How to re-balance the -41 Scenario (team effort!)

I’ve yet to play as the Axis, but my thought on Japan is it is their responsibility to not make it a KGF game.  For example if the US ignores Japan you should probably seriously consider invading Ala and Hi (if you didn’t earlier) and going after WUS.  It takes Japan about 6-7 turns to get to Mos and only 1 to get to Ala.  On the other hand the US (once its shuck shuck is set up) can go from Ecan to multiple location in Europe in 2 turns.  What this means is while Japan is marching one army to Moscow the US has landed 3 in Europe.  That is very hard to compete with, so why not gain what you can in Asia with the Early China attacks and taking out the Russia coastal territories then start to turn a bunch of your income to the US?
Japan can easily get to about 55-60, now start attacking North America.  You can land 8 units a turn and still have Asia factories pumpimg out 6 units to keep up your defenses in Asia.  You can probably even open up a SBR campaign on WUS.

One good change I was thinking about…. it might be too much though.

Change the turn sequence.  Change England to before Japan.  The Austrailian and Indian fleet will get away to help in Egypt or against Italy, and India would be secure without Russian help.  I think it would change the game a ton… but I bet changing Japan to before England was a last minute change anyways, because it really hurts England to the point of being unable to defend anything but England itself (and Canada with USA help).

Here is what I would do to make a global war.

Allies:

Make South Africa a VC and nix Ottawa.

Give a IC to the Aussies.  It’s not like they can out produce Japan.

Give Russia another fighter. C’mon what were they thinking.

Axis:

Beef up the Italian Navy.  I’m still weighing out what ships get the most blood for the buck so it will be a wile before I decide what to add.  Japan shouldn’t have to augment the Italian Navy.  I would say at least a few subs but I need to do more homework.

Put a few more German INF in Libia.  They can hold back the allies long enough for Italy to get a decent foothold in Africa.  By making them German INF Italy can gain ground Germany can hold it for them.

I think a few German subs in the Brazil SZ wouldn’t be out of order.  They did have influance in S. America. Heck even Mexico had thought going Axis until reality hit and they concluded the Texas National guard would launch Operation: Aztec Sunrise.

Just my opinion.

LT

After one 1941 game it is clear to me that Japan starts with too many units, and is very hard to stop.

My first suggestion to rebalance is a simple one. Use the 1942 Chinese setup for the 1941 scenario.

It’s already balanced, but you have to have National Objectives and Technologies.

The only changes I could see would be:

1. -4 Russian Infantry in the East, +1 Fighter in the West
2. Move the Chinese Fighter from Yunnan to Chinghai so it can live one or two rounds.

its not proven to be unbalanced yet

You have not to prove is unbalanced. Basic gameplay with Pacific USA fleet leads to axis economic advantage too soon (round 3-4). Simple mathematics. Sub-optimal KGF gameplay leads to greater axis economic advantage (also at round 3-4) if Japan attacks America by Alaska. Sub-optimal SBR strat leads to a even more agressive Alaska path or to a axis SBR strat over Soviet Union.

You have to prove me that the scenario is balanced. I still fail to see a way allies could have a 50-50 win ratio, or even a 40% of victories unless wacky dices or bad axis playing.

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out.  Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.

@allies_fly:

The sub can be considered offensive too

This simply made my day  :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D

@HolKann:

@allies_fly:

The sub can be considered offensive too

This simply made my day  :lol: :cry: :evil: :roll: :-D

Yes, many a submarine has offended me.  They are usually on my side and dieing, which is why I get offended!

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

This I agree with. You have to assume that the game is balanced and then prove that it is or is not.

BTW, USA vs Japan is what balances it out.  Otherwise, yes, if you ignore Japan then the axis has a superior position on the game board.

This I do not always agree with. There is more than 1 way to skin an axis cat.

@Cmdr:

It’s already balanced, but you have to have National Objectives and Technologies.

The only changes I could see would be:

1. -4 Russian Infantry in the East, +1 Fighter in the West
2. Move the Chinese Fighter from Yunnan to Chinghai so it can live one or two rounds.

This just plain puzzles me. If you think that the game is balanced, then why suggest changes. Leave the game alone if it’s balanced.

Furthermore, while techs and NO’s are both optional parts of the game, NO’s are necessary, but techs are not.

I just suggested two minor changes if you wanted to make changes.  IMHO, it’s okay the way it is.

And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy.  But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.

@Cmdr:

And yes, you can ignore Japan and go 100% all out against Germany and Italy.  But please don’t cry when the Imperial Sun is raised over Moscow and you have a couple dozen tanks sitting there.

Why would I cry when the US would be having pasta and wine in Rome and the British would be having shnitzel and beer in Berlin? I did notice that you went all the way back to classic to dig up the JTDTM for our game.

And for the record, I didn’t say I don’t agree with you. I said I don’t always agree with you. Sometimes I do think a US strategy of harassment in the Pacific can be helpful. I just disputed your claim that you must ALWAYS invest in the Pacific with the US.

As a matter of fact, in every 41’ game that I have been the Allies I have invested in the Pacific with the US for experimental purposes and I have concluded that in a couple games it has been a waste of money.

Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.

Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.

Also, not sure what JTDTM is

Japanese tank dash to Moscow.

Oh, I’ve pretty much been doing that in AA50 forever because it’s the only time convenient way to get to Moscow…otherwise it takes like 40 rounds to march there!

@Cmdr:

Most games of “50” I’ve played where America ignored Japan the game ended with a dozen Japanese fighters in Berlin and Russia completely dominated by Japan.

Rarely do I see a 100% offense against Italy/Germany result in a win for the allies.

Really, ever try an efficient KGF?  By round 3, Germany can be looking at massive navies at Z3 and Z12 each landing 12 units of material with air support-yikes.  Russia gets stronger in the east and pushes back, Italy loses Africa.

Personally, I think the Allies are at the advantage in 41- if you play them right- they just out produce and squeze the life out of Germany.  The new Geography makes the Japs too slow- they just get there too late.

Brit Z3 navy and American Z12 navies bring multiple threats and Germany collapses.

Want some details??? :?
Questioneer

yes pls :D

efficient?  what about KUSF :P ?

@Cmdr:

No, you start with the premise that the game is balanced and then prove that it is unbalanced in some way.

You have to prove the positive, not the negative.

My point is simple: axis will have economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much if Japan kills utterly China (as they should) playing with NOs (the standard from I’m seeing). It doesn’t mind if allies try ignore Japan or not (they will never ignore Japan if Japan doesn’t want). Since axis has military advantage from starting, the axis will have secure victory unless wacky dices (this include getting HBs) by round 3-4.

I fail finding the way of chasing the economic advantage of axis. If you find it, better for the gameplay (but don’t start speaking about KGF, it’s dead in AA50). Japan is unstoppable unless USA builds all in California coast, and if USA does that, the combined income of Germany (40-45) and Italy (20-25) will beat USSR (28-35) and UK (25-28). Anyway, Japan still outproduces USA by 60-43.

With this reasoning, the 1941 setup is unbalanced even before from starting the very first game, only doing some maths. Now, if you find a combo of moves that can recover at least economic parity, you’ll have proven the game can be balanced.

I have the feeling that 1942 also gives axis advantage, but the maths are not so clear: China ends round 1 with 4 inf instead 1 and there is only one jap trannie opposite to 5, so India can maybe hold enough for allies killing italian fleet. As the maths are not clear, I’ll wait many games to decide if 1942 also gives axis the advantage.