[G1940] 1943 Announcement–looking for playtesters and comments

[Charles de Gaulle]

Now that my team–well, first of all, let’s be fair and tell you who this “team” is that I always talk about.  The real brains behind most of my larger projects–like 1939, 20 power edition, neutral addons, etc.–are these five people: my best friend David, Erich “LaBeau”, Ms. Christine, my lil’ brother, and my old man.  The playtesters are countless and even include many of you here.  I would like to thank these people for their work and willingness to volunteer for yet another crazy project of mine.  However, for the 1943 setup my team is working on, I want to get as much imput from the rest of the A&A community too.

The goal is simple: make an alternate setup for 1940 Second Edition with no house rules other than turn order, starting units, and land control.  The start date will be approximately March of 1943.  Although I want to optumize this project for Global, the setup must also be playable on the theater level.  We have already played several test games of both Europe and Pacific alone, but the setup is so buggy and I have so many questions that I do not want to release a full-fledged setup just yet.  First, let’s focus on world affairs:

The proposed turn order is as follows:
United States:
United Kingdom:
Germany:
Soviet Union:
France:
Japan:
China:
ANZAC:
Italy:

Germany will control all of France, Greece, Crete, Bulgaria, Finland, Vyborg, Eastern Poland, Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia.  Should they also control Rostov, Bryansk, Smolensk, and maybe even Karelia?

Japan will control all Asian Dutch territories, Wake, Guam, New Britain, Philippines, all of Southeast Asia, and the Chinese coast.  The proposed inland territories for Japan to control in China are Chahar, Anhwe, and Kweichow.  This is a strange front line, but it seems to represent the historical situation best.  The Gilberts and Solomons (most) should be liberated by now, correct?  The Marshalls should still be Japanese, right?

The Allies will of course control Italian East Africa, Libya, the Middle East, Brazil, and all French colonies except Tunisia, which goes to Italy along with Yugoslavia.

The number of starting forces will be greater than standard 1940 but not as severe as Oztea’s setups.  Many factories and facilities will be added (all originals are still there) and damage will be applied to some places.  Here is how turn one should go:
The U.S. will crush Tunisia and have the opportunity to land elsewhere in the Mediterranean with risk.  Western Europe will be highly defended.  In the Pacific, the U.S. will have the opportunity to attack the Japanese.  Both Axis and Allied fleets will be scattered to allow for attack and counterattack.
The UK will support the U.S. in the Mediterranean and take Burma and possibly something else in Asia with risk.
Germany will have the chance to make Kursk a fight in their favor and really put pressure on Russia.
Russia will be in a hard situation, but should be able to counterattack any risky German invasions and hold Leningrad turn one.
France will have considerable Free French forces scattered around to represent their growth.
Japan will have to react to American moves and will have the opportunity to counterattack anything risky the Allies have done while pushing hard into China.
China will be stronger with some artillery but will face large Japanese forces in the East and South and maybe a factory in Manchuria or Kiangsu.
ANZAC will need to do what it can to get its northern defense perimeter back.
Italy will be in a highly defensive position but with a small fleet and some presence on the Eastern Front.

Feedback is appreciated.

[CWO Marc]

I’m having some trouble understanding the general concept behind this proposal, from the point of view of the very broad outlines of WWII.  Specifically, there are two things regarding your proposed starting date of March 1943 that I’m wondering about:

• March 1943 is just one month after two major Allied victories: Stalingrad (on the European side) and Guadalcanal (on the Pacific side).  The date could be described as “the start of the second half of the middle third of the war”, by which point the major Axis advances were over, the Allies were beginning to push back with significant effect, and the Allied buildup of weapons was beginning to translate into appreciable battlefield advantages.  In other words, this is a point in the war when things are becoming seriously disadvantageous for the Axis, and thus a state of affairs which should translate in A&A into an unbalanced situation which favours the Allies over the Axis.  Is your proposal meant to create an unbalanced situation of this type?  The traditional mid-1942 starting date in many of the versions of A&A was probably chosen by the designers because it’s arguably the historical point where the two sides are the most evenly matched; by March 1943, however, that wasn’t the cases.

• You describe your proposal as “an alternate setup for 1940 Second Edition with no house rules other than turn order, starting units, and land control.”  I’m wondering if that’s potentially a bit confusing.  Creating a setup that accurately reflects the situation in March 1943 would be an alternate setup for the 1940 Second Edition map, but not for the 1940 Second Edition scenario; that particular scenario is based on some major assumptions (such as France not having fallen yet, or the USSR and Japan and the US not yet being at war) which were true in May 1940 but which were ancient history by March 1943.  I suppose that in one sense a March 1943 setup could be describable as something which doesn’t involve house rules as such, but on the other hand it should be noted that some sections of the OOB rules would have to be ignored in such a setup because they refer to situations that no longer exist by the midpoint of WWII.

[Narvik]

@CWO:

… this is a point in the war when things are becoming seriously disadvantageous for the Axis, and thus a state of affairs which should translate in A&A into an unbalanced situation which favours the Allies over the Axis.Â

Maybe he is sick and tired of the Axis winning all games ?

[General 6 Stars]

@Narvik:

@CWO:

… this is a point in the war when things are becoming seriously disadvantageous for the Axis, and thus a state of affairs which should translate in A&A into an unbalanced situation which favours the Allies over the Axis.�

Maybe he is sick and tired of the Axis winning all games ?

Could be very true. Maybe hes lacking the color blue on the map ?
Always seeing to much black and grey !

[Imperious Leader]

Maybe he is sick and tired of the Axis winning all games ?

:-D :-D :-D

[Charles de Gaulle]

Marc, did I ever mention that you have a special talent to take anything I say and find logical fault in it? Lol

This alternate setup is suppossed to be just like Larry’s 1942: a new way to play the same game.  Was Axis and Allies ever set along historical guidelines as far as balance goes?  No.  Just take a look at China in any edition.

No one intends to make this setup biased towards the Allies.  I can see an issue with a 1944 or 1945 setup because of the IPC swing, but it will be easy to create a fair 1943 without something looking bizarre.

But as for front lines and positions of starting forces, of course we want to make this historical.  That’s why I wanted to get your opinions on the control of the map.  Which Chinese territories should Japan control?  Some of the ambiguity of territories causes many good arguments.

I am playtesting a Pacific 1943 setup right now, and if it is good enough, I will release it for anybody willing to playtest it.

[Charles de Gaulle]

}Pacific 1943 1.5

All Allied powers are at war with Japan.  Anything not specified here is the same as 1940 Second Edition.

New Turn Order and Starting IPCs in Hand/Income:
United States: 15
United Kingdom: 4
Japan: 56
China: 9
ANZAC: 10

New Setup:

United States:
Western United States: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Alaska: 1 infantry
Midway: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 tactical bomber, air base
Hawaiian Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base
Gilbert Islands: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Solomon Islands: 1 infantry
New Guinea: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
India: 1 infantry, 1 strategic bomber
Sea Zone 10: 2 submarines, 1 transport, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 26: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
Sea Zone 48: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine
Sea Zone 49: 1 submarine, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter)

United Kingdom:
India: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Sea Zone 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)

Japan:
Japan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Korea: 2 infantry
Manchuria: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, control marker
Jehol: 2 infantry, control marker
Chahar: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Shantung; 2 infantry, control marker
Kiangsu: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber, naval base, control marker
Anhwe: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kweichow: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kiangsi: 1 infantry, control marker
Kwangtung: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, control marker
Kwangsi: 1 infantry, control marker
French Indo-China: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 fighter, control marker
Siam: 1 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry, control marker
Burma: 2 infantry, control marker
Malaya: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, control marker
Sumatra: 1 infantry, control marker
Java: 1 infantry, control marker
Borneo: 1 infantry, control marker
Celebes: 1 infantry, control marker
Philippines: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, air base, naval base, control marker
Palau Island: 1 infantry
Dutch New Guinea: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, control marker
New Britain: 1 infantry, control marker
Caroline Islands: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, control marker
Marshall Islands: 1 infantry, air base
Wake Island: air base, control marker
Iwo Jima: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Marianas: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, naval base
Guam: air base, control marker
Okinawa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter, air base
Sea Zone 6: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
Sea Zone 19: 1 transport
Sea Zone 20: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 37: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 35: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 22: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 33: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 47: 1 submarine

China:
Hunan: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Yunnan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery
Szechwan: 6 infantry, 3 artillery, 1 fighter
Sikang: 2 infantry
Tsinghai: 1 infantry
Shensi: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Hopei: 2 infantry
Suiyuan: 4 infantry
Kansu: 2 infantry

ANZAC:
New South Wales: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, minor industrial complex
New Zealand: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base
Northern Territory: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Western Australia: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
New Guinea: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, naval base
Sea Zone 62: 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 63: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 54: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 46: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 56: 1 submarine

[CWO Marc]

@Charles:

But as for front lines and positions of starting forces, of course we want to make this historical.  That’s why I wanted to get your opinions on the control of the map.  Which Chinese territories should Japan control?  Some of the ambiguity of territories causes many good arguments.

China in Global 1940 is definitely a tough nut to crack when it comes to depicting accurately China’s real-life terriorial situation during WWII, or rather during the whole period of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945.  There are several reasons for these difficulties, some of which arise from the G40 map itself and some of which arise from complications of the actual war.  The main problem with the G40 map is that China suffers from severe east-to-west compression relative to its north-to-south height, so any unit set-up system that’s used (no matter how accurate it tries to be) is going to be an oversimplification at best.

As for the actual war, Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory actually took three different forms, only one of which can be replicated on the G40 map.  The G40 map divides China into large blocks of territory, and the game uses an all-or-nothing system for which power controls a given block of terrain; that’s fine for the “blocks” of China (like Manchuria) that Japan controlled in their entirely and which are roughly analoguous to the game’s map territories, but it doesn’t reflect the two other types of Japanese occupation.  Along the coast of southern China, there were areas where China controlled only the ports; some parts of the coastline, and of the interior lands adjoining them, were unoccupied, because Japan’s only concern was to seal off China from supply by sea.  And in the central parts of China, beyond the areas where Japan solidly controlled everything, Japan’s occupation looked somewhat like a fisherman’s net: Japan controlled the cities and towns and the railway lines connecting them (the rope part of the meshing), but not the checkerboard of areas in between the ropes.

If you look at the Wikipedia article “Timeline of World War II (1943)”, there’s a map about halfway down the page called “The state of the Allies and Axis powers in July 1943”.  It expands if you click on it, though it’s not terribly detailed; however, it’ll give you a rough idea of which parts of China were under solid Japanese control soon after your planned March 1943 start date, which ones were under Nationalist control, and – as a bonus – where the Chinese Communists had their foothold.

[Charles de Gaulle]

That map was very helpful.  Thanks.

[Witt]

I have done my own 43 version and did Bot want it to be balanced , as Marc says, the Allies were now  in the ascendency. The problem
With Global is that Japan starts with all those territories and it’s NO fir the DEI. I think this is wrong. I balanced this , by placing Subs off all four of the islands and also off Malaya. Like you, I then only gave them 50 income (assuming max convoy damage).
I would change your Naval units too. The main thing would be to ensure that the US has one more Carrier than Japan. Then I would eliminate all buy one of its TTs and out that one in SZ6. I would also only give Japan two DDs, to make the elimination of those convoying Subs impossible . Anzac should not have a Battleship.
I am not sure why you only give the US 15 IPCs. That won’t help it master the Pacific.
I wish you luck with your mods.

[Charles de Gaulle]

I reiterate that this is supposed to be a new way to play the same game and not a simulation of history.  Balance and historical borders are key.

You did have some good points Wittman:
Japan has a singinificant income at start.  This is countered by the American NO bonus that kicks in and the ability of the other Allies to assault the DEI.
Eliminating the transports will allow the Allies to claim the DEI and hold them.  This usually spells disaster for Japan and therefore cannot be accepted for a balanced game.
Even though Japan has two aircraft carriers and the U.S. only has two, the U.S. can knock out a Japanese carrier on turn one.  Additionally, the UK gets one.
Two of the eight Japanese destroyers and the ANZAC battleship were removed after recommendation to my team.  Thank you for the suggestion.
The U.S. does not start with its NO bonus because no A&A game does it that way.  We want to keep this variant true to the original in as many aspects as possible.

The setup has been updated to version 1.3.  Feedback is appreciated.

[Argothair]

I’m with CWO Marc here – I think at the point where you are trying to run a balanced March 1943 scenario, you’re not talking about a few minor revisions to history for game balance; you’re talking about totally re-writing history. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll have to be bolder about your edits.

It’s a little hard for me to read your scenario setup from a wall of text; a graphic or illustration of some kind would be helpful. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made in interpreting your scenario. That said, the problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that there is no credible Axis path to victory. The Axis have to simply wait around and hope the Allies make a mistake. Maybe the Germans can press on to Moscow and get lucky there, but they have no time to build up additional reserves, no way to wear down the Russian economy, and no ability to threaten London, so there aren’t really any strategic choices to be made – just march every man east to Moscow, and hope you get lucky. Similarly, Japan is earning much less than the USA, is not in position to do devastating damage to the US Navy, and is not in position to capture enough of China, Siberia, or ANZAC in time to achieve parity against the US. They can fight over the Dutch East Indies but not hold them, which means that’s a losing strategy for Japan, because it will cost them more in lost transports and destroyers than they earn by holding the islands. Maybe Japan can get lucky against India, but, again, Japan has no real options in this scenario – they have to just send every man west and hope they roll well.

So, if you want a balanced March 1943 scenario, consider some or all of the following changes:

• Germany controls and can hold Leningrad

• German battles in Stalingrad were inconclusive; Germany still has significant forces in Rostov and Caucasus

• Britain lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, resulting in Italian control of Alexandria and Cairo; British forces are defending in Sudan and Trans-Jordan

• Italian navy was warned of the Taranto raid, and so more Italian navy survives, maintaining local naval superiority for now in the central Med

• America was slow to recover from Kasserine Pass, and holds Morocco but not Algeria

• Japan won a bloody victory at the battle of Midway, and so Japan currently has four carriers to America’s two, as well as control of Midway, Wake, and the Aleutian islands

• Japan won the battle of Guadalcanal, and so Japan currently has control of the Solomon Islands and both territories in New Guinea

The goal of these changes would be to give the Axis additional (any?) strategic options so that the Axis have multiple credible long-term paths to victory and feel like they are somewhat in control of their destiny, instead of just serving as a punching bag for the incoming Allied invasions. I like the idea of a balanced 1943 scenario very much, but you’re not going to get there by starting with historical 1943 borders and tweaking the unit counts a bit. Contrary to popular belief, the war was lost for the Axis by March 1943; after the Axis failed to knock any of their opponents out of the war and the Allies secured naval lines of supply to France, Africa, and Indonesia, an Axis defeat was just a matter of time. This dynamic, unfortunately, will be well-captured by OOB A&A rules, and will result in your Axis side getting defeated 19 out of 20 games unless you make drastic edits.