Quick thoughts

You might wanna read up on the forums, as the the general consensus is that in the '41 scenario, with NO’s, the Axis are in a huge advantage. There’s even talking about bidding (which I think is a bit overboard) for the Allies.

I tend to agree with Mazer on some of those concerns.

On the SBRs, I don’t know if I’d consider them broken, I’d just consider them the game finishers.  IMO the side that has the lead can gain a ton from SBRs, perhaps this was designed to prevent one side from excessively turtling and hoping for dice to get them back into the game.  If it gets to the point where either Germany can be bombed for 10-20 per turn or Russia for 6-12 then you can probably see the writing on the wall and will surrender.
Early or infrequent SBRs aren’t that bad considering the production caps of some countries with early excess cash or the ability to not have to repair in some cases.

I’ve said in other threads that I think the number of round 1 axis attacks can be an issue.  I do like the variety of starts it can provide but I still think too much might hinge on Germany’s battle in Egy.  If you can’t take out the UK ftr it can be trouble.

I think KG(I)F is definitely playable and might be the way to go.  My concern with any US Pac strat (even though they can work) is that for all the time and effort the US can put into it, they gain almost nothing.  Bor and EI are both UK’s so even if you liberate you can’t put a US IC there to enhance your Pac moves or reinforce India or SE Asia.  It isn’t until you can retake Phil where you gain economically with the 2 ipc + 5 NO.  But if you can do that then Japan is probably already all but removed from the game as a threat.  It is a lot to risk for the US, turns and turns and turns of Pac buys it the hopes you can take Phil in like round 6,7 or 8 (if that).  That is a lot of very long term planning.  Why not just go the easy route and make an immediate impact in Afr/Eu?

My solution to the Pac would be:
1 - Get rid of the NOs,
2 - Make Sol, Ngu, EI and Bor Japanese
3a - Make all islands at least 1 ipc
3b - Hi worth 3 or 4, Mid and Wake worth 2, Phil worth 3 or 4
3c - Sol and Car worth 2

I think this might make the Pac a bit more enticing given both sides can gain finanically and the gains/losses would be felt immediately.  But this would pretty much require an entire new game.

I also played some games, less than 50 but, I’m starting to know the game better and better.

Very few of the games I played and watched indicate that SBR is broken. There is generally not very much SBR attacks, and the SBR are in addition to land units, not instead of land unit attacks. Attacking and holding TTs is still much more valuable than SBR. I also welcome SBR interceptor rules, but not b/c SBR is broken, but b/c the game mechanics can be even less random.

Maybe KGF is still stronger than KJF, also with NOs, but the one thing that made me loose games as axis with NOs, is the dice, mistakes, and generally weak play from my side.

I think DarthMaximus hits the Pacific nail on the head.

That’s one of the most frustrating parts of the game to me, the non-valued islands.  personally, I think that every territory that can be invaded on the map should have some IPC value.  Strategic positioning of territories can’t be ignored, but come on, without the money-side, what’s the real point in the US putting units into the Pacific until they have to in defense of California?

I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.

@Mazer:

Hey kids.

Played '41 again, this time as the Allies.  Assume no tech and NOs in play.

Here are a few random notes:

• SBRs are simply broken.  The fixes involving fighter escorts are silly.  SBRs should just be eliminated.

• In AA4 the common fleet shuck points with the US were between zones 1 & 2 (ECn to UK) and then anywhere east or south of UK to Europe or Africa.  In AA5.41, I’m guessing the most common US shuck configuration will be between ECn and Morocco with the western fleet and from Morocco to France/NWEur/Italy.

It is just brutally bad for the Axis.  Since Italy is not Adjacent to Berlin, it can’t be reinforced or liberated easily.  So unlike AA4 where you really only had to defend WEU/Ber, in AA5.41 you have to defend France, Rome, Berlin, and NWEur.  Oh, and you have to do it with a 10 unit cap on German production unless you build an IC in France.  Rome should be under threat as early as round three; in many cases it should be under threat round two.

It looks very, very ugly to me.

• You can still ignore Japan with impunity, and basically you should.

• Russia is a monster in a KGF game.

• The Italian fleet should get sacked early and hard, neutering Italy.

I’m not loving the game at this point.  It seems that some gimmicky fix is going to be needed for the Axis to survive, like a Japanese ftr rush to Europe.

The splitting of Italy and Germany is crippling, and the splitting of France and NWEur is quite bad too.

I haven’t played a lot, but those were my early concerns and I found some evidence to support those concerns in the game I played yesterday.

Peace

-I see nothing wrong with SBR’s. Maybe I haven’t seen enough of them, but so far they haven’t really struck me as game breaking.

-Completely ignoring Japan, in my experience, has been a very bad idea.

-Yes, Italy can be reinforced easily. German troops in France can reinforce Italy.

-Italy moves between UK and US so it breaks up the Allied amphibious 1-2 punch which is a benefit to the Axis in France, at least, despite being forced to usually trade NWE every turn.

-I’ve had trouble as the Allies with mass German air purchases since it means that if the Allies want to have the UK go to Europe and the US go to Africa, they will have to purchase twice as much navy to protect 2 separate fleets which can get costly.

I am still of the mind that the Allies have a slight advantage in 41’ but, there are a large number of those who think that the Axis are favored and they do have some decent evidence to back up their claims.

@U-505:

I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.

Agreed.  Mods to China work best.  Japan needs more than a series of pot holes in asia to slow their rapid expansion down.
WRT an allied bid, I can’t see an inf here or there that would really make that big of a difference.  MAYBE in Egypt

@U-505:

-I see nothing wrong with SBR’s. Maybe I haven’t seen enough of them, but so far they haven’t really struck me as game breaking.

SBRs can be killer for the allies, assuming the axis don’t roll any ones.  Then the game boils down to who can roll the most one’s.  Not very fun.  The escort rule is a very good optional rule, except my play groupd feels it should be tweaked to not subject the escorting ftrs to the AAA fire.  Geez the escorting ftrs already only attack at a 1.

@U-505:

-Completely ignoring Japan, in my experience, has been a very bad idea.

Yep, Germany turtles up with ftr support from japan, Japan wins the game (just like the old days)
except it’s a LOT easier for Japan these days.  Easily over 70+ IPCs per turn… Godzilla she is!

@U-505:

-Yes, Italy can be reinforced easily. German troops in France can reinforce Italy.

-Italy moves between UK and US so it breaks up the Allied amphibious 1-2 punch which is a benefit to the Axis in France, at least, despite being forced to usually trade NWE every turn.

agree again.

@U-505:

-I’ve had trouble as the Allies with mass German air purchases since it means that if the Allies want to have the UK go to Europe and the US go to Africa, they will have to purchase twice as much navy to protect 2 separate fleets which can get costly.

The ratio of strength of air power to naval power is much higher in AA50.  Perhaps too high.
Battleships should get additional anti-aircraft capability to make their purchase worthwhile, like an AAA shot or something.

@U-505:

I am still of the mind that the Allies have a slight advantage in 41’ but, there are a large number of those who think that the Axis are favored and they do have some decent evidence to back up their claims.

If the Axis get a good start (particularly Germany in Egypt G1), they are VERY hard to stop.  There is one particular axis strategy that we have seen that is virtually unstoppable (with NO’s on).

What must be taken into account when it comes to the balance in the game is that USA, UK and Russia can get IPCs to bear against Germany and Italy MUCH quicker than Japan can put IPCs into action against Russia or even USA. The geographic change to the map is the most important one, as well as the inclusion of a weak Axis power, which invites destruction.

Turns 3-5 is the time when the Allies have the advantage and should be able to gain an advantage against the European Axis. After that, Russia gets pressured from behind and you’ll be forced to divert a lot of Allied troops to defend Russia, airplanes to Moscow or land units towards Caucasus from Africa, usually both. If you eliminate Italy and/or hold France and build an IC there before the Japanese become too big, you can win the game.

Probably pressuring the Japs somewhat from the West Coast as the USA is a must in order to hinder the deployment of all Jap navy and air force to support their land offensive, but USA must put between 50-75% of their production vs. European Axis! One thing’s for sure, playing the Allies has become much more difficult and I like that about this game!  :wink:

@U-505:

I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.

I’d agree, but wouldn’t necessarily limit it to J casualties.  A poor Ger showing can also give the freedom to the US to go Pac immediately if they want regardless of how well J went.

@U-505:

-Completely ignoring Japan, in my experience, has been a very bad idea.

-Italy moves between UK and US so it breaks up the Allied amphibious 1-2 punch which is a benefit to the Axis in France, at least, despite being forced to usually trade NWE every turn.

-I’ve had trouble as the Allies with mass German air purchases since it means that if the Allies want to have the UK go to Europe and the US go to Africa, they will have to purchase twice as much navy to protect 2 separate fleets which can get costly.

I find ignoring Japan early may be the best approach.  Barring bad dice or just plain terrible moves there is very little the Allies can do to stop their intial expansion (rds 1-3).  Germany is by far the bigger immediate threat, I think you throw all you can in the Atlantic early to cripple or slow them.  Then once you take out the Ita fleet or feel secure about Afr (rd 3-4) you can better judge just how much you need where.  The key would be to just not over commit with US trns early if you know you may like to do a mid game Pac fleet with the US, then just stick with 2-3 US Atlantic trns.

I think Fra is a bigtime trap for the Allies.  Let Ger defend it and go to Kar.  It is much more important to keep the supply lines open from Kar to Mos.  A 60-65+ ipc Japan can be dealt with assuming you can reinforce Moscow with the UK and US via Kar (Arch-worst case).

Yes you need more ACs (or navy) but that can be done early, but I’d recommend DD fodder as well.  I buy a UK AC in Rd 1 (with a CA) and a US AC by rd 2.  I LOVE ftrs so I tend to buy a ton regardless so a rd 3 or 4 UK AC is doable for me when I move to Sz 6.  The US can always afford a second AC if needed or just make them the DD farm.  But don’t forget the US Pac AC can make it to Sz 12 in round 3.  Throw out 2 dd per turn, they may not do much, but a stack in Sz 12 can reinforce Sz 6, or can threaten any aggressive J moves to the Med.  You need about 1 dd for every 2 Ger planes for significant fodder per navy.  Germany just can’t keep up the air threat long enough.  Worst case for the Allies you spend an extra turn or 2 dumping to Alg, but you can still threaten Ita/WE and you make it clear Afr is yours, you also get a nice supply line going that can deadzone or stack Per to cut off Japan there.  Also don’t over buy UK trns.  2 is more than enough early assuming you bring the 3rd from Aus and get it to Sz 12 in Rd 3.

@axis_roll:

If the Axis get a good start (particularly Germany in Egypt G1), they are VERY hard to stop.  There is one particular axis strategy that we have seen that is virtually unstoppable (with NO’s on).

A flawless Germany against Russia in rd 1 can definitely be big trouble.  I’m getting hammered in a League game where Germany took no losses (maybe I killed 1 inf or something).

@Lynxes:

What must be taken into account when it comes to the balance in the game is that USA, UK and Russia can get IPCs to bear against Germany and Italy MUCH quicker than Japan can put IPCs into action against Russia or even USA.

Very true.

@Lynxes:

Turns 3-5 is the time when the Allies have the advantage and should be able to gain an advantage against the European Axis. After that, Russia gets pressured from behind and you’ll be forced to divert a lot of Allied troops to defend Russia, airplanes to Moscow or land units towards Caucasus from Africa, usually both. If you eliminate Italy and/or hold France and build an IC there before the Japanese become too big, you can win the game.

I’d argue for Kar over Fra, but the time frame seems about right.  If you kill the Ita Fleet or it flees the Med by rd 3-4 and you can land in Nor/Fin/Kar by rd 4,5,6, then the Axis should never have the ipc lead in units to take Mos, considering it will be only Japan vs. all 3 Allies.

@Mazer:

Like I said, I need a few more plays under my belt, but some issues are pretty clear.  SBRs are bad, the US shouldn’t play in two theaters, and Italy is in a heap of trouble.

In light of a better answer, the Escort optional rule is the best treatment of the SBR issue.  It forces ftr protection of ICs.  Why do you discount that as not strategic?  SBRs were a part of the war effort.  Taking them out of play is not an option, IMHO.

An unfrettered JAPAN becomes a monster.  Without pressure, Japan can send ALL it’s ftrs to Europe for assistance.  Implement this strategy and you will see how your last point about a weak Italy/France is greatly reduced.  USA needs to build a sub fleet, at the VERY LEAST.  A carrier with a ftr or two with 2 DD’s is needed to keep lose transports from running about taking islands.  One nice allied trick I like is to build a ftr out west that can fly to sz12 next turn to support the Atlantic fleet.

This game is about economy. Axis will have economic advantage round 3-4 as much, even with USA’s Pacific fleet and italian fleet killed, but greater with a ignore Japan strat. You cannot ignore Japan now, it’s a no-brainer strat invade Alaska with 5 starting trannies unless USA defends Pacific with some boats, and if Japan makes a solid foothold in American mainland, it’s game over

I won some games with allies, but only due to inferior play by axis (not killing China J1, germans too defensive, etc). When axis strats polish, we’ll start to see heavy allied bids, but as now axis can absorb many errors and still win

Italy is a mayor boost for axis. They are a can opener (that was the word?) for germans and force soviets overdefend both cau and Moscow. Also, new sparring China is a big boost for axis (7 IPCs almost for free, greater buffer zones against rogue soviet tanks in case of Polar Express and crappy buggy chinese rules in the case some of them survive J1)

I don’t know about SBRs. Allies really need them in 1st rounds to try reduce their disadvantage, but later, axis can simply cripple soviets with them

I still cannot understand how many continue talking about shuck and KGF. USA cannot ignore Japan unless Japan also wants, and even if they do it, soviets will fall much quicker than western axis, and I fail to see how allies can recover the economic parity with a ignore Japan strat

@Funcioneta:

I still cannot understand how many continue talking about shuck and KGF. USA cannot ignore Japan unless Japan also wants, and even if they do it, soviets will fall much quicker than western axis, and I fail to see how allies can recover the economic parity with a ignore Japan strat

B/c the Axis can’t maintain the IPC lead in a KG(I)F or they can’t get the difference high enough.  Yes the Axis get parity and maybe even have a few turns of a lead but they are Ultimately reduced to:
Ger:  26-30 + 5 (NO) = ~31-35
Ita:  9
Jap: 50-55 + 15 (NO) = ~65-70

At best you are looking at 114, but realistically you’ll probably be lucky to be at 109-110.

Allies:

Rus:  25-30 (depend on fin/nor) + 10 (NO) = 35-40 (no Arch NO, but the big one is in play with UK/US help by trading either Pol or Bul)
UK:  23-30 (depend on alg/lib/fin/nor)
US:  37 + 5 (NO) = 42

The Allies will be at approximately 107 + whereever they land in Europe and trading Nwe, Pol, or Bul.

Essentially you have parity, this is not enough to kill the Allies.  Consider you need a 4:3 advantage to kill an enemy stack and the likely hood of a 1-2 attack is small since Germany is cut off from making a significant attack on Mos.

Also a lot of the early Axis gains are spent on infrastructure.  Japan often buys at least 2 ICs and Germany needs a 2nd if they can’t take Kar.  The Allies can simply buy units all game long and need no additional ICs.

I think Germany needs to take Kar early and hold, hopefully they can hold in rd 2 (rd 3 at the latest), otherwise I think you might stall out a bit too soon, which ultimately allows the Allies to box you in and then make it 3 on 1 vs. Japan.

@DarthMaximus:

Also a lot of the early Axis gains are spent on infrastructure.  Japan often buys at least 2 ICs and Germany needs a 2nd if they can’t take Kar.  The Allies can simply buy units all game long and need no additional ICs.

Do you not consider the allied Atlantic navy an infrastructure cost?

This amounts to more than $45 in ICs for the axis….

@axis_roll:

@DarthMaximus:

Also a lot of the early Axis gains are spent on infrastructure.  Japan often buys at least 2 ICs and Germany needs a 2nd if they can’t take Kar.  The Allies can simply buy units all game long and need no additional ICs.

Do you not consider the allied Atlantic navy an infrastructure cost?

This amounts to more than $45 in ICs for the axis….

Good question.

Yes, I guess I would, but it helps that they Allies start with a 113 to 58 ipc Adv in rd 1.

It’s a good point though, so if we assume both sides do infrastructure in rds 1-3 and you hit rd 4 and the Axis only have a 5-10 ipc lead, I’m not sure if this is enough to turn the tide (or play for a long game).  I think the Allies versatilty (trns + inf + planes) can help draw the game back to close to parity.

I’m generally not worried about a 5-10 ipc deficit, that just a matter of a dice roll here there, a SBR or two.  Basically I’d put that in the margin of error, now if the Axis routinely have a 15-20 ipc lead then you are asking for trouble.

As for SBR and the SBR interceptor rules, this is slightly better than removing SBR attacks completely.

With interceptor rules you must have some ftrs on TTs which contains ICs, this can probably be even better than to buy AA guns to place on ICs that are built during the game. Russia doesn’t start with ftrs, so US/UK may need to land some ftrs in red TTs, or Russia should buy own ftrs to protect from SBR attacks.

As for the balance of the game, it’s not very easy for axis to win against good allied players, or maybe I’m just bad at playing ADS games. If someone thinks allies are favored with NOs, use LL  :-D

I still won more games with axis then I lost, but it’s too soon to judge game balance now, assuming NOs are on.

In many of the games I played, and I usually play axis, US often have some navy in the pacific, even if its a minor force, this helps allies keep some of their NOs instead of loosing all pacific NOs in rnd 2.

Mazer:

You where able to ignore Japan? :-o
What skill level was the Axis player?

@axis_roll:

Yep, Germany turtles up with ftr support from japan, Japan wins the game (just like the old days)
except it’s a LOT easier for Japan these days.  Easily over 70+ IPCs per turn… Godzilla she is!

Tsunami is also a good Japanese word to use as an analogy. Especially if the Allies completely turn away their attention.

The ratio of strength of air power to naval power is much higher in AA50.  Perhaps too high.
Battleships should get additional anti-aircraft capability to make their purchase worthwhile, like an AAA shot or something.

Not neccessarily. I think that it is one of the ways that Germany can defend against mass Allied SBR campaigns. You aren’t going to be building bombers for SBR’s if you can’t land units to take advantage of them.

I understand the need for the Allied Atlantic fleets to be properly defended against Axis air power but, if you alter the rules to make it easier for one you may be just tilting favor to the other side which you will then have to fix by adjusting the rules again.

@Mazer:

But there are a few things I’m sure of:

• Without some mod, SBRs should be done every round to maximum damage.  Bombers are very cheap, the ROI is excellent, and once a power is taken out they supplement other attacks.

But here’s the thing: SBRs are the element of the game with the least skill and the most dicey outcomes.  If SBRs are good then you should always do them, and then there is just a questions of who gets lucky.

That’s a lame strategy game.

The fixes I’ve heard just make SBRs more gimmicky.  The escort rules detract from strategic game play because with expert play people will either park ftrs on an IC or they won’t.  It won’t be an interesting strategic element.

SBRs should be disallowed.

Yes, SBR’s are profitable. I believe that it is roughly 5 IPC’s per bomber purchased. But there are things that offset the benefits to one side or the other.

SBR’s work both ways. And both sides have countries that can spare the income to conduct SBR’s. If the Allies are building bombers against Germany and Italy, what is stopping Japan from doing the same to Russia?

And Germany has a large enough initial income to have a large aircraft purchasing plan. While maybe not being able to make advances, they can at least keep the Russians at bay. If the Allies are building for an SBR campaign, then they could have problems trying to keep control of Africa because their shipping is at constant risk. And once it finally gets to the point that Germany is unable to maintain the air purchase plan then they can also shift to using their bombers to start SBR raids against UK or Russia.

I have always been a proponent of modifying the rules as a last resort. As much as I would like to find ways to keep bids to a minimum, if the game is unbalanced, then lets just go with a bid. At least that way there is potential for variety due to bid placement and then we don’t have to go and do things like sh*tcan entire sections of the rules.

• To say Italy can be reinforced from France is not to say it is “easy” unless you consider weakening France to be a good thing  :-D

Now, why would the Germany player leave himself in a weak position in France when moving units into Italy? You are making an assuption that the Germany player is not smart enough to replace the units that moved from France to Italy. If Germany has to reinforce Italy to prevent an Allied landing, then it isn’t usually France that will suffer a loss of units, it’s the Russian front. And if it ever comes down to the point where reinforcing Italy forces Germany to leave France in a weak position that is susceptible to attack, then lets work from the assumption that the Germany player will simply abandon France altogether.

And that’s my point: there are 4 critical invasion zones in this version of the game: Italy, France, NW Eur, Berlin.  That stretches the Axis mighty thin and wreaks havoc with NOs.

In this case, defending Italy, France, and Germany is identical to Revised. If the Allies are splitting their landings between Algeria and Europe then all 3 territories are defended and if the Allies are focusing in one direction or another either the units normally in Italy are used to bolster the Germany/France defenses or the Germany units are added to the Italy/France defenses. In any of those cases, the number of defending units doesn’t change, it’s their position relative to how much the Allies can land and where.

The exception is NWE. But, NWE is never defended. It is just traded if the Allies land there. And the Allies rarely have the opportunity to gain a foothold in NWE in the early portion of the game so it’s a moot point. NWE doesn’t become a problem until Germany starts collapsing in the midgame against a KGF, but that is simply the natural progression of the game and by then Russia is usually coming under heavy threat from the Japanese.

• I’m expecting to be a KIF player.  I haven’t played a lot, but that sure looks like the weak link in the Axis chain.  You can SBR them into oblivion and threaten them with significant force round 3 or 4.  That’s gonna be a problem for the Axis.

That is one way to do it. I prefer to neuter the Italian fleet and reclaim Africa but then move on to Germany once that is accomplished.

• Spending US money against Japan is almost surely a waste.  How much navy do you need to counter Japan?  Certainly a lot.  How much does it protect?  Certainly very little.  You can’t really stop Japan, and I don’t think that with a focused Japanese player you can even slow them down very much.

I never said that the US should spend money against the Japanese. Personally, I think that the majority of resistance to the Japanese in Asia should come from the Russians and the Russian supported Chinese.

An infantry here and there or an armor or 2 with aircraft based in Cauc or Russia to support both fronts can go a long way to slowing down or even temporarily halting a Japanese advance in one avenue and then be gone to threaten another while the Japanese are moving to reinforce the first position.

@DarthMaximus:

@U-505:

I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.

I’d agree, but wouldn’t necessarily limit it to J casualties.  A poor Ger showing can also give the freedom to the US to go Pac immediately if they want regardless of how well J went.

Yes, but that lends itself more to KGF to take advantage of Germany’s misfortune.

@DarthMaximus:

I find ignoring Japan early may be the best approach.  Barring bad dice or just plain terrible moves there is very little the Allies can do to stop their intial expansion (rds 1-3).

I disagree. I think that any units the Russians can spare from the German front from the beginning of the game should be immediately allocated toward stunting Japan’s growth with mobile units like armor and aircraft being especially useful. Since Russia is the hub by which all avenues of the game radiate, like I said before, it is easier for Russia to shift their focus to areas where the Japanese are weak and then be gone to threaten other areas once the Japanese have wasted enough time working to break that Russian roadblock.

@Funcioneta:

You cannot ignore Japan now, it’s a no-brainer strat invade Alaska with 5 starting trannies unless USA defends Pacific with some boats, and if Japan makes a solid foothold in American mainland, it’s game over

I have always said that the US doesn’t neccesarily have to build any navy in the Pacific and I’m still sticking to that belief. With a properly set up troop train from W US through WCan, it becomes more expensive to the Japanese than the US to implement the Polar Express.

@DarthMaximus:

I think Germany needs to take Kar early and hold, hopefully they can hold in rd 2 (rd 3 at the latest), otherwise I think you might stall out a bit too soon, which ultimately allows the Allies to box you in and then make it 3 on 1 vs. Japan.

I wholeheartedly agree. Germany must make an effort to claim Karelia from the beginning of the game and Russia must make it their number one priority to prevent this for as long as possible. If Germany makes it’s mind up to take Karelia, it will happen, but the longer the Allies can keep Germany from taking and holding Karelia, the better off they are. Even trading is acceptible, as long as germany can’t build there. Holding Karelia just opens up far too many income opportunities for Germany.

I think what many of us are doing, myself included, is sitting in our own isolated niches and developing strategic ruts that we can’t see past. Fresh eyes can often see things that focused eyes can’t. I think we need more cross breeding of strategies to improve the strategic gene pool before we can make many definitive statements.

Some things have not changed from revised, to contain Germany is still the most important goal for allies. Europe is worth more than other geo-strategic regions on the AA50 map.

The question is, is Russia and UK enough to contain Germany and Italy. If the answer is yes, then US should attack Japan in the pacific. If UK + Russia is not enough against Germany and Italy, then the most effective allied approach is a US Euro-strat instead of a US pac-strat. Africa is also important in AA50 as it was in revised.

I have also lost games with axis when Japan was ignored, probably due to bad luck and/or bad play.  It should be mentioned that its much easier to play axis in LL then ADS.