Posts made by Zhukov44

@zerohour49:

thank you every1 for your opinion i have 2 say the axis would have won but my friend disagrees. He thinks that they would lose because in usa there was around 1 billion people an the average family has at the least 2 fire arms. So therefore allies would have won ,but I clearly stated that the axis would win but thank you for helping me in this discussion. If you would still like to put more opinions im all open ears. thankyou  :-D

The thing to remember is the United States was very much anti-war at the start of World War II, which is why we needed the Japs to attack us in order to get into the fight.  Germany on the other hand was completely under the boot of a militaristic ideology…and they proved their toughness by taking on a coalition of powers that were 10 times stronger economically.

So basically the only hope for the Allies was getting the bomb, or some other decisive technology.  Without the war on Russia, the Germans could have devoted more resources to air power, rockets, and atomic technology.

This sort war would have never happened as Roosevelt would have never engaged in such a risky conflict.  With the USSR in, as long as the Soviets could hold on the odds were very high the Allies would prevail.

@uffishbongo:

(2) I’m not trying to say that KJF is bad in general.  What I am trying to say is that if you want to go KJF, go all the way.  Use all three Allies and hold nothing back.  If you go half against Germany and half against Japan, it’s not enough, unless the dice are very kind to you.

I was thinking about this statement in the context of a few games I’ve had where either 1) Japan had bad dice or went with insufficient force to Pearl or 2) Japan skipped Pearl, prompting me to pursue a strategy where USA goes after Japan while Russia and UK go after Germany.

In a friendly game, I enjoy this turn, as its a fun change of pace from the normal KGF game.  But more and more I’m questioning  whether this is a legitimate strategy in a tourney or league game against an elite opponent.  The problem is Germany tends to get strong, while Japan gets strong on Asia IPCs while holding off the USA with reasonable air and sub purchases.  Even if UK can succeed in 1) taking Africa 2)killing the German fleet and 3) assisting Russia in Europe, Germany tends to build so many infantry that unless the USA offensive succeeds, Axis will eventually have way more units on the ground in Eurasia.

You say only go for Japan if you are going with all 3 allies…but how does this work against a strong German player?  Ok maybe if Germany gets diced bad on G1…but I find that even under the best circumstances if the Allies are concentrating on Japan then Russia will lose Cauc.  Once Cauc falls, the UK can no longer support Russia from India, and India itself is in serious trouble.  And if the Germans have the Africa ipcs then they will eventually overwelm Moscow as well.

So what can we conclude?  Is Revised hopelessly biased towards the KGF tactic?

There’s no way the Allies could have invaded Europe if Germany wasn’t committed to invading the Soviets.  The only prayer for the Allies would have been technology and air power.  But if the Soviets were actually assisting the Axis, then combined German/Soviet industrial capacity would have been at least equal to, if not greater than than the Allies.

Fortunately for the Allies, the Axis alliance originated as an anti-Soviet alliance–communism was the enemy.  The Japs actually wanted to attack the Soviets in 1938, but then decided on a new war on China.  If the Allies had trusted the Soviets and struck up an alliance with them in 1939, then the Wehrmacht would have never stood for Hitler’s aggressions as they remembered what a two front war was like.

Well if your plan is to drop infantry in Algeria and then have them walk all the way to Persia, then its not a good one.  Might work against a weak Axis though.

When I first had a look at the Anniversary map, the biggest disappointment was that the Atlantic sea zones were essentially the same as Revised, while the Pacific became larger.  Even the silly Canada to Africa shuck was exactly the same.  This, and the fact that in 41 the 2 key islands are British and thus can’t have American factories–-this makes KJF very difficult.  As long as the Japanese player is vigilant it seems extremely tough to pull off, although perhaps not impossible.  But unlike Revised, the Brits hardly have any units in the area so the burden is all on the USA.

If we wanted to redraw Anniversary to encourage varied tactics then the first thing to do is make the Atlantic Ocean larger so that it makes more sense to go with a naval strat in the Pacific rather than focusing on an immediate impact in Europe and Africa.  Larger Atlantic, stronger China and factories in India and Aussie so the Brits can have some kind of presence.

Come to think of it, it’s true that a China bid might inspire KGF because the Allies will probably have 1 more turn before Moscow will fall to Japan.  But at least this way 1) the game will be balanced and 2) it will appear more historical.

However, a China bid can’t hurt a KJF strat–it certainly doesn’t make a KJF any harder.  Whereas the alternatives (bidding to Egypt or Karelia) is geared towards Germany.

Some of these have already been suggested…

1. India and Aussie should be worth more IPCS, and should have more starting units.  A factory on one or both would definitely help promote fighting in the Pacific.

2. China should be a lot stronger, and should take several turns to destroy.

3. IPCs for Wake, Iwo Jima, Solomons etc.

@squirecam:

@Funcioneta:

Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play

And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)

Japan

• Axis control of Manchuria+Kiangsu [Shanghai region]+French Indo-China/Thailand=5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least four out of: Kwang-tung [Hong-kong region], Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, Phillippine Islands, New Guinea and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least one of: Hawaiian Islands, Australia or India =5 IPCs

US/China
*Allied control of France = 5 IPCs
*Allied control of Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs
*Allied control of West US+Central US+East US= 5 IPCs
*Allied control of at least 3 of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs.

Japan should get 10-15 in bonuses. USA is going to get 10. [If the allies get France, its 15.]
But lets say its 10.

Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??

I’m used to hyperbole and some over-generalizations, but the difference is FIVE IPC. I dont see how that goes from allied advantage to “totally unplayable.”

No offense, but alot of your comments suggest that perhaps you haven’t played this much.  Actually, I haven’t played it alot either.

As for the Pacific and NOs….here are the ones at stake

2 Jap NOs (not including the China NO)=10 ipcs
2 British NOs=10 ipcs (one is for the Allies controlling a Jap territory, the other one is for Gibraltar, Egypt, and Aussie–late game Aussie is the tough one since the Jap turn is after the USA turn).
2 American NOs=10 ipcs

So we are talking about 30 ipcs at stake either way.  That’s alot of money for the Allies to just give up w/o a fight.

Bottom line is Allies have no good reason to contest the Pacific if the game is played without NOs unless the Jap player drops the ball.  Without NOs, Aliles win easy by concentrating on Germany, since Japan can’t reasonably threaten Moscow till turn 8-10 or so, and Germany and Italy quickly crumble without the NO IPC boost.  With NOs, it is still tempting to go all out on Germany but IMO there ought to be something going on in the Pacific in order to get some NO cash and try to threaten some Jap NOs.

I can’t say offhand what the bid to Axis should be w/o NOs but it needs to be substantial.  At least 10, possibly 15-20 or more.

I haven’t determined my opinion on this yet, but some posters here seem to prefer KGF in all circumstances, with or without NOs.  There are all kinds of obstacles to KJF strategies….honestly it seems tougher to go KJF in this game then in Revised.  The only reason to do anything in the Pacific is NOs.

China unit bids promote balance in this regard.

You can always say that “the game is designed in such and such a way”…  no one expects the game to be perfect.  We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.

If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great.  I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.

What is the objective of Polar Express, besides threatening an NO?

I can see hitting North America on a limited scale if there’s an opportunity to take an NO away from the USA.  But this seems unlikely provided USA has at least one infantry on Western USA.

The cost (diverting resources needed to take down Moscow quickly) seems too high for too little reward.

@squirecam:

@Funcioneta:

OK, I voted China only bids. I think Europe and Africa are well balanced, the unbalance is a almost totally unchallenged Japan in Asia, so the bids should go there. I think there is a strange effect if we use fully opened bids: 6-8 can be too few, because it will save Egypt but UK fleet at z2 will be toasted anyway BUT 9 can be too much because it will negate Africa to Western Axis and can favor KGF. 12 is out of question because that’s 2 subs for UK, a thing that can kill italian navy round 1, specially if we use tech and UK gets supersubs or HBs (or could mean still 4 guys to Egypt or 4 infs to Philippines, maybe that’s too scary, not sure  :| )

The only place where wacky bid effects cannot happen is China. So my vote goes there

A additional point is that maybe we should allow put chinese bid in those territories without units. Of course, my proposition of letting the chineses exit from China is still open, bid or not bid

Of course, people that thinks allies have advantage could add axis units at pleasure. Good luck  :-D

Edit: maybe we could use a “Japan restricted” house rule in the sense that Japan cannot attack chinese units 1st round (similiar in a way to “Russia restricted”). They could attack Hong Kong and the other western allies, but starting chinese units woud be saved

I find it ironic that you want to balance the game, yet consider tech effects (like super subs) in your calculations.

A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.

If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.

NO tech
NO objectives
NO bids

See how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.

But this is ridiculously easy for the Allies.  Play the game this way and see it for yourself.  Axis would need at least a 10-15 ipc bid without NOs.

Europe is balanced.  Asia isn’t.  China inf bids are best.  Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8  (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.

Agreed in principle, but I don’t usually have the resources to get up to 5 transports before the Aussie transport arrives.  If I run with the Aussie tranny, that is typically my 5th.  In a game with an Africa bid I’m struggling to produce 8 land units a turn for the first few turns.

Re. the NO bids, I think it would be simpler to adjust the value of all NOs.  So the bid would determine how much any NO is worth.

Personally I like China unit bids only but I can see how down the line people would want to use traditional freely placed bids to ensure variety.  But for now it looks like bids will always be placed in Egypt and Karelia…if that is the case then China is preferable.

Both approaches can work and I lose to both approaches regularly.

I used to base the USA in the Med Sea, but for a while I’ve been basing both shucks in the North Sea so I can effectuate back to back attacks.

However, the Med strategy has its merits.  You threaten Rome, you secure Africa, and you can force the Japs to evacuate the Suez/Persian Gulf area if you mass enough ships off Italy or in the Black Sea.

The problem is that Germany can counter this with defensive tactics.  From the Med, USA can’t attack Germany itself, which gives Germany some leeway in protecting its capital.

The North Sea shuck strategy allows USA to support defensive positions along the Baltic/North Sea region, which is not something Germany can counter easily.  The drawback is less of a presence in Africa.

@DarthMaximus:

The problem with China is, Japan can always ignore it.  It isn’t vital strategically (can still go north, south, or invade the US), the units can’t move out of China, they can’t buy/place attacking units, it doesn’t relieve the pressure on North America if Japan goes polar express, and it is still quicker for Japan to go thru India and Cauc.  India and/or Aus still could fall on J2 and two of Wake/Mid/Hi still could go by J3.

You could probably end up giving China 3,4,5+ inf and it won’t help with balance (assuming you think the Axis have the Adv.).  At best it might keep Japan at 60 instead or say 65, or might take 1-2 extra turns to punch through.  Big deal, since Germany is the primary threat to Russia.

In order for China to matter they’d need to be a threat to Japan and with current rules they aren’t and it probably wouldn’t matter how many inf you add.  Now if they argument is for a playable China (or full power status like Italy) that is a different argument and a different thread.

Well, enough infantry on China will make a difference.  I agree that even 5 inf on China is not as strategically significant as 1 unit each to Egypt and Karelia…but I’m thinking the bid could be as high as 6 extra Chinese.  Once you get to 5-6 it won’t be so easy for Japan to steamroll China.

I tend to agree–China is the most logical place for bid units.  Making China the default place would liven up the game IMO…making land based KJF strats more logical.

China’s weakness is the most unbalanced aspect of AA:41…  a China bid fixes the problem.

I think 1) the introduction of artillery and 2) tanks becoming a better buy due to improved defense….these things make Revised a far far better game than Classic.  Defense is still slightly stronger but offensive tactics make more sense.

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

Well Italy won’t be able to get infantry to its ships (unless it comes through Cauc) so yes leaving the Med will eventually render it useless.

I think the statement “Axis are at a disadvantage if the game is played without NOs” is pretty self-evident.  In any game between decent players Axis will always get more cash from NOs.  The set-up w/o NOs screams easy KGF–NOs are there to fix the problem.