We’re only halfway through this league year, so you should probably look at last year too.
Ghostglider and Boldfresh have had a lot of success with the Allies. Pretty much all of their wins are against upper competition.
Ghost has 2 very quality Allied wins this year. 2-2 with Axis, though.
Seems you just have to know what you’re doing with the Allies.
How did you beat someone as the Allies in 4 rounds?
My 2nd game against Wheat I won on G1, Calvin. His France blew up in his face and he gave up.
I’ll see if I can find the 4 round game. Basically, if the Axis player sees he can’t win, he quits.
See for yourself. Failed Sealion. Russia already has Scandy and is in Europe.
Yes, Gamer, impressive record you have as allies :-D.
I’m with Nerq in this, although I am not out of allied ideas yet, but may I ask the question a bit differently then?
For two players with equal skill, no bid (need to have a neutral reference point) and perfectly neutral dice. All combats run 100% like predicted by the BC. Do you think the allies have an equal chance?
If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then
Wait. It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.
If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.
Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag. I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.
If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then
Wait. ��� It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.
If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. ��� And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.
Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.��� I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.
Thanks for the smart answer Gamer. And no worries about any bragging ;-).
I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Allies have won their fair share of games with a preplacement bid. But OOB there is surely a concensus that the board is Axis advantage in 2nd ed right? As Gamer points out bidding is standard in league play and even among competive players the bid it pretty high by A&A standards (into the double digits.) If Allies are taking a pair of subs, or even 3 subs for UK to squash Italy, or use other preplacement units knock off a large chunk of Axis TUV right out the gate, then it’s not unreasonable for Allies to chalk up some wins. Question is, how much do you need on starting income or with a recuring income bonus to match this?
I think the ideal would be a bid alternative, rather than an income boost that augments an existing preplacement bid. Players might grumble about the loss of UK subs, but it just seems easier to go all one way, rather than doing some kind of hybdrid, with extra starting units and extra income. I say nix preplacement and take it back to the OOB unit set up, but this would likely need the income boost to be pretty large to compensate for the Italian TUV that UK isn’t destroying in the first round, and the fact that Italy could once again have an impact on the endgame. This later point is significant. Consider that even if you give USA a recuring income bonus, Italy will likely receive a sizeable recuring boost as well, since it will be harder for UK to lock them out of the med and raid them out of existence. Also, as others have noted, an income bid on the periphery (USA) is rather less effective than one at the center (Russia), so I’d think you’d want to go pretty high with it for USA. A cap at 6 ipcs seems a bit low to me for example.
I think others in this thread have already noted that stuff, just wanted to join in the chorus. I like the idea, but I know it will take time to arrive at a concensus. Balancing on the razors edge and all.
:-D
OK, Elk, but what do you think about at least adding back the UK infantry in Egypt that was taken away from Alpha3 to 2nd edition? You indicate you don’t care for double digit bids…
I guess of all the razors, that one is the sharpest right?
:-D
If its a hard set up change, might be advisable, given that Italy has a way back into the early game now. 1 infantry would probably be better than the extra artillery you sometimes see on the open bid. At least it doesn’t double the forward attack power of another unit. And USA has no way to get to Egypt, so their income boost, no matter how high we make it, still can’t save Allies from an early drive on Cairo. There is a precedent in the earlier set up pre sec ed, so I’d at least keep it as an option. I think a lot of players have gotten pretty used to that strong UK opener in the med, the extra dude might help alleviate some of the anxiety that Churchill will undoubtedly feel, facing down an Italian player who isn’t a total non-factor anymore haha
About 100,000 Italians gave up and went home before ever even making an invasion on Egypt. There were about 10 Italians surrendering for every British man in Egypt. Saw a documentary on it in the past 6 months.
(Spoken by someone who almost always loses Egypt early, whether taking Axis or Allies - sick of it :-D)
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
In real life, the Italians faced too much problems in the med (apart from their lack of morale because the average Italian was an unwilling ally to Adolf): the RN cut off supply (very important in a real war) so the Italians in Africa had to do it without. Even if all the Italians in Africa would have been Germans, the axis would not have stood a chance there because of the RN in the med cutting their supplies every day.
The RN is too weak in A&A and too easily wiped from the globe completely. It is kinda sad because the RN was the one thing the UK could rely on during the early months of the war -apart from ‘the few’ that so many owed so much to ;-). But in A&A-terms, the latter is just a stroke of luck with the dice.
The argument that a German inability to kill the RN at start would result in an invasion of Europe too early (which looses the game for the axis) is easily neutralized by giving Germany additional land units to start with. Germany can choose what to do with them -use them in Russia and face the hammering of these early invasions or they can leave troops in Europe (like they historically did) to ward off an invasion for a while. The latter should be the obvious choice, as winning Moscow does not make up for loosing Western Germany (and everything west of it) -something that is true even in A&A.
But since A&A is what it is and strengthening/positioning the RN to a point where Germany can’t kill it G1 is too much of a game-changer (let alone the playtesting required for this and for more German land troops added), we’ll have to deal with (Alternate) bidding schemes either for units or for additional income that satisfy both sides.
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
Well, that’s comforting, I’m in a team game right now where my Italy got punched in the mouth so hard in the first round, after I1 I had ZERO ground units in Africa and pretty much no fleet at all. And yes, I’m sure I’ll be fine, and yes of course I’m staring at an enemy complex in Egypt early in the game AGAIN (I pretty much always do, regardless of side, like I said :lol:)
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
Well, that’s comforting, I’m in a team game right now where my Italy got punched in the mouth so hard in the first round, after I1 I had ZERO ground units in Africa and pretty much no fleet at all. And yes, I’m sure I’ll be fine, and yes of course I’m staring at an enemy complex in Egypt early in the game AGAIN (I pretty much always do, regardless of side, like I said :lol:)
:)
Awesome, my friendly opponent is all over it :lol:
Poor Gamer, I feel your pain ;-).
I have (hopefully had?) similar problems but somewhere else on the map: the UK ships off Nova Scotia.
I almost always seem to loose that battle no matter what side I play and if I play Germany, no matter if I send 1 or 2 subs (couldn’t get myself to send in more subs).
Yugoslavia G1 has been my bugaboo - no matter which side I’m on :-)
Not every single game, but close to it :-P
That is the best post I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for the contribution, Hawk
I agree with you as well,ShadowHAwk.
An enlarged version could have been more effectiv in terms of more strategic planning in games.
Whoever controlls Med first, basically has it!
He who survives with the larger Fleet gets the upper Hand.
just cut every SZ in 2 and the game suddenly becomes a lot more realistic and interesting to play.
Yes cut the seazones, and Germany will be in Moscow before USA had time to land in Africa.
A better solution would be to cut the aircraft range. Lets say Bombers now combat move 4 spaces only, and fighters combat move 2 spaces. Of course there must be a non combat move with larger range for planes that did not participate in combat. But now we are way off topic
…or we could cut the seazones, let the planes keep their range, but let ships move 4 spaces
USA need to reach the other side in one turn, or it will be a boring game
