A&A50 Alternative Set-Up

[Imperious Leader]

no they didn’t get anything out of that deal.

[Imperious Leader]

Most of the cruisers were salvaged by the Italians, either to restore them as fighting ships or for scrap. The Jean de Vienne and La Galissonnière were renamed FR11 and FR12, respectively, but their repair was prevented by allied bombing and their use would have been unlikely, given the Italians’ chronic shortage of fuel.

Italy got 2 cruisers, but thats not enough for a piece. 1 Cruiser= 6-8 actual cruisers

[Young Grasshopper]

Imperious Leader…. could you build my alternative set-up on your board and tell me if there are any game balance problems you can see?

[Imperious Leader]

Thats alot of work. Perhaps if im really bored then yes.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thank you very much…. We will be playing our new set-up tommorow so I will let you know how that goes as well.

[Young Grasshopper]

We played our alternative set-up today and it went very well.

Germany did not hit the British aircraft carrier with everything they could so after some bad dice rolls and a late retreat from the Germany, the UK was left with 2 fighters that flew to Gibralter and later sunk the Italian destroyer. A better battle from the Germans would have balanced the Atlantic but the 2 British fighters didn’t cause too much damage in the long run.

In a strange twist the German player decided to lose the battleship as a casualty in SZ2 and instead kept the 2 submarines (which stayed in the Atlantic for 3 rounds harassing the British and American efforts),

Japan was as strong as ever but the US was not far behind with the starting battleship in SZ56 and it wasn’t a problem as far as balance. The pearl harbour ships were destroyed without shooting down a single plane but the Japanese submarine was sunk.

If there was one negative, it may have been how easily the Germans invaded Russia with below average dice rolls so we are considering adding 1 Russian infantry in East Poland.

[Imperious Leader]

ok ill make you guys a deal…

I will make a setup file using your ideas

You guys then work on 1943 scenario, but you have to come up with something special:

1. knowing the axis will lose the question is some minor modification of the Victory conditions, also some of the technologies should be on and favor the axis but appeal to historical realism as well as balance. The purpose of 1943 was to make a shorter game played in a few hours… so keep that in mind.

2. some other rules may be necessary.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

ok ill make you guys a deal…

I will make a setup file using your ideas

You guys then work on 1943 scenario, but you have to come up with something special:

1. knowing the axis will lose the question is some minor modification of the Victory conditions, also some of the technologies should be on and favor the axis but appeal to historical realism as well as balance. The purpose of 1943 was to make a shorter game played in a few hours… so keep that in mind.

2. some other rules may be necessary.

So…. you want us to create a new set-up reflecting 1943 with a few rule changes naturally creating a shorter game?

[Imperious Leader]

yes kinda.

Something where the technology is scripted for specific nations each turn and some nations start with them. NO No’s and victory conditions like Germany must survive past turn X to win, or capture X VC.

Id add some new units to give some spice:

SS Panzers  5-5 tanks limit the number to like 4 and built once per turn at cost of 8

Hidden German Army ( its a group of pieces that shows up once per game…think Battle of the Bulge) of course its movement is kept secret.

even perhaps giving the Germans longer range rockets so they can bomb America?

something that would be fun to play knowing your going down, but have the ability to drag the world down with you with your advanced weapons kinda thing.

[Young Grasshopper]

I will put it across the group and see what they think (I believe they would welcome the challenge) but it will take us about a week or two to do it properly.

[Bardoly]

Trisdin,

I like your group’s idea of replaying some of the more historical battles of WWII.  I also like your alternate setup, but have y’all thought about adding some more ICs to the starting setup?

I mean, from a historical standpoint, shouldn’t Central US, Eatern Canada, Australia, and Czech-Hungary all have starting ICs? (and maybe India and France)  I realize that ICs in Central US and Eastern Canada would barely be useful to the game, but I believe that they should be there.  Also, Australia should have a starting IC because of its important contributions to the war in the South Pacific.  (What’s up with Australia only having an IPC value of 2?  I believe that it should be 3 or 4.)  I compare a Czech-Hungary IC to the Eastern European nations which Germany cowed into submission and basically took over their production facilities before the war even began.  France should have an IC, but probably not under the current map.  Something more like the AARHE map which has France divided into 2 territories may be more like it.  I mean,  Vichy France produced a lot of materials for the German war effort.  I’m still considering India, but it seems that with an Eastern Canada and an Australian IC for the UK, that an Indian IC might be a bit much.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Bardoly:

Trisdin,

I like your group’s idea of replaying some of the more historical battles of WWII.  I also like your alternate setup, but have y’all thought about adding some more ICs to the starting setup?

My point is, buying and than placing a factory is the most strategical and creative decision a player can make, where to place it, when to place it and how many should be placed. Sometimes good players are very predictable in the way that alot of strategies are no brainers but placing a factory can be spontanious that is a great thing (IMO). I’m sure some of the guys would love an extra starting factory, that way they won’t have to pay for it and they can dump units on it right away (I’m not a fan of any of that).

I understand your argument about the historical merit of certian countries deserving a factory however, game balance is very fragile when dealing with factories on the board. Canada produced an astonishing amount of destroyers and frigits that basicly turned the war against German U-boats and yet there is only 1 in their sea zone.

If I were to suggest to my group 1 starting factory for Britian, America and Japan (only 1 per/country) Where do you think the best territories would be to place all of them?

Thanks for the compliments on our alternative set-up.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Nickiow:

You might also want to consider adding communist China.

After the Japs turn, any empty Chininese zone aquires and imobile  ( ie its a normal Inf unit but has no movement capacity) Inf Red China piece up to a max of 4 per zone, use the ones from Pacific if you have a copy.

I like the idea of chinese infantry not moving after they have been placed.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Nickiow:

To clarify, atm you have the USA controlled Chinse, i use the different green units from Pacific, what im suggesting is to add a neutral faction, the communist of the North and east who in real life take over. For these you can use the red figures from Pacific to represent them taking the filed whenever no one elkse controll any chinese zone, making them imobile is due to them not wanting to get into a shooting war as they were waiting for the US to win and the japs to go away and then they would take over, and because as a game mechanic you dont want them as anything more than blocker to SU back door by filling up regions.

I understand what you mean however, as a group we don’t wish to get into political diferences between chinese units especialy if it means having different coloured pieces. We are however, considering a rule that once chinese units are placed on territories they must act in defence only and may not be moved.

[Jennifer]

@Trisdin:

Imperious Leader…. could you build my alternative set-up on your board and tell me if there are any game balance problems you can see?

Have you accounted for the costs of units?  What I mean is, subtracting the cost of units taken off the board and added the cost of units added too the board for each nation and then comparing the nations to make sure the costs are in line with each other?

ie:  If Germany + Italy + Japan = +31 IPC in units, is Russia + England + America = +27 to +35 IPC in units as well?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

@Trisdin:

Imperious Leader…. could you build my alternative set-up on your board and tell me if there are any game balance problems you can see?

Have you accounted for the costs of units?  What I mean is, subtracting the cost of units taken off the board and added the cost of units added too the board for each nation and then comparing the nations to make sure the costs are in line with each other?

ie:  If Germany + Italy + Japan = +31 IPC in units, is Russia + England + America = +27 to +35 IPC in units as well?

No I have not done this……  it seems like alot of math but I guess I should, just to see if something is really out of wack. I’m not sure how much of an impact it will have on the overall balance solely on unit value alone unless of course there is a huge gap of starting unit value between each side. How are your house rules comming along? is there a thread where I could see them?. I am working on mine as well and will post them next week.

[Jennifer]

The actual value of the units vs the other units may not be a balance issue, but if you notice that one side has a significantly higher value of units added to the board, it might indicate that there is a balance issue that should be looked into.

Just one of the checksums I use when looking into house rules in regards to starting units.  You can also use combined addition attacking and defending strength or number of new units, etc.

[Bardoly]

@Trisdin:

@Bardoly:

Trisdin,

I like your group’s idea of replaying some of the more historical battles of WWII.  I also like your alternate setup, but have y’all thought about adding some more ICs to the starting setup?

My point is, buying and than placing a factory is the most strategical and creative decision a player can make, where to place it, when to place it and how many should be placed. Sometimes good players are very predictable in the way that alot of strategies are no brainers but placing a factory can be spontanious that is a great thing (IMO). I’m sure some of the guys would love an extra starting factory, that way they won’t have to pay for it and they can dump units on it right away (I’m not a fan of any of that).

I understand your argument about the historical merit of certian countries deserving a factory however, game balance is very fragile when dealing with factories on the board. Canada produced an astonishing amount of destroyers and frigits that basicly turned the war against German U-boats and yet there is only 1 in their sea zone.

If I were to suggest to my group 1 starting factory for Britian, America and Japan (only 1 per/country) Where do you think the best territories would be to place all of them?

Thanks for the compliments on our alternative set-up.

I would have to go with the following:

Britian - Australia - I believe that outside of England, Canda contributed the most to the war effort, but because in Axis and Allies, an Eastern Canadian IC is not as useful, I would have to go with Australia.  I could possibly go with Egypt, but because it can be captured on the first turn before even producing 1 unit, I don’t think this would be feasible.

America - Central US - To be historically accurate, America should start with an IC in Central US.  If Japan ever attacks and holds Western US, America should be able to produce units out of Central US, so having a starting IC in Central US would be a slight deterrent to Japan’s attacking W. US which would be more historically accurate as well.  Hawaii could be an alternative, not because of its great production facilities, but because it was the focus of America’s launching out into the Pacific war, and Hawaii was constantly being shipped war materials.  For this reason, if playing with a starting IC on Hawaii, Hawaii should actually be a 2 or 3 IPC valued territory.

Japan - Manchuria (They had already controlled Manchuria with a puppet emperor for 10+ years by 1941, and actually if you study the history, the northeast Chinese welcomed the Japanese with open arms at the beginning.  Most of the Japanese atrocities were more in the middle and south of China or much later in the war, so a Japanese starting IC in Manchuria would be quite accurate.)  There’s not really a good alternate historical spot for a starting Japanese IC other than maybe Okinawa, but I really don’t think that it would be very useful.

Germany - Czech-Hungary  I know that you didn’t ask for Germany, but as I mentioned above, I would also put a starting German IC in Czech-Hungary.  I compare a Czech-Hungary IC to the Eastern European nations which Germany cowed into submission and basically took over their production facilities before the war even began.  France should have an IC, but probably not under the current map.  Something more like the AARHE map which has France divided into 2 territories may be more like it.  I mean,  Vichy France produced a lot of materials for the German war effort.

[Jennifer]

Dunno, has anyone tried an E. Canada IC?

I know in Revised it was done because England had an 8 unit build limit and E. Canada could up that to 11 units to be used against Europe each round, assuming England had the income to do it.

England still has an 8 unit build limit and the potential to earn way more than 32 IPC (which is pretty much the theoretical limit to useful cash with a limit of 8 units.  That’s 4 infantry and 4 tanks.)

[Young Grasshopper]

@Bardoly:

@Trisdin:

@Bardoly:

Trisdin,

I like your group’s idea of replaying some of the more historical battles of WWII.  I also like your alternate setup, but have y’all thought about adding some more ICs to the starting setup?

My point is, buying and than placing a factory is the most strategical and creative decision a player can make, where to place it, when to place it and how many should be placed. Sometimes good players are very predictable in the way that alot of strategies are no brainers but placing a factory can be spontanious that is a great thing (IMO). I’m sure some of the guys would love an extra starting factory, that way they won’t have to pay for it and they can dump units on it right away (I’m not a fan of any of that).

I understand your argument about the historical merit of certian countries deserving a factory however, game balance is very fragile when dealing with factories on the board. Canada produced an astonishing amount of destroyers and frigits that basicly turned the war against German U-boats and yet there is only 1 in their sea zone.

If I were to suggest to my group 1 starting factory for Britian, America and Japan (only 1 per/country) Where do you think the best territories would be to place all of them?

Thanks for the compliments on our alternative set-up.

I would have to go with the following:

Britian - Australia

America - Central US

**Japan - Manchuria[/b}

[b]Germany - Czech-Hungary**

Good Post! I might prefer France for Germany, India for Britian for game play but I like you’re reasons for central America for U.S and Manchuria for Japan however, We would play test it before we changed our set-up.