Balance Issues?

If you're looking for a quick or introductory game of Axis & Allies this is the one. It also has a very special collection of never before seen plastic units.
Just to mention a few: German Tiger tank, Russian IS2 tank, US P40 Warhawk, German FW-190 Folkwolf, Japanese Kongo class battleship and the HMS Hood, and oh yeah... the German He-111 Heinkel bomber.
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:42 pm

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by KimRYoung » Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:00 pm

I'm not sure what the problem is here. They're not allowed to attack territories that are controlled by each other, not those that contain each others' units. If there are Soviet units in China or India, Japan can attack them as long as the territory is not controlled by the USSR.
The problem is it looks strange to have Japan and Russia actually at war with each other say in China, yet would honor a Non Aggression pact to not attack across the Siberian/Manchurian border.

The other issue was which actually occurred was the US striking the Japanese fleet with bombers, landing in Siberia and then not allow the Japanese ground forces in Manchuria the ability to retaliate.

If that is your intention, then so be it, but it sure doesn't look right.


Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:06 pm

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by cebrickey » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:19 pm

If the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact is in effect, should it not be the case that American and British units are prohibited from starting or finishing an attack on Japanese units from a Soviet territory?

User avatar
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by questioneer » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:11 am

Interesting discussion. I have only played 1941 once so I cannot really suggest, that being said, I do like the changes as Axis easily won our only game. First impressions were that Axis was too strong. I mean Japanse ftrs could make it to Moscow in one turn!!! So I think IMHO, the changes are helpful.

Krieghund, are there discussions about balance with 1942 (2nd ed) and G40 (2nd Ed)??? Both seems to favor the Axis also.

1942 (2nd ed)- several are saying Allies have no chance- bids of 9-12 are made to balance.

G40 (2nd ed)- this has taken awhile as this game is long so it takes a while to get good data but many are also saying Axis is stronger and that a Russian bomber, extra Brit inf in Egypt and also a Brit SS in the Med would help the Allies. I've seen Bids go 6IPS+ WITH the Russian bomber indluded!

Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:20 am

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by QuakerGeneral » Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:01 am

I wanted to add my data to the discussion. I would take it with a grain of salt because our games are played double blind and with a mixture of experience among players. That said, we have played the setup out of the box for 1941, and the Allies have won more often than the Axis. I do happen to believe that the Allies have won most of the time because of a combination of poor Axis play and good luck. My impression, which is not data driven, is that the Axis should win given evenly matched players and average dice rolls. However, I don't think an Axis victory is inevitable in the game even with OOB steup. I think Larry's suggested setup changes are good ones and should be included in any subsequent editions of the game, but I think the game as it exists now works more or less as intended, a good game for beginning players and a good short game of Axis & Allies. The last game we played was a smashing Axis victory, so I think I will now be able to introduce Larry's setup changes. Prior to this, the string of Allied victories made the changes seem strange to my players.

Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by oztea » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:28 am

Played a game this past weekend, axis dominated OOB.

We did play with my 1942 units though and the game group decided to add AA guns and artillery to the game, not that it even came up because Russia bought one artillery the whole game and still lost.

3 infantry might be too many for Russia, and the non aggression pact feels wrong, in such a simple game to limit Japan so strictly.
The NAP might be better, and more simple if it allowed Russia to place three infantry in any territory japan attacks, the first time it is attacked.

At least that way japan can do something to Russia if the situation gets desperate without such a restrictive rule.

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:02 am

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by dr441 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:27 am

I played with my son (13) for the first time a few days ago. We hadn't played Axis and Allies in a about 4 years of years (game length), so I decided to try this out so we could get a game in the "style" of Axis and Allies.

I hadn't read any post here before we played.

No real problem with the rules. It had been awhile since we played, so I had to read the rules to get a refresher for the system, and learn the unique rules for 1941.

The starting IPC's for the US were a problem. We went with 17 IPC's.

We accidentally gave Russia 2 more infantry. My son (Allies) built 2 infantry first turn. Since I hadn't played in awhile, he put them right on the board before combat, and not at the end of the turn. By the end of the Russian turn, I realized our mistake, but we just let it go.

I took Russia quickly. I spread with a couple of tanks down to Africa and India (only South Africa wasn't taken). I tried to invade England twice. He had tried to attack Western Europe twice (once with England and once with US), and he was weakened, so I thought I had him. He was able to stomp out my invasion twice (down to a couple of dice rolls both times). The game then turned. He invaded Western Europe, and was then able to invade Germany. He took like 22 IPC's when he captured Berlin, and then it was all over. He took everything back.

In the East, when Germany squandered against England, I really pushed Japan. I was able to take Hawaii, and I even tried an invasion on the West US. But soon, all his US units were built to West US, and he started moving some through the Panama Canal. He then took Japan in a long battle with a bunch of planes and infantry I built up for defense.

Because of the huge turnaround, it took about 4 hours to play. Longer than what many have posted.

I think the 3 Infantry in Russia, 1 US ship, 1 US Infantry in China is fine. We'll play it that way next time.

I would hate the Russian-Japan Non-agression rules. It would make the game more complicated than its mission, and take away a lovable tactic you can use in Axis and Allies games to try alternate histories.
Last edited by dr441 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by Krieghund » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:03 pm

Welcome, dr441!

Yes, the starting US income should be 17.

Thanks for the feedback. We're glad you're enjoying the game!
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:02 am

Re: Balance Issues?

Post by dr441 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:16 am

Thank you for the welcome.

Played my second game last night with my son (him Allies, me Axis). We played with the 3 Inf in Russia, 1 US Inf in Northern China, and 1 US Destroyer.

He beat me pretty easily as the Allies.

He went for a purely defensive strategy in Russia after our first game. He only bought Infantry for most of his turns, and he didn't go on the offensive with Russia until the end.

I had two miserable assaults where I don't think I inflicted a single casualty while rolling all 5's and 6's. Combine that with his defensive strategy, and he had a pretty easy win.

I was never able to threaten England properly. I invaded Canada a couple of times through Alaska to give him something to worry about, but he just built a bunch of Infantry in the US, and then pushed me back into the sea both times.

He even blundered a couple times by leaving his Transports unguarded, and I would swoop in there with a Sub or Destroyer and take them out.

Final result was I never took a single Capital, even Moscow, and he took Berlin and Tokyo for the win.

Before I post again, we'll have to play the single Capital Victory condition so we can get some more plays in with the shorter play time. We'll play five more times before I post the results.

My overall feeling is the adjustments definitely made it easier for the Allies; more plays will see if it went too far the other way, or if it is about right.

I would still hate the Japan-Soviet Non-aggression pact. 1941 is supposed to be the easier version of 1942. Adding a rule that isn't even in 1942, takes away the whole point of 1941 being a simpler version of the game.
Krieghund wrote:Welcome, dr441!

Yes, the starting US income should be 17.

Thanks for the feedback. We're glad you're enjoying the game!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest