Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Axis & Allies 1941» Forums » General

Subject: This game seems like it'd be prone to long slog stalemates rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
wodan wodan
msg tools
Overall, based off what playthroughs I've seen and done, it seems almost inevitable that by Turns 4-6:
1. Germany takes out Russia.
2. Japan takes over most of East Asia
3. Britain starts harassment of European territories.
4. America gets a substantial fleet threatening Japan.
At this point, the game stops being fun and starts being a stalemate. Germany and Japan have no serious capacity to threaten the Allied capitols. America and Britain have no serious capacity to threaten the Axis capitols. However, protecting those capitols in turn means that other territories will constantly exchange hands. No matter what happens, its hard to see the game not ending up as a long slog that goes into the double digit turns unless one player does a reckless assault that either takes a capitol or costs them their military backbone.

I see two issues driving this:
1. Allied Eurasian forces are much weaker militarily, but are also defending territory that is much weaker economically, meaning that they are more likely to fall but less likely to provide a decisive advantage, given the costs of taking them. The British D-Day attacks inevitably suffer from similar problems.
2. The smaller map, low IPC supply, nonexistent artillery, and expensive tanks mean that infantry are again overwhelmingly dominant, which makes the win-condition capitols easy to defend but seizing map control hard.

Are others experiencing this as well? Thoughts?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We have only played twice, but both times the Soviet Union was crushed by turn 3 or 4.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wodan wodan
msg tools
I also miss the choices present in previous Axis and Allies games. In Anniversary, there were many angles you could take into Russia, and you could divert troops to take juicy Africa or bombers to harass the British. There were many creative options, and situations where every troop type is useful and useless.

Here, its basically:
1. Repulse early Russian attack. Build infantry.
2. Form up in West Russia to threaten both Moscow and Caucasus. Build infantry.
3. Take Caucasus after they bunker down in Moscow. Build infantry
4. Take Moscow. Build infantry.

Once Germany has taken Moscow, 18 out of the 19 IPC producing territories between the two nations are either in Berlin/Moscow or a turn's march away for infantry, meaning that Germany can just plonk 5-6 Infantry down a turn to hold the capitols and with air support capture the other territories indefinitely.

Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
We have only played twice, but both times the Soviet Union was crushed by turn 3 or 4.

The T4-T6 is if both sides play cautiously and don't take major risks. If either does so, than a T3 or T4 capture seems probable.

What happened in those games after the Soviet Union fell?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice to see you're back Wodan. Haven't seen you post in a while.

You need to remeber that this game is not aimed at A&A veterans like yourself. It is aimed at newbiew as a means to drag them into the A&A fold. If you didn't have years of experience, you probably wouldn't judge the game so harshly. Remember that the main things that keep new players from getting into A&A are:

1) Play time
2) Complexity
3) No catch-up mechanics like in many euros

The first two points have been solved my making the game as simple as it can possibly be. Obviously all the extra chrome (Art, mech inf. SBR...) in the larger games serves a good purpose, so you will miss it if you are used to playing with it. Just remember that the more stuff you add, the longer that play time and complexity.

I think veterans should appreciate what Larry Harris / WotC are trying to do with this game: Get new players into A&A. Seems like a win-win situation: Hasbro will make more money, and we will get more opponents. (You can like or dislike WotC, but you need to realize that there is a symbiosis going on)

Veterans could get some benefits from the game, but hardcore strategy analyses are probably not the main thing. Rather:
1) Easy to introduce to new players (wife, kids, etc.)
2) Casual games where you don't have 6 hours
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hayes
Canada
Niagara Falls
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An effective Allied strategy would be required to make the game enjoyable to veteran players. The Soviets are screwed at the outset but my big concern for new players is that strategy is not ingrained in them and that if they play the game and see that the Axis will win every time they will find little incentive to replay the game. It's very difficult at any rate. We found, when we played, granted only one game, that there was nothing that could be done as the Allies to stop the Axis from taking all of Eurasia, but that after that it was very hard to get the extra capitol. This might be a little more complicated than we all thought and it might just end up being a more advanced game that the creators envisioned.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
ozimek wrote:
Nice to see you're back Wodan. Haven't seen you post in a while.

You need to remeber that this game is not aimed at A&A veterans like yourself. It is aimed at newbiew as a means to drag them into the A&A fold. If you didn't have years of experience, you probably wouldn't judge the game so harshly. Remember that the main things that keep new players from getting into A&A are:

1) Play time
2) Complexity
3) No catch-up mechanics like in many euros

The first two points have been solved my making the game as simple as it can possibly be. Obviously all the extra chrome (Art, mech inf. SBR...) in the larger games serves a good purpose, so you will miss it if you are used to playing with it. Just remember that the more stuff you add, the longer that play time and complexity.

I think veterans should appreciate what Larry Harris / WotC are trying to do with this game: Get new players into A&A. Seems like a win-win situation: Hasbro will make more money, and we will get more opponents. (You can like or dislike WotC, but you need to realize that there is a symbiosis going on)

Veterans could get some benefits from the game, but hardcore strategy analyses are probably not the main thing. Rather:
1) Easy to introduce to new players (wife, kids, etc.)
2) Casual games where you don't have 6 hours


Although i agree with most of this, I still think the game should have been more balanced. An added US destroyer off the East Coast and 1 US infantry in Northern China would have gone a long way, I think in achieving this. Just the fact that it's meant for beginniners doesn't justify to me that it's very unbalanced out of the box. What's more, although I haven't continued playing afther Germany takes Moscow and has around 20 IPC's, it does look like, as the original poster says, that it will then become a stalemate. Germany can't really take London if the US aids Britain in its defense and US/Britain are having a hard time taking Berlin. If they should focus on japan, that might just open up the way for Germany to take London after all, but indeed by this time, the game has probably become boring. Hardly the adjective that will entice new players, I'd say. But certainly the game does have its merits, even for veteran players such as myself.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Most Holy wrote:
An effective Allied strategy would be required to make the game enjoyable to veteran players. The Soviets are screwed at the outset but my big concern for new players is that strategy is not ingrained in them and that if they play the game and see that the Axis will win every time they will find little incentive to replay the game. It's very difficult at any rate. We found, when we played, granted only one game, that there was nothing that could be done as the Allies to stop the Axis from taking all of Eurasia, but that after that it was very hard to get the extra capitol. This might be a little more complicated than we all thought and it might just end up being a more advanced game that the creators envisioned.


It should be more difficult to take Moscow (More spaces to cover for Japan) and either slightly more IPCs for Russia or a significantly larger starting force. The mere fact that just conquering Moscow isn't enough for the faster victory conditions of taking just 1 enemy capital, already tells you that it's as good as impossible to hold. In reality it never fell. Agreed, even had it been taken in real life, it's very questionable whether Russia would have outright surrendered, so as far as that's concerned it makes sense that just taking Moscow isn't enough, but the problem is that it will always be taken. In AA50, Europe and/or Global '40 games in which Moscow never falls are much more numerous than those in which it does. At least there Japan has a lot of ground to ciover, needs to up its IPC's, hence cannot completely ignore the Pacif Island IPCs and Germany, once its supporting infantry has been decimated needs to get new infantry to the frontlines which will give Russia some breathing space and rebuild its defences. Hold out long enough and the Allies will probably gain the upper hand. All of this sadly seems impossible in A&A 1941.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With the rant on complexity vs. playtime and accessability done, at the end of the day, the game obviously needs to be balanced.

The usual solution to balance problems in A&A is bidding for the side that is percieved to be stronger. Ie. the player who will accept the Allies (in this case) for the smallest amount of extra starting IPCs gets to play the Allies.

As long as the bids are in the realm of minor balance tweaks (like an extra tank in Egypt or so) they are a good solution. However with newbie players there are a couple of issues with bids:

1) They are most like not even aware of the mechanic
2) For the first couple of games it is really hard to know what a sensible bid is. (or even which side is stronger)
3) In an immature metagame strategies are likely to be suboptimal on either or both sides, which could lead to a seamingly more unbalanced game.

In other words experience is required to effectively utilize bids. Not a good thing in a game aimed at beginners.

If a clear pattern in bid sizes becomes apparant after the game has been on the market for some time, perhaps a general eratta/balance tweak is in order, but IMO it is too early to say at this point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I agree that it's probably too early. It might certainly be possible that there is a certain thing the Allies can do which WILL make it possible for them to win, but for the game to be truly enjoyable, it would be much better if there were various strategies both sides could emply that could yield them victory. In many of the other A&A games it IS possible for a competent player to hold Russia. In this one it would have to be accompanied by lousy play on the side of the Axis.

Personally I don't really like bidding. It is something that could well be used when you KNOW that one player is considerably weaker than the other, but when two players of equal skill face one another the game should be balanced out of the box (ignoring the possibility of outrageous die results, obviously), IMHO.

The original A&A Pacific also came with an official errata concerning the japanese set-up. If, granted, the initial impressions regarding A&A 1941 turn out to be correct, personally I'd prefer an officially revised set-up as suggested above. No rule tweeks would be necessary. These set up changes are indeed very minor. I guess i will try them out in my next game. As it's no official tournament setting or whatever, it will probably make the game more enjoyable for the casual player. So: SZ off Eastern US + +1 destroyer; Northern China: 1 INF. Possibly also 1 extra Russian infantry in Siberia.. Two extra infantry in total for the Allies and 1 extra destroyer. Very minor changes, but it would make the game more balanced probably.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave C.
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We only played it once so far but German U Boats ravaged the US Atlantic shipping almost immediately and then Japan put STRONG pressure on the USA west coast, invading Alaska and Western Canada. This forced the USA to concentrate on the Pacific and Japanese bombers made short work of their attempts to invade the home islands. Soviets invested in armor early and luckily held off the Germans repeated attacks. In the end it was Great Britain, using bombers in Europe, heavy use of the IC in India and troops from North Africa, who ended up taking Berlin and Tokyo, thus winning the game for the Allies.

We found it played fairly well for the first try, but I agree that an extra destoyer in the Atlantic for the US might have made it a bit more balanced at the start.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Long
United States
Tacoma
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Played our first game at this years Dragonflight Convention- the Axis won, but it could easily have gone the other way but for good dice results for the Axis in some key battles and some poor dice rolls for the Allies- a much different feel to this game then the typical A&A- quick results- dice luck makes a huge difference in this game!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wodan wodan
msg tools
ozimek wrote:
Nice to see you're back Wodan. Haven't seen you post in a while.

People remember my existence? Whoda thunk?

ozimek wrote:
You need to remeber that this game is not aimed at A&A veterans like yourself. It is aimed at newbiew as a means to drag them into the A&A fold. If you didn't have years of experience, you probably wouldn't judge the game so harshly. Remember that the main things that keep new players from getting into A&A are:

1) Play time
2) Complexity
3) No catch-up mechanics like in many euros

The first two points have been solved my making the game as simple as it can possibly be. Obviously all the extra chrome (Art, mech inf. SBR...) in the larger games serves a good purpose, so you will miss it if you are used to playing with it. Just remember that the more stuff you add, the longer that play time and complexity.

I think veterans should appreciate what Larry Harris / WotC are trying to do with this game: Get new players into A&A. Seems like a win-win situation: Hasbro will make more money, and we will get more opponents. (You can like or dislike WotC, but you need to realize that there is a symbiosis going on)

Veterans could get some benefits from the game, but hardcore strategy analyses are probably not the main thing. Rather:
1) Easy to introduce to new players (wife, kids, etc.)
2) Casual games where you don't have 6 hours

That is true. However, it doesn't excuse game balance issues such as "Russian Capitol falls, then game gets into stalemate where no one can take a win condition".

Also, if they are trying to make this simple, then why do they have 5 different sea units? Or bombers, which absent Strategic Bombing are useful mainly because of movement and anti-ship powers that make more sense for a fighter unit to have instead. The expensive and varied naval units feel really awkward in the otherwise bare-boned version of A&A.

Most Holy wrote:
An effective Allied strategy would be required to make the game enjoyable to veteran players. The Soviets are screwed at the outset but my big concern for new players is that strategy is not ingrained in them and that if they play the game and see that the Axis will win every time they will find little incentive to replay the game. It's very difficult at any rate. We found, when we played, granted only one game, that there was nothing that could be done as the Allies to stop the Axis from taking all of Eurasia, but that after that it was very hard to get the extra capitol. This might be a little more complicated than we all thought and it might just end up being a more advanced game that the creators envisioned.

boersma8 wrote:
It should be more difficult to take Moscow (More spaces to cover for Japan) and either slightly more IPCs for Russia or a significantly larger starting force. The mere fact that just conquering Moscow isn't enough for the faster victory conditions of taking just 1 enemy capital, already tells you that it's as good as impossible to hold. In reality it never fell. Agreed, even had it been taken in real life, it's very questionable whether Russia would have outright surrendered, so as far as that's concerned it makes sense that just taking Moscow isn't enough, but the problem is that it will always be taken. In AA50, Europe and/or Global '40 games in which Moscow never falls are much more numerous than those in which it does. At least there Japan has a lot of ground to ciover, needs to up its IPC's, hence cannot completely ignore the Pacif Island IPCs and Germany, once its supporting infantry has been decimated needs to get new infantry to the frontlines which will give Russia some breathing space and rebuild its defences. Hold out long enough and the Allies will probably gain the upper hand. All of this sadly seems impossible in A&A 1941.

Good to see I'm not alone in the "Soviet capitol falls, difficult for either side to achieve win condition thereafter".

ozimek wrote:
With the rant on complexity vs. playtime and accessability done, at the end of the day, the game obviously needs to be balanced.

The usual solution to balance problems in A&A is bidding for the side that is percieved to be stronger. Ie. the player who will accept the Allies (in this case) for the smallest amount of extra starting IPCs gets to play the Allies.

As long as the bids are in the realm of minor balance tweaks (like an extra tank in Egypt or so) they are a good solution. However with newbie players there are a couple of issues with bids:

1) They are most like not even aware of the mechanic
2) For the first couple of games it is really hard to know what a sensible bid is. (or even which side is stronger)
3) In an immature metagame strategies are likely to be suboptimal on either or both sides, which could lead to a seamingly more unbalanced game.

In other words experience is required to effectively utilize bids. Not a good thing in a game aimed at beginners.

If a clear pattern in bid sizes becomes apparant after the game has been on the market for some time, perhaps a general eratta/balance tweak is in order, but IMO it is too early to say at this point.

Bidding doesn't fix the issue, because the issue isn't "one side is too strong". The issue is "neither side is realistically capable of achieving their victory condition without going into 2 digit turns".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Cooper
United States
Albertson
New York
flag msg tools
Here is my effort to fix the game.

1. Set income of Urals to 2 and Siberia to 1

2. The Russians start with 10 IPC's.

3. Add industrial complexes to Sichuan and Southern Europe.

4. Building in captured in industrial complexes is prohibited

5. Capturing any capital gives immediate victory

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
RogerCooper wrote:
Here is my effort to fix the game.

1. Set income of Urals to 2 and Siberia to 1

2. The Russians start with 10 IPC's.

3. Add industrial complexes to Sichuan and Southern Europe.

4. Building in captured in industrial complexes is prohibited

5. Capturing any capital gives immediate victory



I like the 4th one and I also think raising the Russian income is a must. Since those values are not printed on the map, I think a good alternative might be to add some more Russian forces to the Russian starting set-up.

I don't think 5 is a good idea as russia will defintely fall sooner or later, even with these changes.

As suggested perviously, a US destroyer off the US coast will also help a lot (Means that the US can buy e.g. a battleship or carrier and will have somtehing resembling a fleet at the start of turn 2. Otherwise that'll at least be turn 3 and Moscow will practically have fallen by then in many cases.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ingram
msg tools
We played this twice yesterday at Dan Long's regular gaming session. The first time we played we were all new to it except for Dan.

In our first game Germany's first turn was disastrous due to horrible die rolls. Later, in turns two and three, Russia suffered disastrous die rolls (10 defending infantry rolls with zero hits on the defense of Moscow!). Moscow fell during turn three, with the US still not having sufficient fleet to pressure Germany at all.

In our second game with the same players on the same side, we conferred together to come up with the best possible options for Russia and the allies. Again, Moscow fell on turn 3 (though the allies did acquaint themselves much better in the second game).

In both our games, we came to the conclusion that this variant is far too vulnerable to skewed die rolls. With so few units on the board, a bad result that doesn't get a matching supremely good result later really cripples your effort.

My initial thoughts:

1. Wizards is doing what they did with D&D, making it so that you can play with 7 year olds. I don't want to play with 7 year olds! I agree with their position that they need to get new players into the game, but this game is grossly unbalanced. There is practically nothing that the allies can do to keep Moscow from falling on or before turn 4.
2. Kudos for the faster setup, and the faster play. But, reducing the number of units on the board without reducing the cost has made tanks and aircraft grossly overpowered.
3. The game seems to have been playtested either by A) people who think the Axis should win consistently or B) people who have no actual skill with the game at all.

In my opinion, several things need to be fixed to make the game close to even:

1. The US needs more income to fight a two-front war. Unit costs have not been reduced, but incomes have drastically. The US only has enough income to concentrate on one front. It's almost as if someone just made an arbitrary decision to reduce all incomes to 1/3 of their global levels!
2. Russia does not have sufficient income potential to replace her expected infantry losses each turn. Russia needs more income -- I like the idea of adding 2 IPCs of raw value to Russia, to allow her to produce at least three infantry per turn if she fights a good defensive war with counterattacks. This makes her stronger, but still doomed if the US and Britain cannot come to the rescue fast enough.
3. Add additional US forces (one infantry and a fighter, or three infantry) in China. This would keep China from being a rollover for Japan, and again by a smidge more time for Russia to be able to concentrate on Germany without worrying about the back door.
4. Add a US destroyer off the east coast. This would allow the US to pressure Germany one turn faster.

That's my two cents. Thanks to Dan for turning me onto these forums!

Jon
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ingram
msg tools
Following up again with a different mindset for the posting.

With the current game rules and setup, this is the strategy that I want to try next:

1. Britain abandons India early, moving forces from Africa into Caucausus to reinforce Russia and provide counterattack options.
2. Britain shows invasion on turn 1 while trying to deal with the submarine threat. UK first turn build here is a transport and an infantry for India UK. British fighter abandons India and lands in Caucausus for additional Russian defence. Britain basically abandons Australia and the Indian Ocean -- the expense of keeping them isn't warranted by the value.
3. The US abandons the Pacific completely, trying to save what fleet can be saved. If the Japanese do not attack Hawaii that force (I can't imagine this) all the Pacific fleet should head through the canal. If Japan does attack Hawaii, it may be necessary to sacrifice some air power and a battleship to cover the rest of the fleet's escape. US first turn build would be a destroyer here, to help with the sub problem in the Atlantic.

We did not get a chance to try this at all, but it also creates problems that would need to be addressed. However, at this point we're still looking at how to get Russia into turn 4 alive if Germany plays optimally.

Jon
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Cooper
United States
Albertson
New York
flag msg tools
To make the game work, Russia needs to be strong enough to survive. Once Russia falls, the best the Allies can achieve is a draw, which not interesting. So basically, we have to make Russia stronger. Making the US stronger helps a little, but Russia is the keeep
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wodan wodan
msg tools
jwingram wrote:
In both our games, we came to the conclusion that this variant is far too vulnerable to skewed die rolls. With so few units on the board, a bad result that doesn't get a matching supremely good result later really cripples your effort.

Have you tried low luck rules? However, to be frank, I view the still-high cost of ships combined with ridiculously low income to make even that inadequate.

I feel the game largely revolves around forcing cost effective exchanges given the low value of territory and low number of territories. For example, Germany can pick off a British Carrier, Battleship, and Fighter worth a total of 38 IPCs for loss that's usually of around 1 Sub and 1 Fighter worth 16 IPCs on the first turn before Britain can even respond. At this point, Britain is down 2.5 turns worth of income in ships and it will take them multiple turns before they have a fleet that can threaten to land troops. By the time they have, Germany has already crushed Russia, because the low incomes limits the time that Russia can stall.

jwingram wrote:
1. Wizards is doing what they did with D&D, making it so that you can play with 7 year olds. I don't want to play with 7 year olds! I agree with their position that they need to get new players into the game, but this game is grossly unbalanced. There is practically nothing that the allies can do to keep Moscow from falling on or before turn 4.

The problem is that it takes a complicated game with many goals and makes it basically "who wins the Eastern Front", but because of alterations to income, the answer is "Germany wins, then stalemate ensues".

In comparison, take Italy in AA50, a faction that doesn't even appear in many variants. They have about six different goals they can focus on:
1. Conquer Africa.
2. Conquer Middle East.
3. Reinforce Western Europe.
4. Make 1-2 punch against Russia with Germany.
5. Obtain National Objectives.
6. Defend Italy.
Six different goals, many different ways to achieve it, yet the achievement or failure to achieve them is just one small factor in a much larger conflict.

jwingram wrote:
2. Kudos for the faster setup, and the faster play. But, reducing the number of units on the board without reducing the cost has made tanks and aircraft grossly overpowered.

Infantry are overpowered because of the small board size and low IPCs and increased Tank cost. However, you are right in that whoever has lots of Tanks/Fighters to start with can get more value out of their Infantry. Which is Germany. Who can also produce twice as many Infantry as Russia.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that a "simple" game having FIVE different naval units all of which cost at least half a turn's income or more for the average faction to be absurd?

jwingram wrote:
3. The game seems to have been playtested either by A) people who think the Axis should win consistently or B) people who have no actual skill with the game at all.

I must say that its the most broken one I've played.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
MILLINGTON
Tennessee
flag msg tools
The ironic and unintended consequences to this version of Axis is that each game will be like a chess game except with die rolls being so critical that one infantry unit or tank makes the difference between victory and defeat. What's also ironic is that, one must be a very experienced player to avoid simple mistakes that can easily cost one the entire game. Russia is the target of the Axis because as soon as it falls, they turn outward to the UK and US.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wodan wodan
msg tools
USMMA95 wrote:
The ironic and unintended consequences to this version of Axis is that each game will be like a chess game except with die rolls being so critical that one infantry unit or tank makes the difference between victory and defeat. What's also ironic is that, one must be a very experienced player to avoid simple mistakes that can easily cost one the entire game. Russia is the target of the Axis because as soon as it falls, they turn outward to the UK and US.

Speaking of Chess, I've been analyzing the probable outcomes of various Turn 1 actions of Russia and Germany under Low Luck rules.

Excluding the 2 Infantry in Western Europe and the 1 Tank in North Africa, Germany has little trouble moving its entire starting force into Moscow by Turn 3, while using the 4 Infantry a turn it gets as reinforcements. Russia can move all its guys to Moscow by then as well. That leaves the starting forces as follows:
[Russia=24 Attack, 40 Defense, 18 HP][Germany=45 Attack, 62 Defense, 26 HP]

Here are the outcomes by the end of T1 for various Russian gambits, including end of turn production and the German counterattack:
Strategy 1: Russia takes Finland and West Russia
[Russia=10 Attack, 15 Defense 8 HP][Germany=29 Attack, 30 Defense, 10 HP]

Strategy 2: Russia takes West Russia and Ukraine
[Russia=11 Attack, 17 Defense, 7 HP][Germany=30 Attack, 38 Defense, 15 HP]

Strategy 3: Russia sends everything at West Russia
[Russia=8 Attack, 14 Defense, 6 HP][Germany=29 Attack, 36 Defense, 14 HP]

The apparent advantage of Strategy 1 is offset by it marooning 2 Infantry in Finland, and by Germany only needing to commit 1 of its Fighters to the counterattack rather than all, meaning Germany gets to sink most of the British fleet as well. Not that the British fleet will matter much, seeing as the 5 Infantry from Germany and Southern Europe and the Tank from Western Europe reach Eastern Europe on T1, and are already in West Russia by T2 before the British transports can threaten them.

To be frank, the only way I can see Russia holding off a T3 assault on Moscow is if Britain and America dump fighters there, but that uncoordinated force can't stop Germany from taking the rest of Russia/Africa and drains resources need to stop Japan from taking East Asia and Oceania, which renders things hopeless anyways.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So does it appear that giving the Allies "re-roll" tokens as discussed in various threads, or giving the Russian extra initial IPCs might be enough to give the Russian a fighting chance to survive and resolve the worst balance issue?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wodan wodan
msg tools
mcszarka wrote:
So does it appear that giving the Allies "re-roll" tokens as discussed in various threads, or giving the Russian extra initial IPCs might be enough to give the Russian a fighting chance to survive and resolve the worst balance issue?

The core problem is that Germany defeating Russia results in a stalemate rather than an Axis win. Making Russia tougher such that it fends off Germany 50% of the time simply changes "100% chance of stalemate" to "50% chance of stalemate, 50% chance of Axis losing", which fixes nothing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Johnson
United States
Seguin
TX
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wodan46 wrote:
mcszarka wrote:
So does it appear that giving the Allies "re-roll" tokens as discussed in various threads, or giving the Russian extra initial IPCs might be enough to give the Russian a fighting chance to survive and resolve the worst balance issue?

The core problem is that Germany defeating Russia results in a stalemate rather than an Axis win. Making Russia tougher such that it fends off Germany 50% of the time simply changes "100% chance of stalemate" to "50% chance of stalemate, 50% chance of Axis losing", which fixes nothing.


A stalemate is equal to an Axis victory. Ultimately, the USA would tire of the war, leave the UK and pacific islands heavily reinforced and basically go home. If Hitler succeeded wit his New York bomber or missile, the US would respond with atomic bombs. More likely Hitler would be replaced with a more reasonable government that would create an uneasy peace. A different cold war would start a few years earlier.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.