@Panther Thanks for the speedy answer… feels like a strategy that might make me unpopular but if it’s legitimate then I suppose it’s fair game.
Confirmed Details???
-
@Craig:
Here is a post from Boardgamegeek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782
The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.
…
- Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.
I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?SBRs go like this:
Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll. Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC. The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.
He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to. If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.
Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.
The choice is up to you. You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?
Craig
Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less. And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.
Well, if it makes it worse for you… the winners at GenCon say they dominated because US just shipped bombers to Germany… :x
I dunno, I might just try out Enhanced if this game isn’t balanced :-D until of course an AA50 Enhanced is made!
-
I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?
-
On IPC values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30 (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.
Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China infAllies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.
Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.
Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.
Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed. The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production. Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5. If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170. Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use. Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US. Have to give that some thought.
-
On IPC values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30 (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.
Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China infAllies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.
Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.
Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.
Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed. The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production. Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5. If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170. Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use. Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US. Have to give that some thought.
Good luck finding someone to play Axis.
-
He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.
-
I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?
That’s funny… you like the rule but don’t know the details :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
LMFAO!!!
yea thats kinda funny actually. :-D
-
@Imperious:
He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.
I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2? If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now. Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time. By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials? For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.
The game has to be heavily biased against the Allies for the Axis players to have a chance at winning. It has to have that or it will not sell. I fully understand that. That does not mean that I have to play it as given. I am not asking any of you to play with any of my modifications. I am just making sure that everyone is aware how much bias is built into the game.
As for students playing the game, I will discuss that with my co-teacher. Given the time that we have to work with, I am not sure if we will use A&A50 or not. If we do, the Italian player will definitely have the option of switching sides, without being conquered first, with his equipement being supplied by Lend-Lease. I will also need to thoroughly review the naval force relationships in the game. In both Classic and Revised, they are heavily biased against the US and the UK. Being a naval historian, I have never been thrilled with that.
-
I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?
Not at all. I wanted them to win WW1 actually because France started that war and because they won they got to label Germany the key nation that started the war.
I would like the war to contain the realistic elements that were possible, which allows for different outcomes because the war frankly was Germany to lose before 1942 and they just threw away their chances. The economics were enough in the early period to allow it to result in axis victory on all fronts and fortunately that didn’t happen, but History taught in this way is a failure to learn from if you can’t or wont be allowed to see how it could have been lost and if it was to be lost by students playing a simulation would learn alot more if allowed to see how it would have changed the world if the allies failed to stop the axis powers. All simulations are designed to not only portray the events, but the possibilities as well and this game is no exception.
By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?
Those were in the chapter just before the one about 20 million Russians dying because of Stalin, the one about all the Chinese who died at the hands of Mao Ze dong’s communists and before the Japanese internment camps in California. and the fire bombing of Dresden and tokyo and the chapter about the Atomic bombs dropping on people teice.
All sides committed horror and a life is a life equal to any other in value. You might as well said something about the war dead.
-
Excellent reply IL,both sides commited attrocities.I hate seeing all Axis powers portrayed as evil minions.
-
I agree with respect to Stalin, but short of declaring war on the USSR, there was not a lot the US or UK could do. Based on my research at the US National Archives, a figure of 50 million Chinese killed by the Japanese Army appears reasonable. Note, these killing were filmed and shown in theater throughout Japanese to demonstrate Japanese dominance.
As for the Japanese internment camps, again, based on research in the Archives with respect to communication intercepts, I find some justification for those. The Japanese on the Hawaiian Islands were running a pretty good intelligence collection effort throughout the war, and passing the information to Japan through the South American naval attachees, the Argentine, Chilean, and Peruvian in particular. The Chilean Naval Minister received a payoff from the Japanese in the form of $50,000 dollars in gold for one item, which he pocketed the money for and then never did.
Dresden should not have been attacked, I will concede that. As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing, I have no problems whatsoever. The Japanese got precisely what they deserved.
As for Imperious Leader’s comment on the French starting WW1, what bizarre history have you been studying?
-
@Imperious:
He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.
I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2? If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now. Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time. By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials? For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.
Can we stop with the “closet nazi” trashing please. People who like ww2 games and like to play axis countries are not closet nazis nor do they hate jews or anything of the sort.
Its rather offensive and does nothing to further discussion of Larry’s game.
-
@Imperious:
All sides committed horror and a life is a life equal to any other in value. You might as well said something about the war dead.
I agree 100%! In WWII, all sides committed atrocities, even the beloved Western Allies in Dresden and Japan’s atomic bombing! The fact is, the victors write the history with any biases they want.
Dresden should not have been attacked, I will concede that. As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing, I have no problems whatsoever. The Japanese got precisely what they deserved.
As for Imperious Leader’s comment on the French starting WW1, what bizarre history have you been studying?
:| That is very ignorant, if you ask me. Since you admitted Dresden was a tragedy and Russia’s killings were wrong (although you dismiss us as “powerless to stop them”), I can’t call you completely biased against the Axis nations, but quite a bit of bias is there if you can say that the Japanese deserved to suffer…
I too am curious about Imperious Leader’s comment on WWI, however, most people know that blaming the war on Germany was wrong. I believe America was strongly against the Treaty of Versailles, but our protests fell on deaf ears.
-
It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be “a nice guy”.
Edit: Lets be nice please
-
It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be a nice guy.
Wait, he is really a teacher? I don’t mean to be rude to him, but that explains a lot! :wink:
I remember a history teacher of mine who got into a small debate with me on whether or not the Treaty of Versailles was fair to Germany, because Germany “directly caused the war and deserved to pay for it” according to her…
-
what bizarre history have you been studying?
I read books not written by sides that won the war or ones that pull a: “Raw! Raw! the allies are the good guys…we win again!”
Please read about Raymond Poincaré. He was a proven warmonger who primed France deliberately for the 2-3 years before the 1914 conflict mobilizing his forces to get into a war where France can be back the Alsace Lorraine lost to the OTHER war France started and Lost in 1870. He was a seething french patriot who could not let losing that land go and spent the better part of his career trying to politically isolate the growing Prussian dominance on the continent. Prussian Hegemony was coming by peaceful means because the German people basically worked harder than others to achieve it.
also look at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
As soon as The Kaisers treaty with the Czar lapsed the French immediately jumped in and snapped up them, knowing the proven issue that Germany was naturally aligned with her ally Austria Hungary out of necessity, and secondly, knowing that the Austrians and Russians had a long standing issue with the Balkans.
The Russians always sought to obtain a warm water port and tried to stir up trouble to exploit it latter all hoping to gain by treaty or outright annexation the territory that would facilitate this access.
Once the Russians who were bound to her treaty went to mobilize against the Austrians, the French who had already mobilized made Germany’s decision a forced outcome, because France wanted to immediately jump in the war which forced the Kaiser to commit to her ally the Austrians and begin the Schliefen Plan. Now remember the French too had their plan 17 so don’t think the Germans just made crafty little plans of conquest.
The mobilization of the Kaiser was basically forced upon by two factors: The Czar ordering full mobilization and the French who were already mobilized for 3 years ready for anything to get started.
After the war Raymond tried to keep his reputation clean by an aggressive stance at Versailles, so that the “French Revenge” could not be repayed at a latter date, and Raymond made sure the “huns” were punished only at the expense of being a loser of a war, but a total clean slate approach of reducing the natural industrial nature of the German people, by removing territory that she would undoubtedly need to again become a major European player. This was the basic approach of french politics in the post war period, because the french themselves knew they cannot any longer become a world power, so the tactic was to deny Germany’s right to become a world power.
IN my opinion thats the most cowardly act possible by deliberately bringing down another nation because you yourself cannot or do not possess the ability to make your nation better. Thats an act of national jealousy and in France it continues today in various proven forms.
-
@Rakeman:
It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be a nice teacher.
Wait, he is really a teacher? I don’t mean to be rude to him, but that explains a lot! :wink:
I remember a history teacher of mine who got into a small debate with me on whether or not the Treaty of Versailles was fair to Germany, because Germany “directly caused the war and deserved to pay for it” according to her…
Thanks for the props, Rakeman and 03321. I am also a US Army officer, retired for disability incured while serving with the US Army. I have twice nearly been recalled to active duty, despite my disability, once with the Marines and once with the Defense Intelligence Agency. My body may not work well, but my brain is still in fine shape. I spent most of the First Gulf War working for the Marine Corps trying to keep the Marines from taking unnecessary casualties. Two of the nicer compliments that I received while working for the Marines are: 1) they were very happy that I was working for them and not the Iraqis, and 2) I have a very devious mind when it comes to inflicting damage on people and things.
In the history class that I work with, the students are taught that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the worst peace treaties in history, and pretty much guaranteed that WW2 would occur. We do cover the events that lead up to WW1, and have the students roleplay the various national leaders making the decisions for war. I fully agree with those US Naval Officers who assured the treaty negotiators that this was not a treaty but a twenty year truce. We then have the students role play the various national leaders during the interwar period, and cover the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, including the Italian use of aerial sprayed mustard agent, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, the various actions by Hitler in systematically breaking the Versailles Treaty, and so on. We finish the class by having the students play Axis and Allies Classic. On a fairly regular basis the Axis win, mainly because we have the more experienced students, who have played the game before, play the Axis. The Allies normally have major problems cooperating.
If by any chance either of you are still a student from the 6th to the 11th grade, and live in the Chicago area, I would welcome you to join the class. We have been requested to have an adult version of the class, which is under the initial stages of discussion.
As for being a good teacher, I have spent a fair amount of time in the US National Archives studying WW2, ranging from the effects of strategic bombing, including going through the reports on the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the effectiveness of aerial weapons against naval target, to the use of radio intercepts and codebreaking during World War 2. I have also spent time researching the use by the Japanese from 1937 on of China as a chemical and biological warfare testing area, field testing various techniques of use. To what extent have either of you studied the treatment by Japanese of their prisoners, or the fact that beheading with a katana was a common fate for Allied aircrew shot down over Japanese-held areas. Then there was the Japanese building of the Death Railway, distorted by Hollywood into the Bridge over the River Kwai movie. Or a favorite way for the Japanese to entertain their troops in charge of guarding prisoners, by drenching one of the prisoner holding huts with gasoline, surrounding the hut with troops, lighting the gasoline, and then shooting down the prisoners as they tried to escape the flames. Given the number of incidences reported, this clearly was a very popular pastime. And it was also well-known to all of the Allied commanders and combat troops by the occasional prisoner that escaped and was convoyed by Allied guerillas to rescue. Do you wish me to continue? I have plenty more where that comes from. And please, tell me about the number of Axis prisoners slaughtered by the US and the UK, the number that were converted into the main course of lunch and dinner, like quite a few Allied airman were by the Japanese. Come, come, gentlemen, you have assured the forum that atrocities were committed by both sides.
-
Ok lets make a thread on this under WW2 History and continue.
I tried to edit his comments out, but somehow you had them.
-
found this on A50:
While I was at GenCon, I played the Anniversary Edition of Axis and Allies. I like the changes Larry Harris has made! The map is bigger and with more territories. The territories expansion was most significant in the Soviet Union and in China. Which is as it should be: both places were big, and Revised didn’t fully take that into account. This one does.
Another improvement is that Japan is in a much more difficult situation with respect to land war. China is now a thorn in Japan’s side, with one Chinese infantry appearing for every two territories China controls. (And there are a lot of Chinese territories.) However, non-Chinese Allied forces are not allowed to combine with Chinese forces.
It’s also difficult for Japan to create a significant threat to Moscow, simply because there is so much space it has to cross before it can get there.
The research system from Revised has been significantly overhauled and upgraded. The way the new research system works is this: you buy research tokens. For each token you have, you get to roll one die. On a six, you get a research breakthrough. If your die roll misses, you roll again the next round. And the next, and the next, until you finally get a research breakthrough. Once you finally do, all your research tokens go away, and you get a new technology in their place. To determine which technology you get, you choose from one of two charts. (There are six items per chart.) After choosing an item, you roll a die. Whatever number comes up on the die is the technology you get.
Even if you buy just one research token, you guarantee yourself a tech sooner or later. But purchasing additional tokens before you get your advance will probably get you it faster. Examples of techs include radar (AA guns fire on a 2), heavy bombers (your bombers get two dice for strategic bombing raids and attacks), shipyards (your naval units cost less), mechanized infantry (each of your tanks can carry one infantry two spaces), improved artillery support (each artillery supports two infantry in any given attack), war bonds (each round, you roll a die, and receive that die roll in extra cash), increased production (each factory can produce two additional units), etc.
Strategic bombing raids work differently than usual. Instead of doing IPC damage directly, bombing raids cause damage counters to be placed underneath an industrial complex. To determine the maximum number of markers that can be under a complex, multiply the underlying territory’s value by 2. So a 10 IPC territory can have 20 markers under its complex. For each damage marker, a factory’s maximum output is reduced by 1. So a factory on a 10 IPC territory with 10 markers cannot produce anything. Additional markers simply reinforce this point. To get rid of damage markers on your factories, you must pay 1 IPC per damage marker. I think there’s a technology which reduces this cost.
Another improvement to this rules set is that transports can no longer be used as cannon fodder. Transports sit out any given naval battle, without firing, and without being able to be taken as casualties. If your combat ships and transports are attacked, and if your combat ships are destroyed, your transports are automatically destroyed also. If you have naked transports, they will automatically be destroyed if attacked.
Game balance seemed to favor the Allies, at least in the '41 scenario. (The game also includes a '42 scenario, which we did not play.) However, this was our first time playing, and it’s possible the mistakes Paul, Brian, and I made with the Axis led to the appearance of an Axis disadvantage. If the '41 scenario really is unbalanced, the problem could be corrected by bidding.
The game includes new unit costs: AA guns now cost 6, bombers 12 or 13 (I don’t remember which), destroyers 8, cruisers 12, battleships 20, submarines 7, and transports 7. However, submarines now attack on a 2 and defend on a 1. Destroyers attack and defend on a 2, and cannot bombard. Cruisers attack and defend on a 12, and can bombard. Battleships are still two hit, attack and defend on a 4, and can bombard. Carriers now cost 14 (I think), with an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2.
There are goals for each nation to achieve which will result in an income boost (typically 5 or 10 IPCs). For example, Italy receives 5 IPCs if there are no Allied ships in the Mediterranean at the end of its turn. Nations typically have two or three such goal. The bonus income is not a one-shot deal: you receive it at the end of each of your turns, assuming you’d achieved the relevant objectives.
I’ll have to play more than one game of this before I say anything for sure. But based on what I’ve seen so far, this is the strongest game in the Axis and Allies series. The difference between this and Revised is bigger than the difference between Revised and Classic.
I can’t think of too many more details, but I’ll add a few more things. I played Japan that game. One of my main problems was that if I wanted to expand westward into mainland Asia, I had to contend with a lot of space. If I wanted to take a northern (i.e., north of Mongolia) route, I had to contend with plenty of 1 IPC Soviet territories. Plus the Soviet Union started off with a good 10 infantry in that general area, which were too far to the east to be of much use against Germany. (Not that he needed them there, as the Russians were doing so well against Germany anyway.) When Greg moved his 10 Russian infantry to the coast/Buryatria equivalent territory, I attacked and killed them at a favorable exchange. A move like that is a no-brainer in Revised, but I think it may have been a tactical victory but strategic mistake in this game. Because of my own loss of strength in that battle, I had many fewer units to stop the problem in my center (China) or the problem to the south (that India factory).
There are more territories in the general neighborhood of India, which serve as a sort of buffer against a Japanese attack. I never posed a real threat to that India factory throughout the game. Another advantage the Allies had was their starting income. Germany’s was in the low 30s, Italy’s was 10, and Japan’s was 16 or 17. In contrast, the Soviet Union had an income of 30, the U.K. somewhere in the 40s, and the U.S. also in the low 40s. (This was the '41 scenario.) Obviously the Axis had to expand quickly before this income situation caught up with it. And there were some expansion opportunities: notably the East Indies and Borneo for Japan, and, in theory, Africa for Germany and Italy.
However, the Axis soon became bogged down. Germany was soon faced with an overwhelming number of Soviet units, which stalled the German advance, and relatively quickly pushed things back into what had been German-held territory. British units in Africa were able to thwart Italy’s efforts there. Japan captured places like the East Indies and Borneo, but didn’t take Australia or New Guinea. (The U.S. was plowing all its money into a Pacific strategy. It used its two starting bombers to bomb Berlin.) Japan starts with fewer land units on islands than in Revised, so (in combination with my low starting income) it was very difficult to make progress along my three land fronts. Plus the Chinese were a pain: they’d take territories from me, then collect one infantry per two territories owned. China was like an open wound, but I simply lacked the land strength to staunch the wound. Because of all my other problems, the British were able to build up their Indian force at a faster pace than I could build up the Indo China counterforce.
Each of the Axis teams spent money on research (5 IPCs for Italy, 10 each for Germany and Japan). In hindsight, this was probably a mistake. There was a long time between spending money on research and actually getting the technology. Once Japan’s technology came, it turned out to be radar. That meant my AA guns fired on a 2. Fat lot of good that did me! Another mistake was that I built more transports than I needed.
With Japan, I made the mistake of trying to be strong everywhere, and was strong nowhere. (Although a portion of my problems were caused by bad dice, especially in China.) I’m not sure if Chinese units are allowed off Chinese soil. If they’re not, it might be tempting to simply abandon China and focus on taking British and Soviet territory. But if Japan decides to take China, it should do so quickly, and with overwhelming force. Letting those Chinese infantry keep cropping up turn after turn is a drain on Japan’s resources which it simply can’t afford. If Japan (finally) makes it through China, it can then begin invading the Soviet Union from the south.
As Greg pointed out, the U.S. player had been in a position to sink my transport fleet–and there were quite a few of them. I’d left a transport as a sacrificial blocking unit. Moreover, I’d placed my main fleet between the U.S. main fleet and my transport fleet. However, you’re allowed to assume that if you’re fighting a battle, all your units will always hit, and all the enemy units will always miss. So the U.S. player was allowed to send one fighter to my main fleet, with the theory being that the American fighter would win the battle. Then the American player would have sent another fighter to my transports off the coast of Japan to sink them. An American carrier would (in theory) move through the sea zone where my main fleet had been, and which that first fighter would have theoretically destroyed. (In reality, both fighters would have been lost, but, technically, they were not kamikazes.) Then the American player would have sent a bomber to take out my sacrificial blocking transport, with two other fighters flying past that sea zone to attack transports located elsewhere. A carrier would then move through the sea zone where the sacrificial transport had been to pick up the second two fighters. This would have resulted in the destruction of my entire transport fleet, as well as the loss of 4 American fighters and a carrier. Even though the American player would have lost a lot, I still think he should have launched this attack. I needed those transports more than he needed that other stuff, and getting rid of them would have gone a long way toward pushing Japan off the mainland. However, the U.S. player decided to conserve his naval strength, presumably because that attack would have slowed his bid to achieve outright naval dominance in the Pacific.
My brother and I identified some things Italy could have done better. It started the game with just one transport. We’ve decided that on its first turn, it should have built another transport, while shipping units to Libya. On its second turn and thereafter, it should have shipped four units to Africa. This would have significantly accelerated the process of taking Africa, which would have given the Axis some desperately-needed income. (When the game ended, the Allies were still getting the Africa income, but the Axis was in a position to take at least temporary control over it.)
The Luftwaffe started with four fighters and a bomber. But it lost two fighters on its first turn when it attacked a British destroyer and cruiser with two fighters and a bomber. (The British lost nothing in that battle.) Germany later spent 20 IPCs replacing those fighters, and it also spent another 10 on research. In contrast, the Soviet Union spent basically everything it had on land units to throw against Germany. With a starting income of 30 IPCs, and with a hefty Soviet land force to begin the game with, it wasn’t long before the German advance had turned into a German withdrawal. In hindsight, Germany should have taken a more cautious approach to naval battles on its first turn, and it should have allocated all its spending to an anti-Russian land war. Also, we should have arranged for the Italians to do most of the fighting in Africa, and for the Germans to end up with most of the African income.
In my last post and in this one, I’ve thrown out hints that the ‘41 scenario might be unbalanced in favor of the Allies. But bear in mind that we were playing without the income bonuses, which I suspect might help balance the game. While those bonuses would probably provide a roughly equal numerical benefit to both sides’ income, the Axis would probably receive more of a benefit than the Allies, especially in the short term. Much of the Allied benefit would be absorbed by the U.S., whereas the Axis benefits would all go to nations which could throw extra units into the front right away. If I as Japan had had, say, 10 or even 15 more IPCs a turn, it would have made it a lot easier to deal with my three land wars (the Soviet Union, China, and the British down in India). Had I been able to achieve a strong local superiority along my central (Chinese) or southern (Indian) front, I could have permanently eliminated that front, while achieving an income boost in the process. Eventually I would have had to contend with the extra American ships the U.S. would have been building with its own income boost. But dealing with that problem could wait until later, and by then my overall land and income situation would have been considerably stronger.
-
I know if I was playing the game at GenCon, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell the designers that the balance sucks, they need to redesign it.
Suggested Topics
