I’ve said it before, but Norway should only be worth 1 IPC. Norway with a greater industrial output than anywhere in Russia other than Moscow? If the Yankees can build a MIC in Norway then the Germans should be able to build one in Kiev.
My House Rules forbid the use of captured factories, or the building of new ones anywhere but on home soil in established industrialised areas.
I like the “no major ic on any territory except home territory” rule suggestion. My concern would be though, how it would affect other powers, say Japan with no Indian, Kwangtung, or Malayan Major ic. thoughts?
As stated by me elsewhere in the forums….It might be worth trying the US as a split income like the UK…the only difference being that they can choose which theatre to spend the NO in…
Still gives them plenty of direction to where they want to spend…but not quite all of it…
Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?
UK wouldn’t have an Indian factory either (not industrial zone). There’s always Korea, but Japan built hardly anything outside the home islands, and recruited very few front line troops outside Japan.
With no overseas US builds it should balance out.
Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?
Because we don’t want optimum strategies making the game predictable. I don’t want a game revolving around “the Norway factory” or the “India factory”.
After all, even LH himself has admitted problems with Pacific 1940 and effectively endorsed a fix for the sake of balance.
We have the further anomaly of oil values; clearly tts such as Java and Borneo as valued high due to oil production, but as islands cannot house factories. Conversely we would expect Caucasus to be worth at least as much as these, but as a mainland tt the designers probably didn’t want to see the Soviet player build a MIC here. It comes across as a bit arbitrary, when the ban on new factories solves the problem more elegantly.
But then LH would say that the game would no longer be Axis and Allies…
No the game is not broken by the Norway build. Germany should realize the importance of Norway and keep sufficient forces to hold it and if not have units available to retake it. If US is doing a KGF or KIF strat, then Japan needs to do it’s part to make the US pay for ignoring them.
Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?
Because we don’t want optimum strategies making the game predictable. I don’t want a game revolving around “the Norway factory” or the “India factory”.
After all, even LH himself has admitted problems with Pacific 1940 and effectively endorsed a fix for the sake of balance.
We have the further anomaly of oil values; clearly tts such as Java and Borneo as valued high due to oil production, but as islands cannot house factories. Conversely we would expect Caucasus to be worth at least as much as these, but as a mainland tt the designers probably didn’t want to see the Soviet player build a MIC here. It comes across as a bit arbitrary, when the ban on new factories solves the problem more elegantly.
But then LH would say that the game would no longer be Axis and Allies…
I agree with you both… however I will say that I think that people tend to be too quick to yell that the game is broken before they try counter strategies that are within the existing rules. If the game does become too predictable and boils down one or two key battles then a rule change may be needed. Has anyone played this game enough or more specifically this scenario enough to say that this stategy has broken the game?
There is an easy solution to this make Norway 1 or 2 in income like it should be.
Sounds like the easiest solution to me.
Also, Flashman’s observation on Norway being more valuable than any other Russian territory (including Kiev) presents an excellent case as to why an adjustment down to 2 IPCs would seem to make great sense.
I would add, if you remove the 1 IPC from Norway - in the interest of keeping Germany’s starting IPCs the same - that the IPC should probably be added to Romania to reflect the value of Ploesti and the fact that its possession (and protection) greatly influenced the German’s Russian campaign objectives. This would also make its value equivalent to other Axis oil/historic resource territories - like Java and Borneo. (though oddly not the Caucasus - but I can understand the reason for that in terms of possible factory placement)
The result would be the two primary resource regions for the German war effort being equal in value. Scandanavia, the source of German iron ore and other rare minerals would generate 4 IPCS (Finland + Norway). And Romania, the source of German oil, would also generate 4 IPCs.
I find it hard to believe, but i read that they only play-tested E40 THREE TIMES AND G40 THREE TIMES.
Thats insane to produce a game with such paltry sessions behind it. I hope thats not correct, but i read this from a playtester.
@Imperious:
I find it hard to believe, but i read that they only play-tested E40 THREE TIMES AND G40 THREE TIMES.
Thats insane to produce a game with such paltry sessions behind it. I hope thats not correct, but i read this from a playtester.
Yoper said HE playtested it 3 times. That doesn’t mean it was only playtested 3 times
Yoper said HE playtested it 3 times. That doesn’t mean it was only playtested 3 times
You can assume that most of the playtests were also granted three sessions with each group of playtesters based on his statement.
I don’t think we can assume that some groups got say 10 sessions in and others were booked for 3 right?
I remember old AH games had to go thru like 100 playtests before published.
@Imperious:
Yoper said HE playtested it 3 times. That doesn’t mean it was only playtested 3 times
You can assume that most of the playtests were also granted three sessions with each group of playtesters based on his statement.
I don’t think we can assume that some groups got say 10 sessions in and others were booked for 3 right?
I remember old AH games had to go thru like 100 playtests before published.
Okay, how many playtesting groups are there?
I thought in the global rules you could only build minor complexes in foriegn land. Or was this a rule from some other AA game. I get them all mixed up. Can someone elaborate. This would also seem to be a good fix.
Building factories in foreign land would never be as productive as in your own land with your own people.
Eddie
You can build them as you like. AA is not realistic and it allows this.
I am starting to think the game may be broken. Me and my buddy have played 8 games so far and neither one of us has won as the axis. We played 1942 together many times and never saw a winning streak like that and we are about equal skill level though he is probably a little bit better than me. When American goes into Europe with force they have been unstoppable every time. We believe that if Italy and Germany turtle from round 1 then American might be able to be stopped but the have so many choices of landing zones off the coast of Africa and after that they will get a major factory in Europe unless the axis player is playing a great game. Now I have no idea how an axis player could get to Moscow while fighting off this stragedy from America. We have used Japan to try and mess with America but in the end if America builds a bunch of troops on its coast Japan can only do so much. Plus it slows Japan down big time if they bring the resources to the table to try and mess with America.
Maybe the problem is me and my friend but it is starting to not be as fun because the storyline each game has been Amercia saves the day.
I agree that Norway should be worth fewer points realistically speaking and Ukraine, Caucasus etc. more. However, probably for game balance reasons they decided against this.
Well, what can Germany do to hold Norway? Answer: Build a major IC there themselves! If the US doesn’t attack, the money certainly isn’t wasted because this way and this close to Leningrad you easily outproduce the Russian minor IC there. Under certain circumstances you could even build a fleet there with some transports and land in Nemetsia or Archangel outflanking the Russians.
BTW, is it only a global rule that a Major IC is downgraded to minor when captured or does this also hold true for Europe40?
Something I don’t like about the US is that in all my games so far, understandably, because the rules allow it, the US build up an invasion feelt, park it two sea zones off the European coast and right away land in France, Norway, Holland or whatever. I think they should be forced not to leave the sea zone bordering the Eastern seaboard until at war.
Perhaps also the Russians could be forced to leave a certain number of troops in the border territories (optional rule I’d say, because obviously this was the WRONG decision in actual life, but exactly why the German invasion was so successful initially and so many Russian forces were destroyed), in AAEurope/global 40, however, all they ever do is retreat from the border territories, thereby consolodating their forces.
whats the point in making norway worth less? it has strategic importance for the germans. beside norway is maybe the most beautiful country in the whole world and has the highest % of beautiful women…. nuff said
A minor IC in Finland can help the Northern assault and help repel an invasion of Norway.
Major factories aren’t downgraded when taken.
Stop generalizing that “The game is broken!” because you and your play group suck as the Axis. Don’t you think it should be a bit harder for the Axis to win over the Allies?
Just make up house rules to compensate for your own lack of skill; stop trying to push rule changes that would affect everyone else that can actually play.
8 games is not enough to declare a game broken, especially if they’re with the same group of people. Try playing with new people everytime and let me know when the game count hits 100 with over 30 different people.
If your playgroup hasn’t figured out how to counter a Norway factory build, then maybe the Allies could try something else for a change. There are options in this game.
