AA50 1941 w/NO - Allied Allways Win

@Enigmatic_Decay:

I’m still curious as to how the Allies can win? with NO and tech on what are some of the strategies that you’ve used to ensure victory and what did the axis player do?

In all my games the axis player attacks deep enough into Russia to get their NO’s and then adapts a massive deffensive position and waits for Japan to grow unstopable. The allies can’t even threaten europe because once Germany adapts a deffensive strategy there numbers of men, fighters and tanks are just too much for the allies to be able to invade or hold any ground in europe and they can’t seriously threaten Berlin.

Ideas?

I’d agree with DM in that I don’t think you are seeing balanced play from your opponent. (Balance as in equitable skill to your own.)

First off, it appears the biggest mistake the allies are making is attempting to use the strategies of Classic and Revised for Anniversary in so much as they are not attacking Japan.

It only takes 6 rounds for Japan to have a 500 IPC army if you ignore them.  This is not good since it takes over 10 rounds for Russia to achieve that without counting damage taken from Germany!

I believe it is imperative that America at least force Japan to build boats in the Pacific.  Maybe not go all out after Japan, but at least present enough of a threat that Japan feels the need to put boats in the water.

If you are not going that route, then landing massive British and American troops in Karelia would help alleviate the pressure.  After all, you’re already giving Japan an 80-90 IPC income anyway, so you shouldn’t worry about the 5 IPC loss to Russia for having some allied units on red territories.

@ Jennifer: if the US would like to keep Japan at bay, doesn’t she need almost her entire income to do so? If not (from what I’ve seen), any ‘small’ American fleet would be easily destroyed by Japan thanks to their huge starting fleet. The ipc’s the US spent would almost be thrown away, since a few ships would hardly delay Japan.
Please tell me: what kind of a US-fleet did you imagine (size and type of ships) to face Japan? (In the games I’ve played, I’ve seen BB and destroyer based fleets in the Pacific. The hitpoints of the BB would make a minor attack against the Japanese fleet extremely costly. But then again, I may have been playing the game completely different than you)

No.  I am referring to building just enough to encourage Japan to play defensively with her fleet and even outfit it with more ships.

If you want to kill Japan you need to spend almost your entire pay doing so however.  In that regard you are correct.

Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.

I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake. It does not take much effort on Japan’s part to quickly boost their income. Also after turn 3 or so the limiting factor to Japan’s production is IC slots to fill not income. This also means that the tank becomes Japan’s Infantry. I see no reason to build Infantry with Japan in regards to Asia. Tanks attack better, defend better, and get there faster. This is not classic so there is no need for Japan to do some sort of IPM.

As far as Japan invading the US it can do so quite easily without sacrificing all that much pressure off of Russia. While it may not be able to take and hold W. US it can easily drop 4 transport loads a turn in Alaska, drawing US forces out of the pipeline to Europe.

1941 setup Japan is dominant and should be in the 40 IPC range first turn with NO’s. Furthermore, turn 2 India should fall unless UK player went all out there, in that case take Australia and more of China and Far East, now its second turn and you have 5o+ IPC’s. IC in East Indies and India should come quick and Africa, the Islands and eventually Caucasus. Bombers built in India can bomb Russia immediately. With money for tech rolls, heavy bombers and long range should be top priority. German just needs to survive and build up for 5th turn advance toward Russia, that way the West will be well defended and a strong force can move forward without looking back. If you’re smart you have a fair sized Italian Navy to work with as well. If Italy is getting both NO’s then most of Africa can be left for Japan. All Italy needs is 20-25 IPC’s per turn to cause major problems for the allies. The larger the fleet the more attention it takes away from Germany.

As far as game balance, I feel there is a slight advantage to the Allies in '41 and a slight advantage to the Axis in '42. I also feel that research & development is too powerful and game changing. A limit of 2 or 3 per country works well with another limit of purchasing only one roll per turn.

If the US buys some ships to force japan to also Build ships the advantage is still on Japans side. japan needs ONLY to match the US builds at most. As usually japan has more BBs (usually) to soak up losses, It “only” has to maintain a fleet in "striking distance to the US setup areas. Of xcourse it needs fighter cover, but that is easily achieved as Japan has a definite carrier advantage (same as bbs) in the early stages.

I too often saw the US building up for a strike on Europe/Africa and then they had to go a few rounds against constant naval landings from Japanese troops. In the meantime Italy (must also build some ships IMHO) sailed out and damaged the US attack fleet while Germany spent a turn or two to strike at the UK ships.

IMHO if the Euro Axis strikes a balance betweed agressive defense and heavy blows on dangerous Allies - build up points (Germany has the inner line - often enough units used for an attack on one front are available for defense action on the other front next turn), they are in a 2-1 position for a win.

regarding an 8 inf attack on turn 2 on africa - yeah thats a really bad blow to the axis, thats why I NEVER saw a game in AA50 where Germany did not commit the bulk of its airforce/navy to take out UK ships in the biggest number possible. Sometimes the Luftwaffe got blown out of the air, but more often the UK built ship after ship only to watch them sunk by the Luftwaffe - so the main weight in this thrust must be done by the US.

If I may say so - Japan does not have to go after russia immediately, buiding up a potential threat to the US West coast is more important.

I do not say that teh Axis does suceed every time, but they really get a 50+% share…

In the games I played so far (slight Axis advantage) Lady Luck decided the outcome of the games. More than once by a single streak of bad rolls in ONE offensive, but also by some attition to one side by losing the more risky attacks, when probabilty would have sid otherwise.

why bother WUS when u can fight US in MED and africa with japan, helping italy, threatening russia. if US ignores pacific, grab hawaii / 2nd island - 5 IPC NO for US and thats it.

Why bother with Moscow as Japan when you can make a serious raid in mainland America, forcing USA to defend there instead Africa, thus giving Africa to italians?

If USA tries ignore Japan: congrats, you won as axis! Tons of free IPCs for Japan in all the globe, japs menacing America, Siberia AND aiding italians in Africa (if they need it  :-P). A super-strong western axis that can easily beat UK + soviets. UK colecting less than italians …

No more KGF strats, pals. Sooner you accept that is a dead road, sooner you’ll accept the game is broken and needs a heavy allied bid (and a burning of page 10 of rulebook  :-P )

@a44bigdog:

Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.

Thanks for your view a44.  I can certainly see where you’re coming from, though for me the infinite variations in each game make me enjoy it enough as is.  After a lot of games, i take your point that the strategies probably play out the same way so it could get repetitive.

I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake.

This may be true, though I havent played enough games of AA50 to be sure.  To make the alternative case: if you fight the pacific as US, you prevent otherwise losing a UK and probably 2 US NO’s plus some unreliable island dollars from turn to turn.  Lets say 20 bucks a turn for the allies, which I acknowledge is significant.

On the other hand, the US (in concert with the UK) is capable of projecting some serious power into Europe and north africa.  And it can be delivered much cheaper without the need to invest in as much navy infrastructure to wage a sea war with japan (debatable perhaps, as you do need to buy the transports and a couple of boats to protect them).

Remember that even a rich Japan has trouble making itself relavent.  Its sheer distance from the key areas (russia and italy’s tender bits) makes its $$ hard to deliver.  If they go into infrantry, its sunk money walking across siberia/china/persia.  If it goes into ICs, there’s a lot of cash sunk right there.  If you attack america, sure you disrupt the troop pipeline, but you’ve also sunk money into transports and troops doing little.  My current view is that you’re right - the IC–>tank option seems the best way to stay relevant.

And Japanese bombers. They are the quickest way to make Japanese IPCs felt in Europe. Russia can be bombed into the Stone Age in relatively short order if Japan is left alone.

Yep, and it’s even more funny do it to the USA in a Polar Express campaign. Priceless

Also, western axis could make a try with SBRs on London if UK makes the error of not buying SAF IC. 16 damage on a country that is colecting about 25 or less? Deadly