A&A50 Alternative Set-Up

[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.

[Imperious Leader]

I might prefer France for Germany, India for Britain 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.

I was gonna say this too, but Germany needs it in Poland or Chezh

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

I might prefer France for Germany, India for Britain 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.

I was gonna say this too, but Germany needs it in Poland or Chezh

I understand, spreading thin across Russia is a very difficult task however, all those sea zones available to France are very attractive. In all the A&A games I have played I have never seen “operation sea lion” carried out successfuly, I mean…… why don’t we ever talk about killing UK first? because it’s impossible. Why do we say that Germany is in a two front war when all they ever do is go east? I say it’s time to give Germany a strategical choice to go east, west or both,… the same choice America has every game.

[Imperious Leader]

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

[Young Grasshopper]

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

[Bardoly]

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable?

A starting IC in Bulgaria/Romania is not really very historically accurate.  A starting factory in Czech-Hungary, Northwestern Europe, or Norway would be much more historically accurate than a starting one in Bulgaria/Romania.

France should have a starting IC, but probably not with the current map.  Something more like the AARHE map which has France divided into 2 territories may be more like it, or Northwestern Europe and France should both be worth 4 IPC each, and then put a starting IC in France.

[Imperious Leader]

Romania would represent OIL for Germany, so its loss by SBR and occupation would have a pronounced effect on Germany. Thats what i was thinking, but also for balance in the event that your not changing the map. France is too scary, Norway is not good, Czechoslovakia is too close to Germany, Poland could work, but Romania at least could give Germany fleet units to help Italy.

[Bardoly]

@Imperious:

Romania would represent OIL for Germany, so its loss by SBR and occupation would have a pronounced effect on Germany. Thats what i was thinking, but also for balance in the event that your not changing the map. France is too scary, Norway is not good, Czechoslovakia is too close to Germany, Poland could work, but Romania at least could give Germany fleet units to help Italy.

I agree with you, and I wish that Romania were a 3 IPC-valued territory, but I don’t believe that it’s very historically accurate for Germany to start with a Romanian IC, and even though Czech-Hungary is very close to Germany, I don’t think anyone playing Germany would be unhappy to have a starting Czech-Hungary IC, and I don’t think that anyone would say there is anything negative about this starting IC except to say that other locations are more attractive, and that’s still not really a negative statement.

[Bigtiti]

@Trisdin:

GERMANY   ( $ 31 )

Sea Zone 5 – 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 6 – 1 Battleship

Sea Zone 7 – 1 Submarine

Sea Zone 8 – 1 Submarine

Sea Zone 13 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport

Norway – 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter

Finland – 2 Infantry

North-western Europe – 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter

France – 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AA-Gun

Germany – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Poland – 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter

Czechoslovakia / Hungary – 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery

Bulgaria / Romania – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter

Morocco / Algeria – 2 Infantry

Libya – 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank

SOVIET UNION   ( $ 30 )

Sea Zone 4 – 1 Submarine

Karelia S.S.R – 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Archangel – 2 Infantry

Baltic States – 3 Infantry

Belorussia – 2 Infantry

Russia – 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Novosibirsk – 2 Infantry

East Poland – 3 Infantry

Eastern Ukraine – 2 Infantry

Ukraine – 2 Infantry

Caucasus – 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Kazakh S.S.R – 2 Infantry

Yukut S.S.R – 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery

Stanovoj Chrebet – 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery

Soviet Far East – 2 Infantry

Buryatia – 3 Infantry

UNITED KINGDOM   ( $ 43 )

Sea Zone 2 – 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 9 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 12 – 1 Aircraft Carrier / 2 Fighters, 1 Cruiser

Sea Zone 27 – 1 Transport

Sea Zone 35 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 41 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Eastern Canada – 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter

U.K – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Egypt – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter

Trans-Jordan – 2 Infantry

Belgian Congo – 1 Infantry

Union of South Africa – 2 Infantry

India – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 AA-Gun

Burma – 1 Infantry

Kwangtung – 1 Infantry

East Indies – 1 Infantry

Borneo – 1 Infantry

New Guinea – 1 Infantry

Australia – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA-Gun

New Zealand – 1 Infantry

Western Canada – 1 Infantry

ITALY   ( $ 10 )

Sea Zone 14 – 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Italy – 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Balkans – 2 Infantry, 1 Tank

Libya – 2 Infantry

JAPAN   ( $ 17 )

Sea Zone 62 – 1 Battleship, 2 Transports

Sea Zone 61 – 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport / 2 Infantry, 1 Transport / 2 Infantry

Sea Zone 36 – 1 Battle Ship, 1 Cruiser

Sea Zone 52 – 1 Aircraft Carrier / 2 Fighters, 1 Aircraft Carrier / 2 Fighters

Sea Zone 48 – 1 Submarine

Japan – 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Manchuria – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter

Kiangsu – 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery

French Indo-China Thailand – 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter

Formosa – 1 Infantry

Okinawa – 1 Infantry

Iwo Jima – 1 Infantry

Caroline Islands – 1 Infantry

UNITED STATES   ( $ 40 )

Sea Zone 10 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 45 – 1 Submarine

Sea Zone 50 – 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

Sea Zone 53 – 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser

Sea Zone 54 – 1 Aircraft Carrier / 2 Fighters, 1 Destroyer

Sea Zone 56 – 1 Battleship, 1 Transport

Eastern U.S – 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Philippine Islands – 2 Infantry

Wake Islands – 1 Infantry

Hawaiian Islands – 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter

Midway – 1 Infantry

Alaska – 1 Infantry

Western U.S – 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Factory, 1 AA-Gun

Central U.S – 1 Infantry

CHINA

Place 1 Infantry unit on each Chinese territory.

China produces 2 Infantry units every round provided that China holds at least 1 Chinese territory.

The U.S player may move Chinese units during their turn and place new Chinese units on any territory China owns.

you want the axis dead before they start?

[Funcioneta]

Not sure, Frontovik.

• Seems all countries recive more units
• Germans can still toast most of UK fleet and kill Egypt (that z6 bb is a huge boost)
• Japan’s advance will be slower first rounds (a good thing), and China is boosted and can hold a bit (again, a good thing)
• China lacks any offensive unit (bad). But at least is realist with Flying Tigers: if they are going to die anyway most games, why putting them in setup or making restrictions for them?  :-P

Well, at least it’s creative. I could be wrong, but at first sight seems less imbalanced than vanilla setup. It deserves a try.

[Bigtiti]

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?