Excellent posts, Zhukov
And Cow makes a good point - USA was overpowered, and is now underpowered. Most games are really decided by round 3-8, somewhere in there, and USA doesn’t really get humming until round 8 or so.
Also, the 30 the USA used to have was untouchable. Now 10 of the 20 can actually be disrupted from time to time. Allies are needing a small bid. Could have been fixed with a bit stronger USA. But oh well
I need a heavy bid to compete as the allies. Like if I lose africa/middle east early like before round 6…. it is almost always a lost game.
Excellent posts, Zhukov
And Cow makes a good point - USA was overpowered, and is now underpowered. Most games are really decided by round 3-8, somewhere in there, and USA doesn’t really get humming until round 8 or so.Â
Also, the 30 the USA used to have was untouchable. Now 10 of the 20 can actually be disrupted from time to time. Allies are needing a small bid. Could have been fixed with a bit stronger USA. But oh well
+1 for Zhukov!
I really enjoyed the Germany first link, although it was a little bit confusing. From what I understand, the USA was spending more for Europe, but deployed more in the Pacific. I think this is at least correctly reflected in A&A’s  initial set up (read: deployment). Look at the fleet/air difference between the east and west coast in the game. If the USA keeps investing IPCs into the Pacific (what I read from that Wiki, the USA did so with 15-30% of their ‘income’ during the early years of the war), it will take indeed to 1943 to have roughly equal forces in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. In A&A that is, if each game turn equals roughly half a year of the real war.
Long story short: if the USA (in A&A) wants to divide their forces slightly similar to the historical 1943 situation (also from that great link), for the first 7 turns they must spend an average of ~50IPCs per turn in the Atlantic and roughly 8 to 15 IPCs per turn into the Pacific. That way the A&A-USA will have roughly equal forces in both the Atlantic and Pacific by 1943. Given that they do not send units from the Pacific into Europe or vice versa.
In A&A-reality, the USA must ofc pay a very close eye to what Japan is buying and where those forces are going to be deployed (anticipation that may proove very dangerous if Japan is trying to trick the USA) in order to adjust whatever basic investment scheme they may have.
While I agree with some of you on this forum that the allies (USA) feels weak/underpowered, I think the reality is that the allies will become too strong very quickly if buffed. I think a little buff, worth like 10 to 12IPCs can be justified if the extra units are not that crucial and deployed with thourough consideration. After all, the allies start with 62 more units on the board and will have 260 - 300IPCs more than the axis to spend during the first 4 turns and there is nothing the axis can do about that.
That is why I suggest infantry units for usa. I still do not understand why Russia does not start with a bomber, Germany air is still crazier and he has way more firepower.
So funny that just over two years ago in this forum, A&A.org members were crapping all over Larry for not giving the Axis a chance to win.
That was not me. I said axis op from the get go. I had to make my Japan playbook to prove the point.
Remember when round 3 both london and calcutta would get wrecked by the axis in OOB?
Then A2 came out and the axis still owned everything? A2 not that different from A3 / current
“Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.”
Yeah, and it really pissed off the Brits. When Roosevelt and Churchill met before the US was at war, they had agreed on stopping Hitler first before doing anything about Japan. Then Pearl Harbor happened and the Japanese spread throughout the Pacific and Asia like an angry yellow plague. The US leaders realized it would not be wise to just let Japan romp around the Pacific unchecked, so they allocated significant resources to the Pacific theater.
To the British, it seemed like the US was breaking it’s word and not following the all important plan. Unfortunately for the British, they weren’t really in any position to complain a lot, given the fact that Germany was more or less giving them what’s for. While it’s true that Montgomery turned things around in Africa, England would not have had near the offensive capability without the US help.
I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?
(…)I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?
I think the safest assumption is that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany yes. A bit later, but still. We can speculate about what would have happened but we do know that the US government already wanted to go to war with Germany but still needed an excuse to do so because of the public opinion. Knowing politics, they would probably have made one if Germany wouldn’t provide one like they did.
After all, pre-war Roosevelt promised Churhill to KGF and I don’t believe that was only just a fake promise because FDR wanted to keep him quiet. The Japanese actions forced Roosevelt’s deployment of existing troops but 2 years later at the end of 1943, the USA was equally strong in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
In game-terms I think that is 4 turns from ‘Pearl’ and 7 turns from game start. Having roughly equal forces in both theatres means spending 50IPCs per turn in the Atlantic from game start, OR spending 100% in the Pacific first two turns and then 100% in the Atlantic for the next 5 turns.
I wonder how that would work in A&A as the USA must be ready to sortie into either Gibraltar/Spain or the DEI US3 or else Moscow will fall without consequences for the axis and that’s game over.
IMHO, the fall of Moscow is not the end of the world for the allies, IF they can punish the axis for it somewhere else. Whether this means taking everything west of Berlin or denying Japan its expansion in the Pacific is up to the USA.
It is pretty hard to balance a game for all experience levels.
@Cow, why do you think Russia needs a Bomber. I just can’t see its worth in AA Global for Russia. Sure you can bomb Germany if you can get past the interceptors first. You could use it bomb Lenin and Ukraine but the worst that will do is set back Germany up to 6 IPCs. I don’t see the bomber making that much of a difference. I’d rather have another Mig than a Pe-8.
say germany has 1 infantry standing around. You want to send 1 infantry to attack. 1 inf + 1 bomber. You can do more attacks.
@Cow, ok but won’t a fighter or tact do the same? I can see it being a range issue if you wanted to attack Lenin, Karelia, Vyborg, Baltic, E. Poland, Bess or Caucasus from Moscow.
(…)I’d rather have another Mig than a Pe-8.
Just for fun: gimme a second iljoesjin “sturmovik” tankbuster instead ;-).
I think I’d rather have another Tac before a Ftr or Bomber.
Better for the eventual defense of Moscow, can still roll @4 when combined with a tank on a strafe.
To be honest, I think I’d rather have a few more Armor than anything else. If you can expose a hole in the German flanks or its soft underbelly (if Germany marches north), those 2 Armor and 2 Mech don’t get you very far. However, a stack of 5 Armor and 2 Mech can create some bigger problems for an exposed German flank.
Particularly when you consider the NO bonus for the Russians taking Axis or Pro-Axis territory.
I’d probably even give up some starting Income for Russia to get 3 more Armor on the board to start the game.
Has anyone considered the economic cost it takes to successfully take and hold a beachhead in Europe by the Allies?
It has got to be somewhere in the range of 350-400 IPC of total investment, no?
Spendo02 - Very good point. Now that I think of it 2 more tanks would be better than a bomber
And more historical. Starting with two is a little silly.
Okay, I agree losing Moscow is not necessarily the end of the war for the Allies. In fact, I have had a couple of games where Germany took Moscow but had so much invested in the effort that they left themselves too weak in Europe and ended up losing Berlin.
So, I can understand if Germany is successful in Russia but loses Rome and/or W Germany and/or Paris, it could still be a losing war for the Axis.
What I don’t understand is how punishing the Axis on the Pacific side would be worth losing Moscow for the Allies. If you were able to actually take Tokyo AND all or most of the Japanese transports were gone thus leaving them unable to retake their capital, then I could see it then. Even if Japan’s navy is still strong, without transports it does them no good and the Pacific would be a case of mopping up from then on. Then the Allies could focus their attention against Germany and possibly negate Germany’s capture of Moscow.
However, if Germany takes Moscow and is still in control of Europe, especially if Rome is still Axis so Italy is still in the game, and the Allies manage to do something like sink the Japanese fleet and/or take away the DEI but Japan is still in the game with control of their capital, I don’t think that is a good thing for the Allies and could be game over. As long as Japan is still in control of their capital, it will cost the Allies resources to keep them in check and thus they will have less to deal with Germany. Meanwhile, with Russia out of the picture, Germany will be able to further strengthen their positions in the west and start planning serious offensive action against the Allies. As long as Japan is holding out, losing Russia is bad news for the Allies.
I don’t see how You guys save Moscow without putting at least 70% of US’s money into the Atlantic…
