How can i play people from this website?

@Sherman

Just to nail this part down, I went ahead and pulled the exact stats for Egypt actually being captured by the Germans with an extra British infantry added in and its 35%:

32863df2-4d2a-43e0-ac1b-77fa24e137f8-image.png

You have to convert one tank to a fighter and select “Retreat when only air left”. This will ensure the calculator leaves one of the tanks alive along with the bomber resulting in an Egypt capture.

And if it helps, I have lost as the Allies even after holding Egypt on G1 (I’ve also won games after losing it on G1 but in that case, I feel experience won the day). And after reading your second post, I will say that when I make balance recommendations in the videos, they are very conservative relative to what I feel is the true game state. In other words, I’d rather the game remain imbalanced than go too far with too much for the weaker side. I might also make that more clear in a future video. Anyway, I hope that helps try to convince your group to adopt that second infantry into either Yunnan or Egypt - or even both for a total of three… or an additional bid of some kind.

Good discussion. In my playgroup, NO’s off/Dardanelles closed/escort & interceptor allowed/tech allowed (but rarely used)/6-12 bid to allies (typically +2inf on eastern front, +1inf in Egypt, +1 inf in Yunan) seems to provide a fairly balanced game.

When we played with NOs on, the ability of the axis to couple their starting hardware advantage with near economic parity by round 2 or 3 (before the US is even “in the game”) always resulted in axis win. We didn’t take the time to figure out what the bid for the allies needs to be to have a balanced game with NOs on but I suspect it might be between 25-30 IPCs. Of course, our predictable play might be the actual issue!

Does the 1941 scenario even work without the NOs? I solitaired it for a bit once and the board seemed almost empty of units after about three turns. Germany collapsed because its lost income from the rather easy NOs really makes a difference. Japan seemed rather irrelevant since it takes longer to gain momentum without the NOs, and Germany falls sooner to a KGF.
The 1942 scenario seems better suited for a non-NO game because it´s got more starting units and the theaters are better balanced. Germany is stronger so a KGF will take longer and Asia has got more options since India won´t fall as easily, China is tougher and the US Pacific fleet is stronger.

I will usually only build extra naval units with Germany if there is some sort of core to build them around. Be that a surviving cruiser or battleship. If I still have one of these in turn two or three I might build some subs or even a destroyer. Also the casualty rate on the Eastern Front cant be too high, because then I will buy extra land units instead.

So basically, it depends on how well the Allies play and how well my navy holds up. Its a opportunistic investment at best and I never considered it a feasible strategy for Germany really.

I’d probably go for a surge into china while holding the line against Germany.  Never seen this before though so I don’t know for sure, usually Russia just gets beat on while US/UK try to get something going.  My usual Russian strat is kill as many German and Japanese units as possible.

gib takes commenwealth NO yes. luckily india isnt included, else that NO would be worthless.

u absolutley must fight in africa with italy. sending them to russia for shore shots is peanuts. they are not fighting for IPCs. each round  italy gets 20ish IPC  thats 5 inf / arm each round , with SBR 3 -5 inf. without africa, italy is almost at chineese production level. if italy falls and russia isnt in danger, i dare say the game is lost.

I’m on your side in LL now, I took the Axis the last 3 times and it’s been a total romp LL.  The way the game is designed, where the dice are rolled, you’re probably going to have a dual-win% in Kar/Egy around 30%, whereas in LL they’re afterthoughts, almost 100%.  I’d say these are two different games entirely.

@Woodstock:

In Revised, the Indian IC pretty much always was a bad idea, as Japan could simply react on it on J1.

Unless playing minor victory (which is better balanced than major victory), wherein an Indian factory is essential.

@Woodstock:

And to get back on topic: I think the key difference here opposed to Revised is that in AA50, UK moves after Japan.
If Japan moves away from India, going for the China or Russian route, it might be very liable to buy an Indian IC at UK1.

In some ways, Japan going first hinders the Indian factory.  If UK went first, they might actually get to build in the IC before Japan can capture it.