poke through the games from the last 2 vs 2 tournament. That is where switch got all riled up at.
How to promote fighting in the Pacific?
-
If you would rather avoid mandated actions, then this might also be a viable option, without requiring a lot of playtesting to determine the effects on game balance. Include in the Allied victory conditions that two of the following must be retaken from Japan: the Philippines, Borneo, or Java. That would pretty much follow the actual course of the Pacific War, and not add a large number of new conditions. Essentially, the US player would have to duplicate what was actually done in WW2 to win the game.
-
If you would rather avoid mandated actions, then this might also be a viable option, without requiring a lot of playtesting to determine the effects on game balance. Include in the Allied victory conditions that two of the following must be retaken from Japan: the Philippines, Borneo, or Java. That would pretty much follow the actual course of the Pacific War, and not add a large number of new conditions. Essentially, the US player would have to duplicate what was actually done in WW2 to win the game.
I do like this idea. Perhaps just completely changing the victory conditions would be best.
I know you had resource ideas before, with a time limit. Maybe instead, something along the lines of:
“If Australia falls to the Axis, all British fighters defend at one less than usual. If Hawaii falls to the Allies, US ships can only move 1 SZ per turn. If the Middle East falls to the Axis, British tanks can only move 1 territory per turn.” Of course, trying to simulate the bonuses so it represents the loss of resources. Then, give some to the Axis too, for the sake of being fair. Perhaps, “If red territories belong to Japan, Japanese tanks can only move 1 territory per turn.” This would represent Japan’s inability to supply an invasion into Russia.
Any ideas for what territories held vital resources/ports/etc., and what type of unit the loss of this territory should affect?
Hmm… this sounds similar (but not identical) to “Objectives” in AA50.
-
Okay, I whipped up some rules with the idea, “Give real penalties for losing victory cities.” Thoughts?
Axis and Allies Revised: Victory City Penalties
All non-Capital Victory Cities give a penalty when captured by the enemy team. Sydney, Honolulu, and Stalingrad are all considered Victory Cities now, giving every nation 2 victory cities.
Russia
Leningrad:
Port’s Closed
All non-Russian units on red territories defend at 1.Stalingrad:
Oil Disruption
Russian land units on non-red territories lose all mobility.Germany
Paris:
Resistance
Whenever Axis forces attack Western Europe, they take one additional casualty during each of the defender fire steps of the combat phase. This does not apply if there is no combat.Rome:
Mediterranean Defeat
German land units on tan territories all behave like infantry, regardless of what unit they are.UK:
Calcutta:
Oil Shortage
British fighters attack at 2 and defend at 3. British bombers are shot down on a roll of 2 or less by anti-aircraft guns.Sydney:
Convoy Loss
British transports can no longer be loaded with both an infantry and an armor unit simultaneously.Japan
Shanghi:
Chinese Forces
Whenever Axis forces attack Kwangtung or Manchuria, they take one additional casualty during the defender fires step of the combat phase. This does not apply if there is no combat.Manila:
Vital Supplies
Japanese armor units attack at 2 and defend at 2. They can no longer blitz and must end movement when entering an empty enemy territory.USA
Honolulu:
Port Seized
US naval units may only move 1 Sea Zone per turn.LA:
Virtual Capital
The US player must give one half of his IPCs (round down) to whatever player owns Western USA every round during that player’s Collect Income phase. -
For some of this, you might want to look at my house rules for A&A Pacific in the House Rules section of the Board. I would have to do a little work on looking up exactly were resources are, but you need Borneo and the East Indies for Oil, French Indo-China for rice and rubber (actually in Malaya), the East Indies for tin (vital for cartridge cases and canned goods), the Phiippines for rice and to protect your shipping lanes, and Manchuria for iron, coal, and aluminum.
One factor that also would work against a Japanese assault on Russia from Siberia is the lack of supply lines. You would be dependent on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and given the Russian thoroughness in “scorched earth” policy, you are not going to have a functioning railway without a lot of work. The Japanese had a terrible time maintaining the rail net in China, and the few expansion took enormous effort. I do not think that Japan could have maintained any significant force at any distance from Manchuria. There would be no way to supply it, especially in winter.
As for advancing to Moscow, it is 3988 air miles from Vladivostok to Moscow. Manchuria would shorten that slightly, but it would still be close to 4000 miles on the ground, including the detour around Lake Baikal. Berlin to Moscow is 998 air miles, although on the Revised board, the distance from Manchuria appears to be almost the same. The Germans could not get enough supplies forward to support an attack on Moscow. The Japanese are supposed to maintain supply lines over 4 times the distance?
A lot of the strategies used in Axis and Allies would not be possible from a logistics standpoint. Supply rules would quickly eliminate the “9 Japanese tanks per turn” mentioned in one of the posts on the Nominations for Revised Axis and Allies Strategies thread. Aside from the fact that during the entire war, Japan built only about 4,000 tanks, most of them extremely light. The US built over 50,000 Shermans. The Japanese never fielded anything comparable. Okay, former supply officer rant over.
-
Variants that say the player “must spend X money on the theater per turn” or “must take these territories to win” are forced solutions - telling the player they must do something instead of giving them a motivation to do something that parallels history. Also one of the updates in Revised is a change from capital-based victory conditions to VC-based. No city in Revised should be a “must have” to win.
I also really don’t like the “city penalty” idea where you can impose special penalties on your opponents by conquering some VCs. Some of the special penalties (e.g. Honolulu) are more broken than the NAs! Besides, the penalty imposed on your opponent by capturing a city is already there: you’re one step closer to victory, you have superior position, and you get the IPCs. If a city isn’t important enough then make it worth more victory points, give it a better position or make it worth more IPCs.
Without changes to the actual sea zones the best way to make USA and Japan care about the Pacific is to put more IPCs there, put additional VCs or ICs there, make LA a second treasury/capital, etc.
To slow Japanese advance into Russia, a good variant is Japanese units must stop after entering a red territory. This slows the Japanese advance to one territory per turn and shrinks the influence of any Japanese IC buy on the mainland, representing the harsh conditions of Siberia.
-
Yes, i’ve used most of those changes I listed before, not all at the same time mind you, but I’ve used them.
The IPC values for most of the ships actually come from AARe, the only change to the IPC values of the ships that are not from AARe are for Submarines and Transports. But that is to encourage more naval conflict and invasions.
Making LA a capitol does not really make sense to me. It’s not a capitol. However, if LA were to fall with another US territory (that is a state or number of states) would almost certainly result in a revolt of the people and an immediate surrender to Japan. Not to mention, it makes a feasible way for Japan to win the war.
Invading Russia is no longer necessary with the increase in IPC values. We’re only talking +4 IPC to each side, but we’re also requiring America to put at least 33% of her income into defense of the Pacific. So yes, America is earning 46 IPC on round 1, but 16 IPC of that has to be spent in the west so really, it’s only 30 IPC instead of 42 IPC that can be headed to Germany. (Likewise, 16 IPC would have to be spent in the east so again, it’s 30 IPC USA vs 34 IPC Japan which means Japan is not as desperate to get those Russian IPC.)
-
USA going for Pacific islands is riskier, but can mean a quicker victory for Allies if well done. It should be enough incentive and a mere matter of tastes. Do you want a more “sure” path to victory? Go KGF. Do you hate tons of multicolor and multiunit chips on Karelia, Caucasus or Moscow, but like a maybe a riskier (and quick) path to victory? Go KJF.
17 ipcs on islands on all the Pacific should be enough motivation for USA :wink:
-
I happen to think that KJF tactics, if Japan goes a certain route on Japan 1, are actually easier than KGF tactics.
And no, Japan does not have to do some silly combination of moves that no one would ever do. But let’s say Japan goes Pearl Light and takes above average losses, why not sink their remaining fleet and build up? You can even invade through SFE/Buryatia instead of going south and thus, you are helping Russia still, probably helping even more so than if you were trying to land in North Africa or Norway.
-
Awesome “victory territory” list.
-
@Craig:
Here is the set of Victory Territories (VTs) that I used in running the A&A tournament at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC):
Adjudication System-
The determination of who wins a tournament game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs). The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used. Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game. The Victory Territories are listed below.If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (From the end of a country’s turn to the beginning of that same country’s next turn.), then that player automatically wins the game.
In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner. If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals, then the GM will make a determination of the winner based on upon the game situation at the time the game ended.
If a player chooses to concede a game before it has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit (4.5 hrs), a default score of 19 VTs and +30 IPCs will be awarded to the winner.
It definitely creates more action in the Pacific.
Craig
Is it safe to assume that this is a two-player game, and not a five-player game?
-
Your system can help in a true multiplayer game, i.e. three on two, if you win as a side, which is how we do it in our historical game and War and Diplomacy class. Basically, the Allies have to hold all of their territories and take 6 of the Axis. I suspect that it would be easier to take four from the Japanese (the East Indies, Borneo, the Philippines, and French Indo-China) and two from Germany (Norway and one other). You would have more of a holding operation against Germany, while going after the territories of Japan.
-
@Rakeman:
What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?
The Axis and Allies Revised Pacific Theater Drinking Game, of course.
-
@Bunnies:
@Rakeman:
What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?
The Axis and Allies Revised Pacific Theater Drinking Game, of course.
Wrath-man, where you been hiding lately? Haven’t seen you around in quite some time.
-
@Bunnies:
@Rakeman:
What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?
The Axis and Allies Revised Pacific Theater Drinking Game, of course.
Hey, I am a bachelor next weekend (Angel will be away Friday to Sunday for a bridal shower). Sned me the rules for that drinking game variant! And hey… anyone close enough to Raleigh for an FTF drinking game next weekend? Free booze and a place to crash…
-
hm, for some reason the pacific is nearly always an important part in our games.
if jap doesnt have the biggest fleet, it would lose a lot of income to the US due to losing all those islands. and if the US doesnt hold against that, jap will sooner or later land in los angeles.furthermore, on the main continent, jap is usually under pressure from uk (india) and the us (china). so its actually not too unhappy about the NAP with the russians.
all this, while its not really about killing jap first… but those situations seem to arise in a chain reaction: the US has to help the UK, by going to africa and by its presence in the pacific, which forces jap to invest in fleet as well… instead of building troops to invade india/china.
due to that, the UK can help russia by nagging the germans.
the better the allied nations support each other like that, the less likely it is, that germany or japan manage to make any big moves. -
hm, for some reason the pacific is nearly always an important part in our games.
the better the allied nations support each other like that, the less likely it is, that germany or japan manage to make any big moves.
Welcome to the Forums, Sondrax. I hope that you find it educating and illuminating.
That has been my experience as well in our summer historical gaming class. We always have considerable combat in the Pacific, and the better the Allied players work together, the harder it is for Germany and Japan to do well.
-
@ncscswitch:
@Bunnies:
@Rakeman:
What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?
The Axis and Allies Revised Pacific Theater Drinking Game, of course.
Hey, I am a bachelor next weekend (Angel will be away Friday to Sunday for a bridal shower). Sned me the rules for that drinking game variant! And hey… anyone close enough to Raleigh for an FTF drinking game next weekend? Free booze and a place to crash…
If I wasn’t already committed this weekend I would take you up on that! I used to live in Harnett County (I was stationed at Bragg for 4 years) but now live a few hours away in VA. I still come down a half a dozen times or so a year to visit friends, maybe we can get together in the future. If you get the drinking game rules I would love a copy, I assume it would be a shot glass on each island, the only question is does the winner or loser of the island drink the shot?
Jason -
The loser drinks… That keeps the winner on top! :-)
Suggested Topics
