@andrewaagamer said in Axis are underpowered.:
@squirecam said in Axis are underpowered.:
The Russian territories are worth 1 or 2 to the axis except for Leningrad. The med is worth +15 to +20 for the axis if you can get four bonuses. And you can do both at the same time. Yes, you aren’t in Stalingrad G6. But you don’t need to be.
We are talking OOB; right? If so… since Job #2 for UK, right behind defending London, is taking out Italy and controlling the Med I don’t see any competent Allied Player letting the Axis get control of the Med.
BM3 is a different story all together.
Either version. Please also take into account that I mostly play FTF at Gencon and such, so there is no 60 to 100 bid (as in the latest tutor game) as you may be thinking. You might get somewhere in the 20s.
That said, you take out 110 and 111. You don’t attack J1. You take Southern France so Germany can help in the med. And you play Japan to head towards Caroline’s with everything that can reach so to force US to build in the pacific or risk losing Hawaii and Australia.
If US still builds 100% Atlantic then Japan must win the game. Because it’s difficult to keep the med in that situation. You can always forgo fleets and just neutral your way into Gibraltar and Turkey but that has drawbacks too. But it can be done if you plan ahead and aren’t buying mechs for a Moscow run. Absent that, you are using transports and air assaulting Gibraltar at every opportunity. Because Italy needs to be shown the money.
But if US goes Atlantic there is nothing between Japan taking Hawaii and Australia. Which is all they need for the VC win. They don’t need India. And once Hawaii falls the US can’t get it back without going 100 pacific. Except they are already far behind by going Atlantic T1 and T2. So it will take many builds to overcome that. India and China can’t help Australia. It’s going to fall if US goes Atlantic. It’s just a matter of when.
I would agree if the US is not fighting in the Atlantic with anything more than a token force AND there is only a $20 range bid that the Med is up for grabs.
My question is, for OOB, why in the world would anyone accept a $20 range bid? Do these tournaments you play at GenCon have different victory conditions than normal? Are they timed games? I have heard of that but having never played at one my personal experience is nil.
@andrewaagamer said in Axis are underpowered.:
I would agree if the US is not fighting in the Atlantic with anything more than a token force AND there is only a $20 range bid that the Med is up for grabs.
My question is, for OOB, why in the world would anyone accept a $20 range bid? Do these tournaments you play at GenCon have different victory conditions than normal? Are they timed games? I have heard of that but having never played at one my personal experience is nil.
So actually the current tournament uses the 1942 setup, so that all countries start at war. Due to the limited time frame games must end at 10 hrs or so.
But before that setup people played with a bid in the 20s. You do not have time to take 30 minutes to run simulations on the best moves. You cannot use online battle calculators. You need to know what to do beforehand and play more with your gut then an odds calculation. As the games are at risk of mistakes, you really dont need a 60 bid. Moreover, bids are not limited to one unit per territory.
With the 42 setup, the axis win if they have 125 ipc at the end of the game. No bonus income counts. If they dont, they need 6 VC in the pacific. Europe VC win isnt happening. Otherwise the allies win.
@squirecam said in Axis are underpowered.:
With the 42 setup, the axis win if they have 125 ipc at the end of the game. No bonus income counts. If they dont, they need 6 VC in the pacific. Europe VC win isnt happening. Otherwise the allies win.
Very interesting! Thank you!
Never played the 42 scenario. I wonder why it isn’t played here in league?
Also, at 10 hours of play, I would assume games go about 8 full Rounds??? Is there any timer to make sure one Player (power) isn’t taking too much time to make their moves?
@andrewaagamer said in Axis are underpowered.:
@squirecam said in Axis are underpowered.:
With the 42 setup, the axis win if they have 125 ipc at the end of the game. No bonus income counts. If they dont, they need 6 VC in the pacific. Europe VC win isnt happening. Otherwise the allies win.
Very interesting! Thank you!
Never played the 42 scenario. I wonder why it isn’t played here in league?
IDK. It nerfs the axis though. The order changes, so Russia goes first. Thus, there is no Italian can opener. UK Pacific is also nerfed, but so is Japan. Starts with much fewer fighters. Still, you can build an IC or two and have a better than average chance of taking India. Germany has it rough as US goes before them, taking out German subs before they can strike. Only 1 IC in France vs 3. Italy is worse off than they are in 40 and that was already poor.
But it’s a fun and different variant to play. With the changed order it’s not simply 40 with a new setup. It plays differently and you have to treat them as distinct versions.
@andrewaagamer said in Axis are underpowered.:
Also, at 10 hours of play, I would assume games go about 8 full Rounds??? Is there any timer to make sure one Player (power) isn’t taking too much time to make their moves?
You can get a judge involved if you think your opponent is slow playing. No round timer or chess clock though.
Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?
@marshmallowofwar said in Axis are underpowered.:
Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?
Because Andrew asked a question about it.
@marshmallowofwar said in Axis are underpowered.:
Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?
Didn’t you read the thread?
Hope that helps!
@squirecam why no J1? How should Allies react to a J1, go KGF?
@cornwallis said in Axis are underpowered.:
@squirecam why no J1? How should Allies react to a J1, go KGF?
This is just my opinion, but a J1 eliminates most options for Germany. Whether or not it’s a good idea, a J1 ends any reasonable chance of a sea lion working as US gets involved early. For the same reasons a J1 ends any reasonable chance of holding onto the med as Italy because the US can move right in. So you are basically reduced to trying to get moscow before the US crushes you.
Germany isn’t ready for the US on turn 1. They have to pivot troops to Russia but the US can be landing in Africa or Gibraltar t1 which is really bad. So they have to help Italy which weakens the moscow push.
A J1 might work out fine for Japan. But I certainly dont like it as Germany. I absolutely hate the idea if I’m Italy.
J1 DoW doesn’t change Europe very much as the United States still needs to invest heavily in the Pacific on the first turn to have a fleet reach the action on USA3. A bit more American Pacific fleet has to be built to make up for the units sunk by the Japanese on that turn 1 attack. I always do a standard Cow opener for Japan in every out-of-the-box match, and have never regretted it except when getting diced in Yunnan. Bad luck happens.
For someone struggling to win as the Axis, I highly recommend standard Germany and Japan openings as you have the ability to follow a simple script for the first two rounds, giving a foundation for later turns. Getting income up is so crucial in the first six turns. Way too often, I see people playing scared as the Axis and focusing on defense instead of setting strategic targets to capture territories in the early game.
@arthur-bomber-harris so your Allied reaction on the first turn would be for the US to built in the pacific and from turn2 on going more in the Atlantic?
@cornwallis I always favor at least one USA carrier to be built in the Pacific on turn 1, and two is usually preferred. If I am doing a KGF strategy, turn 2 has more build in the Atlantic.
@squirecam This is a lot more reasonable than some people are giving it credit for. A G1 fleet build helps you move on Leningrad, raises the cost to the UK to take Scandinavia, and does not by itself wreck your chances of winning in Moscow/Cairo. Similarly, taking southern France costs you a mech or two at most and gives you some extra income as compensation. Is a German fleet build literally the most efficient attack on Moscow possible? No. Does it prevent you from taking Moscow? Also no.
You can’t always follow up that opening by building even more German boats on G2 and G3 without throwing away Operation Barbarossa, but sometimes you can, and it’s nice to have the flexibility.
@argothair I see so many novice players spend way too much income on German & Italian fleets. Definitely an early fleet build by the Axis is useful when done in moderation, but most people don’t know when to stop. It is often a vicious cycle with more fleet being built to protect the high previous investment in Axis fleet.
People who fail to cripple Russia by G6, complaining that the Allies are overpowered, should focus on ground forces for the first couple of turns, and a mix of ground + air for the next few rounds. Losing Normandy or Sweden to an entrenched Allied force is not as bad as failing to push deep into Russian territories by the sixth turn. There should be no excuse for losing the Eastern Front in a out-of-the-box game without an Allied bid.
@arthur-bomber-harris No argument from me! All very true.
@argothair said in Axis are underpowered.:
@squirecam This is a lot more reasonable than some people are giving it credit for. A G1 fleet build helps you move on Leningrad, raises the cost to the UK to take Scandinavia, and does not by itself wreck your chances of winning in Moscow/Cairo. Similarly, taking southern France costs you a mech or two at most and gives you some extra income as compensation. Is a German fleet build literally the most efficient attack on Moscow possible? No. Does it prevent you from taking Moscow? Also no.
You can’t always follow up that opening by building even more German boats on G2 and G3 without throwing away Operation Barbarossa, but sometimes you can, and it’s nice to have the flexibility.
I like flexibility and options. Much better to me then planning on a G6 or bust taking of Moscow. Generally I’m not even attacking until J3 so I’m never planning on being in Moscow on turn 6. But I’m also not weak against the Allies in either europe or Africa or the Middle East.
I’m also not buying transports for Sea Lion unless the UK player makes a huge error. But having 3 transports being able to drop 6 units into Lenningrad helps the Axis because you can buy inf/art rather than mechs. More offense although a little bit slower.
People don’t want to play long games so they rush to Moscow and win or lose if they fail. It works but it’s never been fun for me. I’ve done fleet builds in revised and AA50 and 42 and the options available make the game enjoyable for me.
@squirecam Germany needs to rush towards Moscow and have a credible attack planned for G6. That forces Russia to primarily build infantry to maximize defenses AND the UK to stack fighters in Moscow if they want to hold the Capitol.
If both events occur, Germany pivots to plan B of sending a few fast movers towards Siberia to capture more territory and move the bulk of their tanks/mechs towards the Middle East with some infantry support. The Allies can block the advance somewhere around Iraq, but the Axis will usually win in the long game if this is an out-of-the-box game with no bid. The ability of the German Air Force to project power in so many directions simultaneously is the superpower that allows victory given equal income with the Allies.
There shouldn’t be much luck required beyond the first turn as few battles will have much chance of failure. You always can have the bizarre instance of a lone Russian unit going Rambo against an overwhelming attack, but rarely will a single turn prove totally catastrophic. I would give a 95% chance for an expert Axis player to win an OOB game played by email where it is easier to battle calc and avoid dumbass mistakes. Probably 85% in a face-to-face game.
