2012 League Discussion

2012 AA50-41 Tournament sign-up is up the the tournament forum.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26239.0

@Gamerman01:

Axis v. Allies
2012 results to date

Axis - 15
Allies - 5

Average bid in Axis wins - 8.5
Average bid in Allied wins - 9.6

People keep saying we don’t know how to play Allies.�  Is it that, or is it that the Allies are really that disadvantaged?
Pretty sure very few if any of these games were with tech.�  Not sure that would make a difference.�

I’ve always thought the '41 scenario strongly favors the Axis, from the first time I played it.�  I played Axis all year in 2011 and rode them to a 12-1 record.�  Seems to me the best strategic move you can make is to choose the Axis!

Note:
2 of the 5 Allied wins came from Darth Maximus, who is 2-0 (hasn’t finished a game as Axis this year).
Note:
Bids in Allied wins were 8, 9, 9, 10, 12
Note:
Only 1 bid in Axis wins was greater than 9!

Conclusion:�  We are bidding too low.�  At 9 or 10 bids, Allies are getting crushed, on average.

I’d agree, that bidding is probably too low.  I typically won’t go much lower than 11 now.  With 10, I can still place a version of the bid I like the most.  9 not so much.

@Gamerman01:

I just won a game with 21 bid and I have a game with 19 bid against a solid player on this site (Lucky Lindy) that I have a strangle-hold on.

I’d argue those were bad placements though.  I believe both included a ftr.

A much better 19 bid would be:  1 inf Egy.  2 inf, 2 arm to some combination of Bel/Euk. You could even go 2 inf Egy, 3 inf, 1 rt to Russia (or 1 inf, 2 arm).

–--------------

I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.

And while Japan certainly can earn 50-60.  You CAN STOP them.  You need the big Russian NO though.  But you can get that as early as R3-4.

With Russian bids you can potentially hold EPL as early as R2 with UK ftrs. � That kills 2 potential German NOs.

Its tough to limit bids.  Any Asian bid for China would have to be probably double b/c the real early threat is Germany.  The Allies must stop that first.  Monster Japan doesn’t matter if Ger/Ita are camped out in Epl then Bel/Euk on G2-4.

I agree China was designed poorly.  Not sure why you’d give them a ftr just to watch it get killed before they can use it.  I think they’d be cool as a regular power but that would require some reworking of board and ipcs.

@Gamerman01:

@DarthMaximus:

Its tough to limit bids.�� � Any Asian bid for China would have to be probably double b/c the real early threat is Germany.�� � The Allies must stop that first.�� � Monster Japan doesn’t matter if Ger/Ita are camped out in Epl then Bel/Euk on G2-4.

Definitely

I agree China was designed poorly.�� � Not sure why you’d give them a ftr just to watch it get killed before they can use it.�� � I think they’d be cool as a regular power but that would require some reworking of board and ipcs.

Right.� � But I see Larry’s point that they shouldn’t function as a regular power.� � Weren’t they a mess?� � Disorganized, with infighting and stuff?� � And didn’t have as much technology?

Anyway, in 1942 they have NINE infantry.� � 1941 only four.

I’d prefer better game play over historical accuracy.

@Gamerman01:

@DarthMaximus:

I’d argue those were bad placements though. � I believe both included a ftr.

Which immediately annihilated a Japanese transport before J1 risk free, and helped Russia’s offense/defense for the rest of the game!

A much better 19 bid would be: � 1 inf Egy. � 2 inf, 2 arm to some combination of Bel/Euk. You could even go 2 inf Egy, 3 inf, 1 rt to Russia (or 1 inf, 2 arm).

Better for your style of play. � Point is simple, Darth. � Axis are winning SEVENTY percent of games with 9-10 bids. � Enough said

I’m agreeing with you on bids being too low.

Its a fair point on the ftr. � But what people might miss is by bidding to Egy or Europe you FREE up the US to be more of a player in the Pac. � They aren’t quite needed as much in Euorpe if Russia holds her own earlier, which bid units can help to provide.

@Gamerman01:

I can get the big Russian NO early against inferior players. � And getting it once at the cost of a tank is not the same as getting it for good. � Sure, you can stop Japan if you go 100% Pacific with the Americans and throw the UK and Russia at them. � But if you can keep Japan under 50-60 and get the Russian NO by Round 3 or 4 at the same time, then you are easily the best player on this site. � Because 70% of the time, the Allies are LOSING. � And if you can keep Japan’s income down and get the big NO with Russia, you would win every time as Allies.

That wasn’t my argument. � What I’m saying is it can be done. �  Not that it is done every game or easy to do. � I’ve said the Allies are bidding too low. � And MINIMALLY I’d bid 11. � I’d gladly take more. �  :-D

Obviously there are KGF that work and KJF that work, etc. and different routes to victory.
But a player also has to look at the board and see what is important and what isn’t.
Persia is important, Brazil is not. � Kaz/Novo is important, Stc is not. � Epl is important, Bur is not. � Etc.

@Gamerman01:

This is another stinker about the 1941 scenario. � Germany going right before Russia instead of right after. � In 1942, the UK and US can never add fighters to an advancing Russian stack (which I view as cheese).

It goes the other way too. � If Germany goes after, then UK and US can liberate territories for Russia meaning they can collect income with no units needed. � That was obviosuly the cas in both Classic and Revised. � Ex. UK liberates Kar and Russia can still place there.

@Gamerman01:

@DarthMaximus:

I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.

If you haven’t really played 1942, then you don’t really know AA50 that well.  But there is a big problem as to why I don’t like to go back and forth playing '41 and '42.  It’s because the turn order is flip-flopped between Japan and Germany.  That makes it confusing for me to go back and forth.

I am 50-9-1 playing 1942
I am 19-4 playing 1941

Half of those 1941 games were from playing this year

What I don’t understand is everyone saying 1941 is more popular, when nobody’s even really tried 1942 very much.  As you can see, I’ve played waaaaay more 1942, but I’ve played both a lot.  And I say 1941 is a novelty, for people who are tired of Classic and Revised starting in 1942

This is porbably true, the novelty part.  But with G40 being out, I’m pretty sure people would play an Axis and Allies 1938 game or A&A 1935 etc (lol!) too.  :-D

I think the Anniversary edition was a good idea, but should have been the replacement for Revised and not just a limited edition.  You could have an initial release of limited edition (special box, pieces, etc), but then keep going with Anniversay because now if you want to play the '42 scenerio you can just play Revised (which was fairly balanced - bids of 8 to 11) or now you can play Spring '42.  I haven’t played that yet, but IMO that should have fixed all the balance issues of Revised, so in theory it should be the best '42 version out there especially since they had 4 yrs of on-line play of Revised to lean on for balance issues.

I just think there might be too many games in general (and released in such a short time frame).  AA50 and G40 get tons of play here, and I’m pretty sure Spring 42 gets play on Triple A and is the starter version for new board game players.  My gut tells me AA50-42 might have missed its window to gain heavy on-line play.  Unless it is played heavily on DAAK or AAMC or one of the other clubs.

I’d probably lean towards pushing Spr 42 over AA50-42 just because at least you can go out and buy Spr 42.  That’s assuming Spr 42 is better than Revised.  I’m not against AA50-42, but just think it lost some impact witht he release of Spr 42.

But with the window, 41 offered the novelty you mentioned.

Perhaps I fall into the category of I play 41 b/c that is what everyone else was playing.  I was hesitant to give up on Revised.  I played that up thru '09 to 2010.  And only had a few AA50 games in 09 (that would have included both 41 and 42 scenerios).

@Gamerman01:

AA50-42 is not redundant.  It’s better than AA50-41 IMO, and as you noted, AA50-41 gets a lot of play.  You don’t need to buy the game to play it online.  There are guys playing AA50 daily online who have never bought the game.

That includes me.  All I own is Classic.  lol!

@Gamerman01:

A lot of people (like you) just didn’t give AA50-42 a try for more than a game or two.  A shame.
In 2009 and 2010 I played 1942 almost exclusively on this site, and there were at least half a dozen regular players to play with.

Unfortunately there is only so much time to play and I was still playing Revised in '09 with a few anniversary games mixed in.  I certainly didn’t play enough to pick a version.  It was only once, in '07 where I’ve topped 20 games in a year.  Infact, I didn’t play much of anything in '10 and the first part of '11.  I don’t think I played any A&A games from maybe summer of 2010 until late spring of '11.  I don’t think I started my league games last year until maybe May.  I was playing a lot of Civilization.  :-D 
And based on my start to the league last, I was very rusty.  :-)

I tried G40 briefly, but found it to be a bit too much.  Considering my gaming time is limited, I figured I’ll stick to anniversary as long as people still play that.  I also didn’t like the various rule updates of G40.  Alpha 2 or 3 etc.  I like updates/clarifications/balancing but to continue doing them just made me say I’ll wait until a “standard” is determined and then maybe get into it.