZ fighters and possibly 2 loaded transports are really all the other allies need to send up.

Now you need to play games out to conclusion with players who know what they’re doing, to see if Japan can really even win more than 60-70% of games this way.

60-70% because that’s about the percentage they win without a bid, playing traditional strategies.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

I guess I don’t get what we are talking about anymore. “Axis and Allies Pacific 1940” with 3 extra infantry in USA might be a perfectly decently balanced game, but I don’t see how the fact that you seem to think those inf need to be added means that the actual, official, game is fine. If the game needs a bid to not be broken, then it is broken without a bid.

3 Alphas for Global suggests to me that Larry likes to try to balance games without players needing to resort to a bid, especially since no rulebook I have ever come across for A&A games even recommends bids. Maybe everyone does play with a bid, but it seems to me that Larry and Krieg are looking for a game that can be balanced without a bid.

Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.

[gamerman01]

The need for a bid actually has nothing to do with your strat.

R e a d   t h i s   s l o w l y  a n d  c a r e f u l l y

Japan wins 60-70% of the games WITHOUT using “your” strategy.

If the ANZ infantry can slip in on ANZ3 (which they can IF the USA doesn’t waste ANY boats, but collects them all in Z10 and if Japan decides not to attack them or is unable to sink them all) then it doesn’t look like Japan can win 60-70% of the games, which would mean your USA first strat is actually a failure.  Even without any bid.

I suppose the next test you need to do - and you certainly don’t need me for it - is to keep ALL US boats in Z10, and try to get the ANZ transports up there safely.  Even if that can’t be done, as I ALREADY SAID you need to play several games to COMPLETION winning all necessary victory cities and then tell us what percentage of games Japan is winning.  If it’s not a higher percentage than they win anyway, then the USA first strategy is nothing but a sub-optimal idea.

[gamerman01]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.

Then every Axis and Allies game ever made is broken.  Do you really expect the designers to come up with a setup that is exactly even?

Dude, even in CHESS you don’t have a 50/50 chance of winning.  White has the advantage because it moves first, even though it can only move one piece and all the pieces on both sides are the exact same and in the exact same position.

By your reasoning, chess is broken.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Gamerman01:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Like it seems you said, the ANZAC trns can be blocked fairly easily.

I ALSO said that perhaps the USA fleet staying at home in Z10 as it did in the Sword game might be enough to get the ANZ transports in.  THERE IS INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE NOT READING OR COMPREHENDING A LOT OF THINGS I POST, EITHER.  In the Sword game, Japan didn’t attack the fleet until J4.

Another thing that needs to be considered is if the USA should send their fleet south and not tangle with the Japanese at all, since we have agreed there is nothing they can do (unless they can see the ANZ reinforcements in safely).  This could make a big difference for the Allies in the post WUS era.

Our game was the very first I’ve ever tried in this edition against this strategy.  Naturally, I would change a couple things.

There is no need to send the 3 UK air all the way up to China.
There isn’t a huge need to immediately send a single UK bomber to WUS.  That money would probably be better spent preparing for war with Japan after J4.

So 3 ANZ fighters and possibly 2 loaded transports are really all the other allies need to send up.

Now you need to play games out to conclusion with players who know what they’re doing, to see if Japan can really even win more than 60-70% of games this way.

60-70% because that’s about the percentage they win without a bid, playing traditional strategies.

Just look at the map in the game you are playing me in now. The USA fleet going home gets smashed J3 no sweat. Japan can hit with the 4 planes from the carriers plus 4 planes from japan plus 2 bombers from Japan. Add 4 more planes onto that if I had moved the carrier from SZ 6 (the only reason it was in 6 is because I wanted to hedge my bets in Hong Kong)   Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Sword game wasn’t the US being attacked on land the same turn it was being attacked in SZ 10? If that is the game I was thinking of, Japan attacked to draw the scramble and then retreat (while winning W USA with extreme ease), or not get scrambled and wipe the American fleet out.

I am wholly unconvinced the USA just retreating it’s fleet does any real good. It would be useless as an offensive force (perhaps individual ships can take out blocks, but it can’t harm the body of the IJN, and as I wrote up before, The allies stacking one sea zone may prevent Japan wiping out the combined fleet, but Japan can always just go around until the stack is on a capital’s SZ. Had you read anything of what I posted before you came into the thread, you would have seen why it is important for the US to block at least Alaska and probably also the Aleutians.

I am not sure why you are arguing against your planes going to china and your UK bomber buy, those were your moves in the “best” allied strategy, not my moves. You said the strat was the best one the allies could put out, but now say you would change a few things. Get offended if you must, but I feel like we have wasted a game then since you could have just read my posts and noted a few things that have already been tried and what the Allies’ situation is once USA falls.

Apologies on not being able to read all your posts; when you post several in succession, I often respond to the first, and then in the middle of responding to the second, you respond to my response to the first, and then the last one or two get glossed over as I go from there. I myself will try to combine more together for easier tracking. But for me to put forth serious effort to read everything you write, you need to show me a little effort in doing something other than blowing off the 4 pages posted before you came in the thread.

Please try to imagine how frustrating it is for me to play a game where you make mistakes as the allies that I have already noted in the thread as being critical to avoid (or at least explain in detail why you did not make those moves) (at the very least Alaska needs to be blocked, I am more certain of this than anything else in the situation). If you want to experiment some strats without an Alaska block, please do so on your own time and upload the game. If the Allies then stop Japan without an Alaska block in your tests I would be happy to see if there is anything I would have done differently as Japan, and then try a game from there if I think so.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Gamerman01:

The need for a bid actually has nothing to do with your strat.

R e a d   t h i s   s l o w l y  a n d  c a r e f u l l y

Japan wins 60-70% of the games WITHOUT using “your” strategy.

If the ANZ infantry can slip in on ANZ3 (which they can IF the USA doesn’t waste ANY boats, but collects them all in Z10 and if Japan decides not to attack them or is unable to sink them all) then it doesn’t look like Japan can win 60-70% of the games, which would mean your USA first strat is actually a failure. Â Even without any bid.

I suppose the next test you need to do - and you certainly don’t need me for it - is to keep ALL US boats in Z10, and try to get the ANZ transports up there safely. Â Even if that can’t be done, as I ALREADY SAID you need to play several games to COMPLETION winning all necessary victory cities and then tell us what percentage of games Japan is winning. Â If it’s not a higher percentage than they win anyway, then the USA first strategy is nothing but a sub-optimal idea.

If the need for the bid has nothing to do with this strat, then why do recommend that the bid be placed as USA land units? Do they really do much more than prevent the USA crush? How do those US inf realistically help the allies when the Japan goes the traditional method? It seems to me then that the change needs to either stop the USA crush from being so effective, stop the traditional strat from being so effective, or do both at the same time somehow.

Please keep in mind that if USA pulls the whole shebang back to SZ 110, Japan will be hitting it with 6 ftr 6 tac 2 bombers plus the whole IJN on J3. A scramble in that situation is free ftrs for Japan. Will pulling the whole fleet back mean that Hawaii will not be blocked? This may mean UK will need to build an airbase on Samoa.

@Gamerman01:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.

Then every Axis and Allies game ever made is broken.  Do you really expect the designers to come up with a setup that is exactly even?

No, but I also don’t expect them to be satisfied with a game’s ruleset when they know that in order to make it balanced, players have had to resort to bids.

It sounds to me like Larry is not satisfied with how the official game stands. You may be cool with bids to fix things up and that is fine, but what is so bad about an official change if it is something the designer is willing to do?

I think it’s pretty cool that over the past couple of years, Larry has tried to fix the game to make it balanced instead of just saying “screw it, I got your money, just bid for whichever side has it rougher.”

For clarity, from the Axis side, the key part of this move, the Japanese move to 14, was done by Sword. When you put “your” in quotes (in the top section) like that it seems like you are trying to make it sound like I am claiming I invented this, when in the first darn post I say that it came from someone else.

I am starting to think that a few other people have done this in 2e well before Sword did it against me, but they knew better than I did about posting it. To post it would mean being belittled by the experts and have them dismiss your games summaries without even reading them while they make the same mistakes you mentioned in your summaries.

[Eqqman]

Having looked at the Sword game, it does seem fairly hopeless for the US player.  Japan’s ability to drop the small fleet in SZ14 means you can’t prevent them from getting the Aleutians J2.  This means you can’t prevent the Canada attack J3 so US goes down J4.  This is way too fast for the UK and ANZAC to do anything meaningful.  I was curious as to what happens if the US player isn’t limited by their factory output: if you swap out the 6 Tank buy for 12 Infantry, Japan’s odds only drop from 97% to 87%.

The UK and ANZAC only have 3 rounds of moves they can make to try and help the US.  The UK is completely too far away to do anything at all.  A Samoa Air Base might allow the TAC + Fighter from Calcutta to get to W. USA on UK4, but this means you delayed the attack until J5, which I don’t see happening.  ANZAC can dump in 3 Fighters + 4 Infantry or 4 Fighters + 2 Infantry.  If Japan doesn’t show any interest in Hawaii or the other Air Bases, then you don’t need anything in Samoa to get this support over there.  Japan could also use blockers of its own to stop the ANZAC TTs from arriving, but I don’t see this paltry amount of aid as doing anything.

I think this illustrates my earlier point about relying on the in-house team to do anything: if they shipped a game and went through several rules updates and still didn’t catch moves like this, it doesn’t leave me brimming with confidence they will identify a correct fix.  Game designers are notorious for getting so locked in to how their games should be played that they are often blind to options anybody coming in fresh could see.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Eggman:

Having looked at the Sword game, it does seem fairly hopeless for the US player.  Japan’s ability to drop the small fleet in SZ14 means you can’t prevent them from getting the Aleutians J2.  This means you can’t prevent the Canada attack J3 so US goes down J4.  This is way too fast for the UK and ANZAC to do anything meaningful.  I was curious as to what happens if the US player isn’t limited by their factory output: if you swap out the 6 Tank buy for 12 Infantry, Japan’s odds only drop from 97% to 87%.

The UK and ANZAC only have 3 rounds of moves they can make to try and help the US.  The UK is completely too far away to do anything at all.  A Samoa Air Base might allow the TAC + Fighter from Calcutta to get to W. USA on UK4, but this means you delayed the attack until J5, which I don’t see happening.  ANZAC can dump in 3 Fighters + 4 Infantry or 4 Fighters + 2 Infantry.  If Japan doesn’t show any interest in Hawaii or the other Air Bases, then you don’t need anything in Samoa to get this support over there.  Japan could also use blockers of its own to stop the ANZAC TTs from arriving, but I don’t see this paltry amount of aid as doing anything.

I think this illustrates my earlier point about relying on the in-house team to do anything: if they shipped a game and went through several rules updates and still didn’t catch moves like this, it doesn’t leave me brimming with confidence they will identify a correct fix.  Game designers are notorious for getting so locked in to how their games should be played that they are often blind to options anybody coming in fresh could see.

Good catch on the Aleutians concept, that’s why I stack it as USA since if I don’t Japan gets an airbase there on J3, and in every game that J3 airbase (or the even easier Alaska situation) has happened, it was all she wrote. In order to block the aleutians and alaska though, USA needs to sacrifice at least 5 ships, which seems absurd as well.

I really don’t see any challenge at all in keeping the ANZAC trns away, but as I mentioned earlier, I am not convinced that forcing the ANZAC AF to samoa (by taking hawaii) is worth it. It’s nice to have the UK burn 15 IPC on the AB, but I would almost rather the 2 J infantry on USA than Hawaii.

Excellent point about the “in-house team.” I think that also has a lot to do with why Sword was able to do this his first game on the map (at least he said it was his first).  Getting “locked-in” can happen with expert players, where there is a sense of conservatism (not in a political sense) that can sometimes get in the way of innovation. It’s the loopy “noobs” (that’s all a compliment) like Sword who can sometimes really turn heads. I realize that might get under the experts skin, but just look at examples in the field of invention where some “weirdo” with an epiphany revolutionizes something while the R&D departments get locked into a routine and lack a real spark.

[Eqqman]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Good catch on the Aleutians concept, that’s why I stack it as USA since if I don’t Japan gets an airbase there on J3, and in every game that J3 airbase (or the even easier Alaska situation) has happened, it was all she wrote. In order to block the Aleutians and Alaska though, USA needs to sacrifice at least 5 ships, which seems absurd as well.

It’s a big problem that the fleet Japan can move into SZ14 is enough to kill the entire starting US fleet.  But you only need 4 blockers, not 5.  So you sacrifice the starting DDs & CAs in SZ 7, 15, 8, & 9.  Land max air in the Aleutians and drop 2 Inf, with the planes heading back on the next US turn.  This will push the attack on San Francisco to J5, which give the US 2 rounds of spending with the bonus income.  A J5 attack means you can squeeze in the Tac + Fighter from Calcutta via Samoa.  Since it will take a while to even get to Samoa, you have plenty of time to change your mind on building the Air Base if Japan switches gears.  This delay will also give you another Fighter landing from ANZAC.

The UK should probably focus on building almost nothing but navy to force Japan to start leaving some of its ships behind.  A Naval Base for SZ 36 should force Japan to respond to the threat, especially if UK goes heavy subs.  If the UK is the Allied player to get most of the DEI, their income will be decent.  In the Sword game it is not clear to me why the UK player sacrificed the BB.  If they were trying to block the Japanese army from changing direction and going south, they could have waited another turn before using the BB as a blocker.  I was also surprised they went so heavy with Tanks, it doesn’t seem necessary.  If Japan is pulling out so much to send after the USA, then China should be able to take care of itself with little help- the UK’s starting forces there ought to be more than adequate.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Hold up a minute on the number of blockers needed to block Alaska and the Aleutians.

USA needs 1 each in 8 and 9 to block Alaska.

They also need to block the 5 trns on SZ6 from getting to Aleutians:
If they don’t block 4, Japan can go 5 to 4 to 8.
If they don’t block 7, Japan can go 7 to 8.
If they don’t block 15 or 16, Japan can go 16 to 15 to 8.

That means that either the carrier or BB will need to be thrown out there if the Aleutians and Alaska are to be blocked.

Let me know if I am missing something on that.

If USA only puts 2 inf on Aleutians with the planes, Japan has a 2 in 3 shot of getting it with 1 land unit. Not saying I would always do that attack as Japan, but the average result (rounded, it was 1.89) of 1 plane 1 artillery remaining is tempting. Perhaps Japan doesn’t want to risk the 2 in 3 chance, but IMO the risk for the USA of moving only 2 guys there is greater. IMO it’s gotta be 4 land units 4 ftr 1 tac or not at all.

With the 5 blocks, it does push the attack back (if it happens at all), but Japan can do some interesting things. My favorite is an attack on Hawaii and the Philippines (If UK doesn’t sacrifice BB and USA a destroyer to block Philippines, that’s up to 7 easy blocker kills J2, with at least 2 capital ships), while destroying the blockers around Alaska. USA still has to buy max infantry US2 because you can come right back at them, but when you do the Philippines/Hawaii move (USA can’t possibly block Hawaii, Alaska, and Aleutians on US1, even with ANZAC help.), the commonwealth has to prepare for the possibility you are on your way to them while the US navy is on the bottom of the ocean.

As I described earlier, the Aleutians block/stack is the surefire way to prevent an attack on USA until J5, but it is a prime scenario for Japan to at least feint to switch gears, and that feint demands a response.

You are right on China taking care of itself if Japan goes full for US, but like I have been saying, remember that Japan needs 6 cities, and China can only be relevant to two. According to the current rules, china cannot help stack India, which means that going full navy (what I also think is UK’s best option from what I have seen) is incredibly risky.

I also was not keen on the BB sacrifice.

Not sure if I adressed everything in your post, sorry if not, I got to get to bed.

[Eqqman]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

If USA only puts 2 inf on Aleutians with the planes, Japan has a 2 in 3 shot of getting it with 1 land unit. Not saying I would always do that attack as Japan, but the average result (rounded, it was 1.89) of 1 plane 1 artillery remaining is tempting. Perhaps Japan doesn’t want to risk the 2 in 3 chance, but IMO the risk for the USA of moving only 2 guys there is greater. IMO it’s gotta be 4 land units 4 ftr 1 tac or not at all.

You’re right, I overlooked SZ4, so it’s 5 blockers.  If you bring 1 Inf + AA to the Aleutians then Japan’s attack rate goes down to 55%.  With 3 Infantry + AA then they are down to 13%.  If this makes Japan chicken out on the USA, then they can just send everything into an empty Hawaii and force ANZAC to sacrifice its own fleet as blockers to avoid losing Queensland J3, but doing that and clearing out the USA blockers on J2 ought to have some affect on Japan’s forces.  If you go after all of them you are exposing yourself to more losses and your fleet will be scattered.  I don’t think you even need to bother killing the blockers since an Infantry buy US1 means the USA still can’t win against a combined Japanese fleet.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

If I recall correctly, in most games where I stack the Aleutians I used the arrangement of 3 inf +AA.

Clearing out the blockers does have an effect on Japan, But Japan has 4 DD’s and 2 subs to start out with, and USA/UK, if they want to use all 7 blockers, will need to throw 3 DD, 2 CA, 1 BB, and either a US Carrier or Battleship. The problem for the Allies is that for most of those blocking situations, Japan’s AF is able to show up to each in overwhelming numbers, to the point where in most or all of the block clears, the Allies will only be able to roll once in defense.

(Note also that now I am starting to be fond of leaving 1 tac 1 ftr on carolines with 1 DD in 33 J1)

The most difficult locations for Japan to attack the allies while the Allies a blocking Philippines, Alaska, and Aleutians are, from what I can tell: 19 (or 18, possibly, there isn’t much difference, I suppose I would go 19 myself), 21, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15.
(EDIT: note if 15 is blocked instead of 16, it may not be that big of a deal, but Hawaii is then open from 6)

EDIT 2: Japan can prevent a block of the philippines by leaving a cruiser in SZ 20. The UK battleship could face 6 kamikazes and a surface ship if it attacks 20, which it has no reasonable expecation to survive. The US DD cannot move to 19 or 20, which leaves its blocking options for the Philippines as 18 and 21. For 18 to work, UK needs to be in 19, which is not possible with the 20 block. Thus The US DD would need to be in 21 to try to block. Thus, the only hope for the block is for one battleship to survive 6 kamikazes and 1 cruiser. Japan will know whether or not they want to use the Kamikazes based on whether or not USA blocks Aleut and Alaska.

IMO 15 is much better for the allies than 16 because ftr/tac from Japan have to find a carrier if they go there. Japan still has 2 bmb though.

The reason why it is worth killing the blockers in my opinion is that when combined with the aggressive southern move, Japan has the option of going the “traditional” route, except to save itself, USA had to sacrifice almost every ship. When Japan moves south, they can still back up and go for the USA, or keep going south. That puts UK/ANZAC between a rock and a hard place because they have both strategies to consider when doing buys/moves.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Here is the situation J2 with my attempt at combining the Expert moves with my experience testing this a couple dozen times.

Note that if USA stacks the aleutians with only 1 trn, Japan has a 2 in 3 chance of taking it with at least 1 land unit left, and on average Japan will have 1 plane in addition to that land unit left. That’s why there are 4 land units on the Aleutians, as ridiculous as it seems. 3 land units does take Japan below 50%, so I am considering just taking 3.

Pacific Test 2-7 J2.tsvg

[atease]

Then every Axis and Allies game ever made is broken.  Do you really expect the designers to come up with a setup that is exactly even?

Dude, even in CHESS you don’t have a 50/50 chance of winning.  White has the advantage because it moves first, even though it can only move one piece and all the pieces on both sides are the exact same and in the exact same position.

By your reasoning, chess is broken.

Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
Great comparison Gamerman! I love it.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Here is the situation J2 with my attempt at combining the Expert moves with my experience testing this a couple dozen times.

Note that if USA stacks the aleutians with only 1 trn, Japan has a 2 in 3 chance of taking it with at least 1 land unit left, and on average Japan will have 1 plane in addition to that land unit left. That’s why there are 4 land units on the Aleutians, as ridiculous as it seems. 3 land units does take Japan below 50%, so I am considering just taking 3.

I had a look and it doesn’t look promising for Allies.  Japs can destroy virtually all of the American fleet on the next turn.  They can land in Hawaii, having destroyed enough American units that they can’t be blocked from either landing in Canada or attacking Western United States on the next turn.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Note where I moved the ANZAC cruiser, this has been a typical move for me for about a week now. This can potentially contribute to a block of Alaska J3 depending on what Japan does. But that block would require the sacrifice of yet another captial ship and cruiser.

[Zhukov44]

Here’s what I would likely try if I was Japan.  In this case everything went pretty much according to plan except for the dicing in Kwang…

One of the advantages of using blockers is USA could always hit one of these 2-3% outcomes and a blocker would survive, which could potentially foil the entire plan.  But in this deployment I didn’t leave a whole lot to chance…in any case this would be nigh unstoppable in ll.

Did I miss anything?  With this deployment, Japan should be able to land in British Colombia with 24 units, and USA will have only a 5% chance of successfully countering.  If they don’t successfully counter they are screwed because the Japan airforce will have landed in Hawaii.

test_game_usa2.tsvg

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

I like your take on it, I might’ve done a little different but now I’m not so sure. With this one you are still threatening ANZAC too,although the your navy is more vulnerable than mine would be, but the trn’s are of course safe and the BC invasion is totally in business. Do note that you are 1 unit short for your SZ 6 trns, and are potentially out of position for the next wave, but those are things you can do while still keeping the same attacks in the sea. I’ll look a little deeper later.

Since you didn’t want Philippines, there was no need to leave the cruiser in 19 on my J1, so that is something that you can change too, and that extra ship would of course be a big help somewhere.

Very nice moves!