Clear Axis Advantage

[BSWEN]

After many games in the platinum league, its clear to me that the Axis have way to big of an advantage right out of the gate against Russia. I believe that the Gen Con rules have fixed most of the issues in the Atlantic but Russia is far to weak. This is corroborated during tournaments which always have "bids" giving the Aliies up to 20+ starting IPC's because of the disadvantage. The two major problems i see are:

1) India UK are unable to do anything other then build three defensive units all game and trade Burma back and forth due to the large starting navy of Japan and Japans starting sea zones being so large that they can strike up and down the coast without having to commit anything. India units move out and its immediate death to India in the hands of a good Axis player. SLIGHTLY weakening the Japanese navy in the indian and/or pacific would force japan to build a few boats giving the UK some space and a chance at survival if the US invest in the Pacific to help.

2) biggest problem by far is that Russia doesn't not have enough starting troops to hold off a solid Axis player for more than a few rounds. I propose to add more starting infantry units in Russia zones other than zones that can directly affect Germany on Turn 1. These are reinforcement infantry and will help Russia hold onto a few more territories for a a few additional turns which will help balance the starting game. Russia will still be wiped out by Germany if the allies don't help.

For the Devs. please post the win/loss percentage in the Platinum division for the Axis and Allies. i believe it will be revealing..

[nicewolf64]

can someone explain what bidding is?

[MisterG]

FWIW, I have completed 99 ranked games, 90 as Allies and I am really not seeing it as significantly imbalanced in practical terms, even if some stats suggest that there is a slight Axis advantage even under the Larry Harris 3.0 setup... there are a lot of variables besides the initial board state that could affect those stats, including the fact that the most effective Allied strategies and tactics are less intuitive than Axis play. I can't recall a game I lost as Allies or won as Axis where I could not point to either a particularly unusual swing of the dice or a particularly significant decision (usually in combination) would have been far more important to the outcome.

- There's no question that the Axis have a better starting position from a military posture perspective, while the Allies have an economic advantage and take more time to realign and build up combat power... That is the way the game is designed, so as to reflect the rhythms, though not the exact details, of the actual war. Most importantly, in an artificiality of the game, the UK and US are likely to see their navies take disproportionately crippling losses on round 1 because they are spread out and the Axis get to control the first turn's naval battles--and support them with land-based air--due to turn order... while the US has few opportunities to get into the fight on round 1, which is definitely reflective of history. That said, by the time round one is over, whatever slight Axis advantage there may be, even with the Larry Harris 3.0 initial set up, would be rendered moot by the initial die roll variation even presuming "optimal" play. Just one statistically abnormal miss or hit can change the contours of the G1 battle of the Atlantic dramatically, especially if the Germans are conducting a series of higher-risk attacks.

- For ranked play purposes, I think the current approach of having separate tiers for Axis and for Allies is an elegant and simple solution to any question on whether one side or the other has the advantage.

- My suggestion is that I'd rather see the Beamdog team focus on fixing bugs and maximizing the ease of use of the interface and the clarity of the displays so that one can play a turn without having to double-check everything to be sure you didn't accidentally leave a transport behind, etc. If truly necessary, questions of balancing and bidding strike me as something for Beamdog to focus on after everything else is truly perfect.

- That said, if there is a decision to change the initial board state to tilt more toward the Allies, my vote would not be to mess around with the complexities of bidding and to just add an infantry (or two) in Caucasus for the Russians, so that the Ukraine attack isn't such a make-or-break. I haven't run this in AA Calc, but I bet it tilts the outcome enough that it would reduce the prospects for a really bad first turn for the Allies, which usually involves a Ukraine debacle. With the starting board as it is now, it is hard for the Allies overall if they don't do the Ukraine attack, but it is even harder for the Russians specifically if it fails badly... or even if it ends up being a very costly victory, such as they end up say, losing all the ground units and a fighter. (This happened to me in a game I am playing now, leading me to consider resigning, but I Russia is hanging in there well on turn 5 anyway and I am winning elsewhere, so it was recoverable.) Another infantry or two for cannon fodder would make that attack much less risky for Russia, and thus more effectively ensures the Axis can be taken down a peg at acceptable cost before Germany even gets its first move, effectively canceling out any Axis advantage in a game between players of similar skill.

[GreaT_Cornholio]

Originally posted by aardvarkpepper:

Originally posted by ThunderKat:

to me this is pretty fair cause how would it ever be literally 50/50?

with bids

there is a lot to this though. what were the dice like, players? just because there in plat doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes etc.

[Sevaekor]

Trade Burma back and forth,.. HA! What a joke.

Nothing can stop the mighty Japanese Empire from taking India by turn 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cawCF_4rMI&t=2s



Well, okay maybe the 3.0 revision has a small chance at stopping the Japanese Empire,. BUT INDIA WILL FALL!

[GreaT_Cornholio]

yea it is vs the AI so....

[Sevaekor]

Originally posted by ThunderKat:

yea it is vs the AI so....

Correct yes, to show the example I did it versus the AI.
I've never failed vs a player.

[BSWEN]

This game is an unbalanced mess

[nicewolf64]

Originally posted by Sevaekor:

Trade Burma back and forth,.. HA! What a joke.

Nothing can stop the mighty Japanese Empire from taking India by turn 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cawCF_4rMI&t=2s



Well, okay maybe the 3.0 revision has a small chance at stopping the Japanese Empire,. BUT INDIA WILL FALL!

against the AI, you can do it in 2. i've done it a dozen times. if the ai aliies play defense, then they cant hold india. then japan just cleans up the rest of the asian allied units after that.

[nicewolf64]

Originally posted by Mons:

This game is an unbalanced mess

the problem with these types of games are that they are based on an historical event, but then for game playing, its where the realism ends.

for instance, the distance from japan to burma is nearly twice as far as SF to the bering sea or, the mediterranean and yet the same number of territories. yet, you can get from japan to burma in a single turn by sea or air, but not from SF to soviet far east. new york to london is shorter but is 3 territories distant. which happens to be the game distance from honolulu to manila which is nearly 50% farther irl.

where are the BB/CA/CV of the US atlantic fleet? why cant planes fly over the sahara? why is the german CA not in norway? why can tanks blitz thru the jungles of SE Asia?

irl, the US had 10x the Japanese industrial power, yet in game, its nowhere near that. the us already had a huge fleet buildup underway at this point but that isnt reflected in the game.

in 1942, the brits had a single carrier in the indian ocean, whereas the ♥♥♥♥ had 6 fleet carriers and the us had 4, plus 3 in the atlantic. yet in game, the ♥♥♥♥ have 2 CV, the brits and americans each only have 1. the us even had 5 under construction at that point. based on fleet disposition, the game starts prior to the battle of the coral sea. even if you want to count the 4 light CV for the ♥♥♥♥ then you have to include the USS ranger too, giving 10 vs 8 vs 1. how many CV did the brits have in the atlantic?

the whole naval/air fighting is silly. navies and planes didnt target the smallest ships 1st. actual military chatter never heard at Midway: " wow, there's the whole ♥♥♥ fleet...OK, boys, go sink those destroyers.". fighters and bombers against land units should be more like naval bombardment. there's little chance a fighter squadron holds off inf and armor divisions all by itself, irl. why do AA guns only get to fire once but planes can attack round after round?

[GreaT_Cornholio]

Originally posted by nicewolf64:

why do AA guns only get to fire once but planes can attack round after round?

this is true it would be cool if they did go every turn

[Polar Bear Cavalry]

Originally posted by nicewolf64:

Originally posted by Mons:

This game is an unbalanced mess

the problem with these types of games are that they are based on an historical event, but then for game playing, its where the realism ends.

for instance, the distance from japan to burma is nearly twice as far as SF to the bering sea or, the mediterranean and yet the same number of territories. yet, you can get from japan to burma in a single turn by sea or air, but not from SF to soviet far east. new york to london is shorter but is 3 territories distant. which happens to be the game distance from honolulu to manila which is nearly 50% farther irl.

where are the BB/CA/CV of the US atlantic fleet? why cant planes fly over the sahara? why is the german CA not in norway? why can tanks blitz thru the jungles of SE Asia?

irl, the US had 10x the Japanese industrial power, yet in game, its nowhere near that. the us already had a huge fleet buildup underway at this point but that isnt reflected in the game.

in 1942, the brits had a single carrier in the indian ocean, whereas the ♥♥♥♥ had 6 fleet carriers and the us had 4, plus 3 in the atlantic. yet in game, the ♥♥♥♥ have 2 CV, the brits and americans each only have 1. the us even had 5 under construction at that point. based on fleet disposition, the game starts prior to the battle of the coral sea. even if you want to count the 4 light CV for the ♥♥♥♥ then you have to include the USS ranger too, giving 10 vs 8 vs 1. how many CV did the brits have in the atlantic?

the whole naval/air fighting is silly. navies and planes didnt target the smallest ships 1st. actual military chatter never heard at Midway: " wow, there's the whole ♥♥♥ fleet...OK, boys, go sink those destroyers.". fighters and bombers against land units should be more like naval bombardment. there's little chance a fighter squadron holds off inf and armor divisions all by itself, irl. why do AA guns only get to fire once but planes can attack round after round?

I agree with this in principle, but it deviates from what matters.

If we're talking win rates, the results still look jaded. The idea that a 2 man team is winning 55% of the time (after previously winning at 65% of the time) vs. a 3 man team (that is supposedly economically superior) lends to the idea that the opening deployment is in need of improvement. There will always be an element of chance, given that dice are involved, but the aforementioned results seem... wrong. And I don't think we need to break it down on a unit-by-unit basis to see that.

I'm 13-5 as the axis and 9-11 as the allies (though I'm in gold ladder for both for some reason... with my allies ranking 100 spots higher than my axis), with virtually every allied loss being a direct result of a failed attack on Ukraine in the first turn. That screams "INHERENT FLAW" to me. The defeats that follow are nothing more than a myriad of exchanges that just prolong the inevitable; if Ukraine isn't captured or (at worst) a push in the first turn, a savvy German player is likely going to make short work of you in Russia, rest assured. Some games last longer than others, but it doesn't change that you go to being the underdog awfully quickly if that opening hit doesn't work out. You just can't rally enough guys to throw dice after that sort of fail, let alone stack dice with good odds.

The same can't be said for other things, like the Americans being routed out of China or Hawaii, or the British failing to defeat the Japanese fleet at the East Indies (or succeed in making the Borneo dash), or what happens if Germany takes Egypt in a walk. Heck, the British get routed in the Atlantic in most games and can still be really effective elsewhere. But all of this simply boils down to both the British and the Americans being "island" nations as it pertains to their enemies, while Russia is pitted against a massive German army and no room to fail in the very first turn. Russia's situation actually makes me not want to play the allies, to be honest.

The handful of changes that may make it more "realistic" (IMHO):

- There either needs to be more territories or fewer attack units between Russia and Germany. Russia's overall strength was being able to sacrifice territory for the time required to mobilize. You can't do that in this game, because Germany spawns with an army (literally) on your doorstep. You can sacrifice territory, by all means... but it usually just shortens the time required by Germany to screw you, which is actually the opposite effect.

- Russia likely needs to start with more infantry (unless you're looking at changing the map a bit). You don't need to give them more attack strength, but they definitely need more manpower. Anything to help blunt the opening German offensive. And just like we've seen with the LH rules, even a handful of infantry can make a huge difference (see: India).

- Russian IPC values need to be recalculated. Japan has way too much of a roll to play in subduing Russia, and I've never been able to figure out why that is. Everything east of Siberia was of virtually no use in the war, strategically or militarily. There are very few cities there, not a lot of people, limited infrastructure, and few readily exploitable natural resources. Yet by the time Japan is knocking on Moscow's eastern door, they're earning as much as 9 IPC's from occupied Russian territories for their troubles. They'd be better off taking most of those IPC's and deploying them into a sea zone in the Atlantic worth 8-10 IPC's, call it the "lend-lease convoy zone", and make it so that German ships can deprive Russia of it, but never capture the IPC's for themselves. At least then Russia could have some economic viability in the face of superior military odds at the beginning. If the axis player truly wanted to squeeze Russia, they'd have to buy some ships with Germany and not just count on unopposed Japanese land units to push from the other side of the world. You can have all of those territories in Russia for Japan to cross, but if they're all worthless it suddenly isn't as palatable to the Japanese (and much harder for the combined axis team to just focus Russia).

Just my $0.02.

[BSWEN]

Good post and I agree with what your saying. There doesn’t need to be huge changes. Just a few minor balance ones for the opening turns. I think the following would do wonders to balance the early game without changing much

+1 Russia troop in Caucas
+2 Russia troops in Novosibirsk
+2 Russia troops in evenly okrug

Replace Japan BB with Cruiser in Indian Ocean

Replace sub in Australia with a destroyer (no suprise strike against japan fleet in Indian Ocean)

Add a japan sub in China sea to compensate the disadvantage in the Indian Ocean.

Those are some Sumple changes and I bet tou would start seeing close to 50/50 win rates at the high level

[BSWEN]

I don’t see the need for additional changes in the Atlantic.

[nicewolf64]

another problem with the game is that russia greatly outproduced germany by 1943 iirc, yet in the game, there's no way to show that. russia is too handicapped in the game with Japan taking everything in the east and germany taking 2 of their 3 ICs. there should be a lot more eastern russian territories for the japanese to drive thru. like sais above, there's just no way for the russians to trade territories for time, because the game cheats them of both.

[O Lucky Day O]

Everyone should also remember that Axis and Allies has always been a general audience board game as first focus, and detailed historical strategy game a distant second (if at all).

Facts about how WWII played out are not really relevant as it relates to this game, other than starting position, territories, and unit design. And even those three points have had serious concessions and changes made for the sake of balance.