Game imbalance - Look at the Unit IPC totals

The problem is that Japan is overpowered. Japan starts with too many units, Japan has no major opposition in Asia or the Pacific (even if USA goes 100% Pacific its no real threat to an experienced Japan player), and Japan doesnt cap out on income until the mid 70s while everyone else caps out in the 50s.

To balance the game, Allies need a stronger presence in China, India, and the Pacific. China should have its fighter moved and gain 4 extra Infantry. UK should get a starting factory in India as well as 1 infantry on both Borneo and East Indies. And the US should start with a fighter and a submarine at Phillipines as well as the southern pacific carrier being moved up to protect west coast fleet. If Japan wants those islands or India it should have to FIGHT for them they shouldnt simply get them automatically by round2.

I pretty much agree with you, Khobai.  All those mods might make it too easy for the Allies, though.

Of course, you can always play with those modifications if you find someone to agree to them.

I don’t play 1941 anymore.  It’s the fantasy scenario.  Of course I played it because it was new and different, but not anymore.  I’d rather play AA42 Spring 1942 the $30 game than the AA50 '41 scenario.

9 fighters and 3 carriers?  Give me a break.  I know this scenario is before Midway, but jeez.  USA needs a Midway in the 1941 scenario, that’s for sure.

Funny I find AA50-42 MUCH easier for the Axis, way much easier.

At the moment after playing AA50-41 for slightly over a year I think AA50-41 is balanced. I also think it takes quite some time for the Allies to work up workable strategies. I know for me it did. I still use an Axis strat that I came up with about this time last year. My best Allied strategy came together for me around November.

I agree with DM that playing with real dice and not LL is a huge balancing feature. The Axis “has” to make many attacks on round one and statistically something should go wrong for them. Also depending where and how that something goes wrong the Axis can have lost the game on the first round, it will not immediately be apparent but the damage will have been done. I still think too many people are trying to play the Allies in AA50-41 as they would in Revised, and that will not work.

Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.

Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.

Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Its purely a concern regarding game balance. Axis is favored to win most games because Japan is overpowered. Japan shouldnt be able to wipe out China completely on round1. Japan shouldnt be able to attack India with 10+ ground units and 6 fighters on round2. Japan shouldnt get all three of its NOs every single turn without even having to work for them. Thats just poor game balance straight up.

And if were looking at the game historically, then yes Japan should start out with a larger navy and airforce, however it should NOT be outproducing the USA on ANY turn of the game. Japan should eventually succumb to the USA’s economic might if the Axis doesnt knock Russia out of the picture by a certain turn. Afterall, Russia’s swift defeat to Germany was assumed when Japan entered the war in 1941. An undefeated Russia is what turned the tides.

I feel that Allies should set the pacing of the game rather than the Axis. The burden should be on Axis to win by a certain turn and not Allies. Japan shouldnt be the force that draws the game towards its conclusion but rather the USA should be. That would much more closely resemble the true dynamic of WW2 where USA was Godzilla and not Japan.

Agree in general with Khobai

@a44bigdog:

At the moment after playing AA50-41 for slightly over a year I think AA50-41 is balanced. I also think it takes quite some time for the Allies to work up workable strategies. I know for me it did. I still use an Axis strat that I came up with about this time last year. My best Allied strategy came together for me around November

If you have a working, solid strat for allies, 1941, please make an article. I’m not being ironic, we really need something that works

@a44bigdog:

I still think too many people are trying to play the Allies in AA50-41 as they would in Revised, and that will not work.

No, I don’t agree with this. In Revised, it was Ignore Japan strat all the way 120% of times and I never faced another strat in all my many PBEM games. Now people are using USA Pacific navy, Indian ICs (1942 scenario) and such, and at least that’s an improve. They also use german fleets by the way

@a44bigdog:

Lastly as far as Japan and what they start with in the Pacific, do some research. Yes their navy and air force were far superior quantitatively and more importantly qualitatively than the Allies. The only place they did not immediately over run was the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. Also keep in mind that if the game played out 100% historically the Allies would win every time and that would be boring.

This is wrong. Japan never overunned China (in 8 bloody years of war) and India, they had advantage in air and navy, but in land it was a stalemate. In a balanced game, Japan should have say a 50% chance of beating them round 4 to 6 or such, but in 1941 Japan toasts China J1 and India when they want, usually from round 2. This is a default of that scenario and China & India only hold with horrible Japan dices or when Japan doesn’t attack them

@Khobai:

Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Its purely a concern regarding game balance. Axis is favored to win most games because Japan is overpowered. Japan shouldnt be able to wipe out China completely on round1. Japan shouldnt be able to attack India with 10+ ground units and 6 fighters on round2. Japan shouldnt get all three of its NOs every single turn without even having to work for them. Thats just poor game balance straight up.

And if were looking at the game historically, then yes Japan should start out with a larger navy and airforce, however it should NOT be outproducing the USA on ANY turn of the game. Japan should eventually succumb to the USA’s economic might if the Axis doesnt knock Russia out of the picture by a certain turn. Afterall, Russia’s swift defeat to Germany was assumed when Japan entered the war in 1941. An undefeated Russia is what turned the tides.

I feel that Allies should set the pacing of the game rather than the Axis. The burden should be on Axis to win by a certain turn and not Allies. Japan shouldnt be the force that draws the game towards its conclusion but rather the USA should be. That would much more closely resemble the true dynamic of WW2 where USA was Godzilla and not Japan.

I totally agree with you on this post, Khobai.  Wow, this is like the gospel truth.  :-)

Why don’t you customize the game to your liking?  Create your own setup with ABattlemap, and post it here.

See I view the problem as being in Europe more than in Asia.  The simple fact of the matter is the allies have too many places they have to fight.  If they allow Italy to keep Africa for more than 2 turns making 20 IPCs europe will be a nut that is impossible to crack with the dozens of Italian infantry holding the beaches, not to mention there fleet can become very difficult to kill.  Combine that with how defensive Russia is forced to play in the early rounds due to the can opener threat, and the inability of the UK to do much harm to the G/I machine on her own, and it is very difficult for the allies to win.  Even a simple surge strat will dismantle Russia so fast it is not even funny, by that I mean G 1 buy 9 inf, 1 art, all following turns 10 tanks.  Let Italy deal with France.  And lastly, the bombers killing transports makes this even worse.

If the US does not devote a good amount of money to Europe, you will see Germany buying a bomber or two a turn.  This means the UK has to constantly purchase more boats to cover her transports, boats she cannot afford if she wants to put men into Europe.  Combine that with Germany’s income of 50 and Russia just cannot keep up, even with germany buying planes out the wazoo.  Then add in the can opener threat, and Russia cannot defend Moscow and Caucasus after turn 4 or 5.  And lastly, taking and holding france is nearly impossible for the allies, with the G/I factories right next door.

All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.

All you who say the imbalance is in Asia, explain to me how on earth the UK/Russia can fight and win in europe without a large amount of US aid.

The imbalance is that USA doesnt get enough income to fight in both the atlantic and pacific at the same time. The game should be rebalanced around the idea that the Allies will inevitably win if the Axis doesnt kill Russia by Turn X. That was the only reason Japan agreed to join the Axis powers in 1941 and had a non-aggression pact with Russia because the swift defeat and assimilation of Russia by Germany was assumed.

Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.

China was somewhat of a sideshow for Japan. They wanted to conquer China or at least parts of it as a means of becoming an Imperial power and gaining respect from the West for being an Imperial power.

Their primary reasons for going to war were raw resources which Japan lacks. Primarily oil, tin, and rubber. The Japanese Army wanted to seize Russian oilfields in Siberia, even after its defeats by Russia, and the Japanese Navy wanted to seize the oilfields in the East Indies along with other resources there.

Unlike Hitler Japan wanted to carve out an Empire in the east and then sue for peace. As lopsided as it is I think the original Axis and Allies Pacific portrays this well with the Victory Points. The idea was to seize the resources in the Dutch East Indies and then build up a ring of outer defensive Islands. The Japanese knew they could not defeat the US and UK but hopped that they could make the cost of taking back what Japan had claimed too prohibitive for the Allies to undertake.

Also along historical notes I think China should be able to send units into Burma and FIC as they did do this in the Actual war.

I haven’t given any thought in Anniversary but I thought in Revised the Australian and New  Zealand forces should have been US as they were under US command.

Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.

No it was more because Japan had its hands full with China and expanding southward and didnt want to deal with fighting the Russians too. It wasnt in Russia’s best interests to fight Japan either so they both just kind of agreed to leave eachother alone. Unfortunately China doesnt present much of an obstacle for Japan. China’s military strength along with the USA’s industrial/economic strength are completely lacking from the '41 scenario. Not only is it historically inaccurate but its not even balanced as a hypothetical scenario.

@akreider2:

In the Revised version, after the first Russian turn, the Allies would typically have a total unit value of 75 more than the Axis.

In 1941, at the start, the Allies have only 4 IPCs more of units.

I did a statistical study of the Revised version and found that each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9% (see http://www.campusactivism.org/blog/node/189).  Territory held is also important, but I think the territory balance is similar in the two games (the Axis starts out with less). Typically if an Axis player’s units would equal the value of an Allied player’s then they would have won the game in Revised (I’d guess 95% chance against a player of equal skill).

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges.

AA50 has many changes compared to revised:

number of territories differ
play sequence differs
The European Axis forces are split into Germany/Italy
Unit costs and abilities have changed
Base dollars for countries has changed.

Therefor, your revised research correlation of ipcs to winning most likely can not be the same in AA50

I guess I am wondering what kind of comment(s) you are looking for regarding your statistical analysis.  Are we supposed to theorize the new ratio applicable in AA50?

I’ll take a stab at it  :lol:

AAR: each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9%

AA50: each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 5.1%

It seems to me that once a side has an advantage (especially with NO’s in play), that advantage increase is not linear, but accelerates rapidly.  Not so extreme as a logrithmic manner, but perhaps exponentially.

@axis_roll:

It seems to me that once a side has an advantage (especially with NO’s in play), that advantage increase is not linear, but accelerates rapidly.  Not so extreme as a logrithmic manner, but perhaps exponentially.

I was thinking, too, that statistical analysis considers only total IPC values and incomes and whatnot and not the position of the units on the board.  I don’t think stat analysis can boil down what side has an advantage and by how much.

I think the starting setup is fair enough.  I think much bigger factors are what strategies your opponent will use, what the dice do to you, etc.  I think you smart stat guys should spend your time and energies developing a really good battle calculator instead of analyzing the starting setups.  I have a good calculator, but it could be quite a bit better.  Let us know when you make something useful.  :lol:

@akreider2:

Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.

The power of statistical analysis is that you can something down into main causes. And I think Unit IPC value is a primary cause of the game outcome (whereas I think the changes you listed are less significant).  I guess people don’t like talking about it because it is more fun to consider all the possible strategies.

I think everybody who agrees the game is unbalanced also agrees Axis starts with too many units/too much unit value.  For example the complaints about Japan starting with 3 carriers, 9 figs, and 5 transports in 41.

The complaint that Axis have the economic advantage in the long-game is also related.  It’s much easier to weak down Russia than any Axis power.

The sort of game people are used to is where Axis attacks Russia and must take Moscow before Allies muster their economic edge.  In AA50, the long economic game favors Axis, so it’s Allies who have to take risks and attack.

Thanks, ak, but I’ve seen those and prefer the one I’m using over those.

Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.

That may be true, but the economic disadvantage is non-existent by the end of round 3. Two turns of economic advantage for the Allies is simply not enough to balance the game.

In fact, economic advantage from round 2 is marginal for allies, if still is any. You only have real advantage with the starting cash and round 1. In Revised axis could achieve economic parity, but only after 4-5 rounds if allies played well