How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?

[LuckyDay]

@jim010:

Besides, I’m still finding that taking Moscow 1st, THEN taking the VCs is the way to go.

Which proves this sentiment…

“Aahhh, Jack, Now that be the attitude that lost ye the Pearl.  People are easier to search when they’re dead.”

[dondoolee]

@Imperious:

Just have Germany as its VC is take Moscow, Japan takes X IPC, or X territories, or X income over a 3 turn period, or take what we got in AAP and give them victory points for every 10 IPC they have. This is not complicated or “unbalanced”

The western allies can win by either taking Berlin, or by turn X, or defeating Japan, The Soviets can win only by taking Berlin.

What is not balanced by assigning different victory conditions? If you want balance then give everybody 20 IPC a turn and the exact same military forces. The game is not balanced in that manner, so why do the VC all of a sudden have the be the same thing for everybody?

But I think map design coupled with The USSR and Japan as more independant and seperate entities greatly mitigates the need for actual VCs.  Still an open style of play where you wish for your team/ nation to figure out how to dominate the board as it exists and keep the rules uniform for all the nations. Perhaps something along the line of “Axis and Allies” with just a dash of “Diplomacy” thrown in, and somehow still find a way to make it viable for two players.  I admit it is a tall order, and at the moment I am not clever enough to figure out how it could be done in an elegant manner, but that would be closer to my ideal I think.

[jim010]

Perhaps something along the line of “Axis and Allies” with just a dash of “Diplomacy” thrown in, and somehow still find a way to make it viable for two players.

In a 2 player game (or playing by commitee) when there are 2 defined sides, I just don’t see how diplomacy b/n your own allies can work when you are negotiating with yourself.  You need 2 separate rule sets like Eagle Games did with Napoleon in Europe.

I am not clever enough to figure out how it could be done

That make 2 of us.

“Aahhh, Jack, Now that be the attitude that lost ye the Pearl.  People are easier to search when they’re dead.”

You’ll have to explain that one to me.

… and what is this karma thing above my avatar?

[frimmel]

What about reducing both the EUS and WUS IPC values to limit production while increasing the central US value to up the overall US IPC rake?

My biggest problem with going Pacific as US is I can’t build enough ships AND ground troops to threaten anything that scares Japan and hence I like increasing the values of the Pacific islands.

If the US had more loot but couldn’t pump it all into one theater easily would that make a difference especially if they could then take something from Japan in the Pacific?

[Lucifer]

To have more activity in the pacific, the Pacific itself needs to be worth more than now.

[Adlertag]

@Subotai:

To have more activity in the pacific, the Pacific itself needs to be worth more than now.

The main issue with AA50 is that if USA go Pacific, he will never get more than 38 IPC income, because all the islands are British.

• The big islands must start as japanese or neutral, so USA can build factories there.

• Ships must cost less. Now an army with a million men cost 3 IPC while one ship cost 20 IPC, and this is insane.

• There must be convoy zones in the Pacific, like the ones in A&A Europe and Pacific. Then USA will need to protect this convoy zones, or get bankrupt.

• China need a capitol and a factory.

• Australia should start with a factory

[Flashman]

You have to look at this problem from a historical point of view.

There are THREE fundamentally unhistorical factors in the standard A&A set-up that conspire to produce the tiresome convergence of Axis tanks on Moscow; and each of these can be quite simply and elegantly fixed:

1. The Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact must be enforced until one capital falls.  It is ludicrous to expect any game to bear even a passing resemblance to WWII without this.

and/or

2. Moscow must be placed in it’s correct location in Eastern Europe, not in central Asia, placing it outside feasible reach of Japanese land forces.  Possibly used in combination with difficult blocking terrain in Siberia.  This must also be combined with the placement of a Soviet factory in the Urals (Tankograd), to give the USSR a fall-back production base if the front line is overrun by Germany.

3. All UK Pacific territories should be placed under US control in line with MacArthur’s SWP Command. A factory with limited production (maximum 2 units, no cap ships) in Sydney gives Japan a worthwhile Pacific target and the USA something valuable to protect there.

Another possibility is to open up neutral South America to invasion, giving Japan a valuable expansion base too close to home for American comfort.

[Funcioneta]

@Flashman:

Another possibility is to open up neutral South America to invasion, giving Japan a valuable expansion base too close to home for American comfort.

I like this. A variant would be making South Americas territories 1 IPC each, USA’s controled

[Adlertag]

@Funcioneta:

@Flashman:

Another possibility is to open up neutral South America to invasion, giving Japan a valuable expansion base too close to home for American comfort.

I like this. A variant would be making South Americas territories 1 IPC each, USA’s controled

Yes, but that did not happen in the real war, now did it ?

Next thing, we will se Japanese fleet in Atlantic, is that fun to you ?

In the real war, USA had this Monroe-doctrine, wich assured an automatic war against USA if attacking any minor in South America. Let me tell you this, South America is the backyard, or b*tch, of USA. South America is to US what Eire is to UK, or what Italy is to Germany, or what Sweden is to Norway.

[Flashman]

@Funcioneta:

@Flashman:

Another possibility is to open up neutral South America to invasion, giving Japan a valuable expansion base too close to home for American comfort.

I like this. A variant would be making South Americas territories 1 IPC each, USA’s controled

Not quite what I had in mind; all south America should be neutral (including Brazil) except small Guiana territories (French Guiana could be Vichy = German; I think USA had garrisoned Suriname by this time).

You have to give Japan plausible expansion targets other than India if you close down the road to Moscow.

Brazil should be worth 3 and Argentina 2, also Colombia 2 or 3 if we consider oil revenue as a factor. A total of 12-15 IPCs up for grabs cannot be ignored.

[Lucifer]

Japanese control of south American countries from 41 is the same fantasyland as Japan holding/trading Alaska, India, and/or Australia. The pacific problem is that Japan hoped for a small scale war against the US, but US reacted/retaliated with a full scale war, even if US used only 25% of resources against Japan, and 75% against Germany. While these things are “less” fantasy than Japanese tanks in Moscow, it’s still pure fantasy.

Germany could win, even from 41, with great luck or skill, but Japan would lose anyhow.

For A&A to be more historical correct, you need to remove more fantasy happenings than Japanese tanks in Moscow.

[Emperor_Taiki]

what if you just gave japan a really low income, like one that is historical. What if they only had an income of 15 IPCs even with the East Indies. They would still be a threat to the pacfic, becasue they start out with all that hardware, but now they are not able to replace their loses and is it not as costly for the US to go after them, therfore making the pacfic a more viable theater.

[Lynxes]

or what Sweden is to Norway.

Very funny…  :mrgreen: :roll: :-D  Which country was the colony of the other?

[Gargantua]

you need to remove more fantasy happenings than Japanese tanks in Moscow.

What about the fantasy of the Axis winning?  You have to realize fantasy is the point of the game, If all you want to do is play for history, then of coure the allies will always win :P  And there is no game.

You have to keep in mind, the reason Hitler declared war on America, right after Pearl Harbor, was because he wanted Japan to declare war on Russia.

Anything that didn’t exactly happen, as it did, is Fantasy,  Just like Britian invading Berlin from an amphibious Assault, Or russians Defending China, India, or Possibly Egypt.

[Lucifer]

@ Gargantua, exactly my point, I don’t understand people who have a problem with Japanese tanks in Moscow, or Italian control of India. A&A is only kind of semi-realistic in the vaguest sense. Some say it’s not fun with Japanese ftrs in Berlin, and other issues which is very unhistorical/unrealistic. I really don’t understand the arguments and/or the thinking behind such claims. As for the outcome of WW2, Germany could possibly win, but Japan would always lose with 99.9999% certainty. And Germany would also always loose if the game starts in 42 or later.

For me, it’s fun to play, and it’s fun to win as many games as possible regardless if the AA50/AA42 map looks like pure fantasy from rnd3.
Those who want a realistic/historical game should start making a complex PC game, a simulation category with many real WW2 battles. It can never be anything than fantasy with a boardgame which takes 2-9 hours to finish. Not a boardgame which takes 3 months either, only a very advanced computer simulation can bring some realism to a game which involves simulated/replayed battles from the real world.

To look at any A&A global war game and believe there is more than 0.0001% realism are delusional. I’m not quite sure how Larry Harris sees this aspect, but if I designed games for people to buy and play, I would be a happy game designer if players/customers thought the games are fun, and A&A games are quite fun, if not, we would not be on this forum and debating what is good and bad in A&A, we would not buy the games, we would not play the games, we would just forget all the A&A games, and choose something else instead. But we’re still here arguing about balance and strats in AA50/AAR, and what we hope for will be included in AA42.

[Battlingmaxo]

Agreed. I’m still not sure why anyone is that interested in this upcoming game if they already have AA50 or revised.

[jim010]

If you accept that the game is pure fantasy and anything goes, then I wouldn’t call it World War II.

I would say the point is to have a period game that allows different possible paths to win that are plausible.  I don’t think you need to go to a computer game to do this.  They managed it nicely in D-Day, Bulge and Guadalcanal.  GMT does it.  Even Xeno managed something that felt right.  Some of the manouvres done in the game push my suspension of disbelief too far.  It’s like watching a movie and seeing a scene that makes you roll your eyes.

Some things possible in the game can’t be done by real armies today.  I don’t have a problem with distorting things a bit in the name of balance, but there are some things that stretch it too far.  This wrecks the WWII feel for me.  I skipped revised for this reason, and was dissappointed AA50 didn’t fix it.  I’m hoping these discussions are being read by someone that has a say and will take them into consideration for future games.

Cheers

[steadybootleggin]

If it were to be accurate, then US should start the game with like $75, and everyone else with, oh I don’t know,……maybe $20.

……IMO

[Romulus]

For me it is not a question of realism. It is a question of available strategies. KGF and JTDM are stille the avenue to victory. Sure you can try something different. Someone has won games buying tons of BB with USA and then wiping Japan from the board for example … someone has won playing KJF and reducing Japan to control only Tokio … someone has won conquering London … but it seems to me that the numbers and the statistics say that KGF and JTDM are the more effective way of obtaining victory. Or I am making a mistake?

We already had three games that plays in such way: Classic, Revised and also Anniversary. We need a fourth? Maybe not.

What could be done then? Trying to introduce some variations in the game that allows for several different strategies to work could be interesting. For chance the two things of allowing the game to be more near to the history and allowing for several strategies to work seems be consonant. Allowing more action in the Pacific goes in such direction. Splitting the victory condition of the Axis also goes in such direction: Germany and Japan were only fighting the same enemies they did not coordinate their strategies. They were even jealous of the success of each other. Also winnig by conquering the enemy capital (and capturing a big safe with the writing enemy treasure containing ALL the IPCs of the enemy) is a dream. Moreover IPCs should be something like industrial capacity how is possible to store them in a safe and allowing the enemy o capture such safe?

Victory should be gained controlling key territories on the map (politically and economically relevants). Such key territories are different for different nations. Thay may be spread all over the board allowing different part of the map to be relevant for differen nations. Such points shoul be defended by IC and such IC, when in danger of falling in enemy hands, should be possibily destroyed by the owner. Victory cities (introduced in Revised) and NOs (introduced in Anniversary) could be used to make for such problems. Divide the national treasure of a Nation for his Victory Cities. So each VC is territoy that works as regional centre, that collects, and spend, the income of a set of territories. So not a unique capital but more than one. Lose such territory and you lose the ability to collect income in certain amount of territories. Moreover such territories may also give victory points that added to a runnig total, updated at each end of round, allows a nations to claim victory. Allow a nation to won with its own objectives, that are different and involve different territories.

Finally the question of historicity for me: the game has historical theme, the WWII, naturally it should allow for alternative results (fantasy), allowing for different strategies (not only 1 for each side). However such strategies should be even slightly “realistic” because the “war” is fought on territories that have geographic and economic features.

[Lucifer]

The main problem is that Germany could win if the war starts in 41, Japan could not. Japan would only get what US gave away for free, and we don’t have political compononents in A&A, so it can not happen in A&A that US retreats if US lost the battle of Midway. As long as we don’t have politics in A&A, to let Japan get away with anything is fantasyland, unless they won such TTs in war, not politics, and Japan could not win anything in war against the US.
And since this is about AA42, the war starts in 42, so neither Germany or Japan could not win anything, b/c of the overhelming production advantage of US, UK and Russia combined.
Also for Germany, from 42 it was a question of time.

Thats why we should have a 1939 game, or a game where every power can switch side, or something similar.
If politics changed before the WW2 started, then the millitary outcome would be different, and then we could have some historical correctness. To let Japan win anything in the pacific is the same as Japanese tanks in Moscow, unless we can have a game where Japan chose not to attack the US, only UK, and then US might not go to war against Japan, and so Japan could win some TTs in the pacific.