Changes still needed to the game, IMHO

[chompers]

Yes, I do agree that some minor changes might be needed, but I think you would agree there’s a pretty large disparity between our suggestions.  IMHO the scale of some of the changes you’ve suggested are pretty game-breaking.  I’d like to add that I believe your analysis of the Pacific theater to be pretty spot-on, but I think you’re underestimating the detrimental effect of zero US investment early in Europe.  Frankly, if you (as the axis player) could go into every game in your group knowing that the US was going to dump 80-100% in the Pacific early on, what would hold you back from a G2 Barbarossa with the intent to have the Russians penned into Moscow by turn 6 or 7?  You’re a 60-70 point Germany by then, with the ability to sit in Bryansk thumbing your nose at a primarily defensive oriented Russian stack while trickling enough units via the Leningrad and Ukraine minors to (at worst) maintain parity with the Russians or ( more likely) gradually begin to outnumber them as a small group of mobile German units do doughnuts in the interior of Russia gobbling up the rest of its provinces.  Heck, I’d see no reason as Japan to not head on down and blow up India J3 or J4 depending on whether the Allied player blocked effectively after a J1 Hainan naval base build, and then follow that up by heading straight for Cairo 2 turns later, dispatching its surviving air to either suicide on Moscow when the time is right or sit in Europe watching the coast (I shudder to think how much more effective this would be if the Japs got their OOB planes back).  It could even churn out a batch of tanks or 3 from India to help with Moscow or Cairo, respectively.  The US needs to spend in both theaters simply in order to keep the Axis players honest, and prevent them from teaming up in their theater of choice.

My 2 cents.

[eudemonist]

Personally, I think waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a terrible mistake, and almost certainly will lead to the Japs getting beat down, as by that time India and Anzac are pulling in serious money.

[Jennifer]

@eudemonist:

Personally, I think waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a terrible mistake, and almost certainly will lead to the Japs getting beat down, as by that time India and Anzac are pulling in serious money.

I agree that waiting until round 4 will result in the Japs getting beat down, as you so eloquently put it, but then, I also know from experience and witness that it’s worse if they attack before round 4.  Damned if you do, damned a little less if you dont.

---

Chompers, you recommended an immediate influx of 18 IPC into the China front. The position of those units, as well as the units themselves, would have a more significant impact on the game than many of my original suggestions would.  Think about it, those infantry can put 4 rounds closer to their targets (Build, Move, Land, Attack = 4 moves).  However, asking America to put some units in the Atlantic Ocean before moving them to the Pacific Ocean adds nothing, takes nothing away and only delays them 1 turn.

[dadler12]

I could deal with some more infantry in Asia for Japan, pretty sure I mentioned that idea in a previous post, what I was saying was that the proposed changes Cmdr Jennifer was making were outrageous game breakers that were not needed.

[Jennifer]

And I submit that adding a bunch of infantry to the board is a greater change to the game than merely requiring America to spend money on both maps.

We are talking infantry that start on mainland Asia for sure, probably on the front lines with the Chinese forces (which is where I suspect they would be placed) meaning you need less transports to move units, you don’t have to buy these units, and they are at best 4 rounds into the game at the start of the game since normally you would have to buy them, load them onto transports and unload them, move them inland and then they are available to attack.  Also, these infantry units are immune from the Chinese, Americans, British and Australians on the first round of play (because Japan gets to use them before any of those nations anyway) thus, they would significantly change the game’s make up.  In effect, you’re allowing a restricted bid of 18 IPC, give or take (which is what was talked about.)

My preferred fix is to require America to spend money on both sides of the board.  It adds no new units, adds no new costs, does not significantly change any aspect of the game at all, since America can still move all those units to one side or the other.

You want to talk game breaking, adding units will get you a lot closer, a lot faster than just having America build its fighters in E. USA and fly them to W. USA on their next turn ever will!

And if you feel the reverse, tell us how negative is the opportunity cost, how many rounds are added or lost, what new units are added or removed, how does it significantly change the game, etc, etc.  I, personally, do not think anyone can make the argument that requiring America to build on both sides of the board could be in any way, fashion or form game breaking nor could it do more harm than good in regards to the balance of the game.  At least, no where near as strong an argument as can be made against adding or removing units from the board due, primarily, to the fact that adding units, or removing units to the board add strength in forward positions or reduces strength in forward positions.  Remember, you are not just “adding” an infantry unit, you are adding the unit which effects offensive and defensive ability, you are artificailly moving the unit from manufacturing, transport and movement into a position it would not normally be at if it was just built prior to round 1 and you are making significant alterations to game board tactics.  None of this occurs if you just require America to spend some cash on both sides of the board.

And for the record, those of you who think America has to build on both sides of the board, then what are you complaining about?  Requiring them to do what they should be doing changes nothing from your viewpoint, right?  After all, if you think they HAVE to build on both sides, then REQUIRING them to do so does not harm them one iota.

(I suspect many of you do not really believe your argument, hence you are using it as a strawman.  If you truly believed in your aguement, you would only be posting in agreement to the rule change.  Further, I suspect those who claim it is “game breaking” to require America to build on both sides of the board are weaker players and do not feel they could recover the minutia of alteration such a rule would require.  Many stronger players have, for years, built in the West and moved to the East to shield against Japan, now that Russia is a powerhouse, they do not have to do so anymore, so build directly into the Pacific, knowing it to be the over-powered strategy.  Thus, the rule change, in effect, would have America building fighters and tactical bombers in C. USA, Aircraft Carriers in W. USA and moving them all down to Hawaii on the next round.)

[chompers]

12-15 IPC’s, not 18.  And I’m not even convinced it’s necessary, that’s just what my gut is telling me.  The US, as the primary force of the Allied side, needs to be unrestricted in it’s ability to deploy on either front as necessary in response to whatever the Axis’s opening moves are.  To me, restricting that is a far more drastic change than an extra 4 inf for Japan, whose presence would only really be felt if the US was spending heavily in the Pacific anyway, as otherwise they would just be making an overwhelming Japanese starting advantage in Asia slightly more overwhelming.

[Jennifer]

Fine, even 15 IPC is 5 infantry being added, up front, with a massive head start. (they get to start where they would have ended up on round 4…)

America is not too restricted to respond to what is happening.  Just because they spend a minimum of 16 IPC on the other side of the board does not mean suddenly they are going to lose every game!  Let’s call it what it is:  A minor adjustment to build placement.  It’s less impactful than a bid, it’s of just enough adjustment that it balances things out (namely, they cannot scramble over the W. USA fleet or E. USA fleet if they are built on the other map, but they can still get to the front of their choice that next round, just as if they had been built on that front the previous round.)

From E. USA to can get through the Panama canal, boom, you’re on the map you wanted!
From W. USA you can get to the Gulf of Mexico, boom, you’re on the map you wanted!
From C. W. or E. USA you can get to the carriers built after 1 full carrier movement (less bonus from NB) and, boom, you are on the front you want.

To get 5 infantry where Japan wants them they would have to:
a)  Purchase them and place them.
b)  Transport them to the mainland/move them one space on the mainland)
c)  Move them one space on the mainland
d)  Move into a defensive position on the mainland
e)  Attack with them on the mainland.

Seriously, requiring America to build 16 IPC on the otherside of the board, ONE MOVEMENT ORDER AWAY FROM THE OTHER is more unbalancing than tossing half a dozen extra infantry on the board for Japan?

Instead of just arguing out of rote, perhaps think about what you are suggesting in contrast.  Many of you have claimed the allies will lose if America focuses on one side of the board, I count you all as supporters of the restricted American placement rule, as you obviously think it would be good for new players to have to abide by.  Those of you who have made suggestions such as adding more units to the game or increasing Japan’s income in some way I view as supporters as well, as my suggestion is significantly less game altering than any of those, however, in addition to supporting the change, you wish it would go further.

Therefore, we have two camps:

1)  Those who want no change and do not recommend that America ever split it’s build order until such time as one side is defeated.
2)  Those who support splitting the American build in such a manner as they can still get their units to either side of the board, it just requires an itsy-bitsy bit more time to do so.

Which camp are you in?  There are no 3rd options.

[Jennifer]

For the record, I don’t mean to be accusatory, I literally want to find out if you are in the:

1)  “Absolutely nothing should be done to the game camp”, or
2)  “There exists a bias in the game that makes it harder for Japan to win than for America to win”, camp.

Once we have a consensus on one or the other camps, we can look at the minutia of what to do.  I still hold that the option with the most insignificant impact on the game, that may work, is to require some of America’s builds to go on both halves of the map.  It’s the most insignificant because it is the most correctable by the American player.  It alters the base of the game because it gives Japan 1 or half a round’s head start.

[questioneer]

Officially I am against the American split idea.  However, I am in favor of beefing an NO #4 by 5-10IPcs by adding Shanghai, Manila or Hong Kong or some combination of them.

[SgtBlitz]

Good points overall, but IMHO I think Alpha +.2 1940 is probably the most balanced AA game we’ve seen so far.  The earlier versions of AA were so heavily slanted towards the Allies that it took a miracle, at least even odds most battles, and several builds of infantry push to get an Axis victory.  Even the recent AA50 Anniversary edition had the game set up where the Allies could completely ignore one the of the main theaters (usually the Pacific) and crush the Axis (usually in Europe) before they could even get started, then turn right back around to the other front on a dime.

Now, with a larger Global map, more NOs, more IPCs, and generally more territories and SZs in the first place, the game finally has some epic feel to it. Repositioning forces actually matters and such things like working with what you’ve got in a specific theater takes precedence.  If the Allies try to concentrate on one theater exclusively the other sides can really contend with the major powers in the others:  i.e., Japan can get into the 70s-80s if left alone and can actively match US buys (even with the US’s NOs), and Germany and Italy can both get into the 70s and 40s, respectively, if ignored on their side of the board (easily matching the Allied powers’ strength entirely).  The addition of the “No ignoring one theater now” rule in Global 40 also adds some much needed realism in that the Allies NEED to focus on both theaters at the same time to contain the Axis at first and then gradually push them back.

If you’re complaining about the US just being too large and powerful in AAG40, I believe that was part of the game design, the US’s war NOs are the time bomb ticking behind the entire economic system that tip the balance over to the Allies as soon as the US enters the war.  If the Axis aren’t making enough money to effectively keep their forces competitive (or are playing too conservatively or not taking advantage of early IPC gains cough DEI), their initial starting unit advantage gradually whittles away until they are permanently on the defensive (and losing the war).  The US’s war NOs are also probably there so the game doesn’t take 20 rounds to play like it used to and can come to an earlier conclusion.

[dadler12]

I think most people think the game is balanced Jennifer.  Adding 3-4 infantry (not 5-6) would make things a little easier for Japan in Asia without it making it too easy for Japan like it was OOB.  And an 18 bid is not what you had suggested, read your posts, you had suggested a bid for each Axis country totalling around 40 some IPC.  And there are not two camps, everything is not black and white.  Some people may find the Axis are at a slight (but not unplayable) disadvantage, some people may find the Allies at that slight disadvantage, some find it very balanced.  And in reality, doesn’t it all depend on who you play with, how their playing styles are, and how the dice land for you?

“If you’re complaining about the US just being too large and powerful in AAG40, I believe that was part of the game design, the US’s war NOs are the time bomb ticking behind the entire economic system that tip the balance over to the Allies as soon as the US enters the war.”

Great point Blitz, this really gets to the crux of the matter.  From a design standpoint America has to be the way it is, it is both historical and a game mechanism for controlling length and forcing the Axis to be aggressive early (historical as well).  I’m not saying the game should end up Allies winning every time because that is how it happened, but Axis and Allies is a WW2 game and it strives to create the atmosphere of that conflict.  Hence the Axis start with the units and positioning to attack but the Allies have the economic might to conquer them if they do not act accordingly.  As the game stands it is not impossible for the Axis to win, it is actually pretty well balanced.  There should be no major changes (bids over 12) or rule corrections.

[chompers]

I feel nothing should be changed at all, frankly.  Japan is overmatched by the US, to be sure, but to about the same degree that Russia/ UK are by Germany/ Italy.  That’s the part of your argument that doesn’t jive with my experience of the game.

[Jennifer]

@questioneer:

Officially I am against the American split idea.  However, I am in favor of beefing an NO #4 by 5-10IPcs by adding Shanghai, Manila or Hong Kong or some combination of them.

I could see that as well, as NO $4 generally comes into play only when FIC NO is lost, so it would be a quasi-replacement.

Dadler, I honestly and truely think adding infantry to the game for Japan is a much more significant impact than having America build a couple of units on the other side of the board.  Seriously, you’re delaying the Americans by maybe half a round.

Sgt,

Actually, 1940 has bids for the Allies, AAR, AARe and Classic were all made balanced by bids or were balanced to begin with.  Something major happened on this game, the designers lost their minds, first the Axis were way too powerful, now the allies are significantly (fine, America is significantly) too powerful.  They seem to be shooting for a middle ground and only hitting their own feet, or so it seems.  To be perfectly honest.  I feel this is the most unbalanced game in the history of the franchise, however, each incarnation of Alpha seems to be getting closer to the mark, if they do over compensate and reverse the bias each time.

[Jennifer]

@chompers:

I feel nothing should be changed at all, frankly.  Japan is overmatched by the US, to be sure, but to about the same degree that Russia/ UK are by Germany/ Italy.  That’s the part of your argument that doesn’t jive with my experience of the game.

Germany and Italy cannot beat Russia before America has both beaten Japan AND moved enough equipment to Russia to assist in repelling the Germans.  Not if the Russians play a conservative game, yeilding land as needed to stall the Germans as best possible.

[ghr2]

With germ usually making in the upper 50s/low 60s, and russia usually making in the low 30s/upper 20s, I fail to see how russia easily put produces germ.  If russia dedicates forces to scandinavia like u said, then there should be no problem taking the south.  In all my games as russ, germany attacks be with a huge amount of units that will require everything i have to prvent me from beign destroyed, and he usually has a large garrison in finland, so scandinavia is unrealistic.

With the UK fleet in shambles after G1, and the new scramble rules, the UK could not afford to commit its few fighters/remaining ships against the german navy on UK1, then germ can just hide in 113 where its generally safe from most threats.

Since attacking the italian fleet UK1 is generally suicide (especially when germany lands its planes in Sita), the italian fleet shoudl easily be able to block the UK fleet and/or sink the french navy.  Thus allowing it to steal greece and cairo with maximum forces.  The games ive played, italy usually manages to hold egypt for 3-4 turns.
If the US goes all pacific, italy can stall the UKs ability to reinforce the med (especially if germ is going sealion).  South africa usually takes a few turns to reach egypt, and an IC in persia usually weakens britains home defense.  If italy wants to, he can definately get Iraq and its NO by I2 (maybe not hold it for long, but the money helps alot).

For most of my games, I see that by the time Japan and the US are at war, Japan has taken at least 90% of china or simply killed the chinese resistance by using air, gaining most of DEI and maylay, and locking india down to about 6 ipcs a turn.  Anzac usually sits at 15.  If Japan prepares liek it shoudl for a J2 or J3 attack on the DEI, he should have and income in the upper 50s, and maybe in the 60s.  Enougfh to stall the us/anzac while china is finished and india is starved to death in attrition.  I dont see hopw US can severely threaten Sz6 if japan destroyer blocks like it should.  In my more recent games, Japan held tthe US back till round 9 before the US could score a siginificant victory and Japan’s incoem was aboutn 60.

Even with russia getting about 39 ipcs a turn on average, germany was still able to keep russia from bursting out, even with some unlucky aa roles against germ.

[ghr2]

I’m talking about when germ and rus are at war, and with a sealion, i also don’t see how germ will permanantly lose scan unless sealion failed.

[Jennifer]

Uh, are you looking at Axis and Allies 1940: Global or some other game???

Russia starts at 37 IPC and will easily get the NO from SZ 125 so that’s 42 IPC right there. Assuming you give up the two lands worth something you’re still making 40 IPC.  And that’s assuming you just stay in your own land, you have plenty of forces to move out of your land and go for Iraq or C. Persia on top of it all, and with Scandinavia you’re up to 49 IPC right there.

Germany, in contrast is only earning 36 IPC (6 for Normandy/France + European territories) and has no national objectives.

So yes, I believe Russia is more than adequate at keeping Germany at bay.

---

Sea Lion isn’t a sure thing, there are numerous demonstrations on how to block it with England, so I will not assume it happens.  So perhaps you are dumping units into Scandinavia, that just means my NO territories are lightly defended for Russia and you’ll have incursions going through Romania.  Losing proposition to say the least.

[Jennifer]

Oh, and don’t forget you get +3 for each of Norway, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Holland, W. Germany, S. Germany and Holland (10 for E. Germany).  Those quickly add up as well.

[GoSanchez6]

I know I am late to this argument but I was reading posts a few weeks ago about how England had no chance to stop sealion. Now we are arguing that the Axis have no chance at victory.? Wow the tables have turned. I would argue that if USA goes full bore at Japan and does little against Europe partners. Russia would be annihlated. I have only played this new one a few times and have been Germany twice and won both times because the USA didn’t come at me hard enough. Like I said I am not saying anyone is wrong or picking a fight because most of you have played this more than I have. I personally feel the game is pretty balanced.With that being said if the game can be improved I think Larry will fix it. Have fun everybody. Cheers

[SgtBlitz]

Jenn,

Not that AAG40 actually IS balanced or anything, but I think Japan is fine where it stands at game start.  They are not in position, unit-wise or IPC-wise, at the start of the game to go after the US directly in Global, but by the third turn they should very much be a contender in the Pacific.  My real issues with the game are on the European side of the board.

I would actually advocate that the next alpha should tone DOWN both Germany’s and the UK’s starting forces, as their airforces/navies are WAY overpowered compared to the rest of the board.  Both sides have been buffed to the point of insanity over the Sealion/Taranto options and there are many overpowering situations that can occur later on with such a disparity of starting units if their owners are careful to keep them alive.  For example, the UK can manage to keep ALL of its starting airforce alive to land on England to protect against Sealion.  However, Germany actually gains the edge in the Alpha +.2 version in that they usually manage to kill most of UK’s fleet with very few air casaulties on G1, plus they start with more fodder than they used to in the East.

So, Russia is a prime example of this disparity; the Russians usually are permanently on the defensive for the first 5-6 rounds of the game, if not completely on the defensive until Moscow falls.  The Germans’ starting forces have been buffed, and buffed, AND BUFFED, to hell and gone over Sealion complaints since the launch of AAG40, while Russia has remained with basically the same units as OOB.  Usually an early G2 Barbarossa can keep the Russians on the defensive until they fall, as the Germans’ ten planes and blitzing units make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Russians to hold the line until their ART/ARM buys can come into the fray.  The Russians’ crappy starting units are supposed to signify Stalin’s military purges and the “historical accuracy” of the game, but since the Russian player can also retreat at will from the game’s start, I would assume the Russians in this timeline could also afford to keep some of their bourgeois military units around.  As it is, there’s hardly any “surprise” or anything to Barbarossa in AAG40 as Russia has no chance in hell of holding the border if the Germans are serious about the initial attack.  Russia really needs some kind of a buff.

I believe Larry was attempting to address this issue awhile back by reintroducing 3/2/2 armor into the game, so that Germany wouldn’t be quite so overpowering in Russia, but most people didn’t like that idea, as armor units were already increased to 6 IPCs in the first place.  Now, Larry is even advocating increasing Germany’s power even MORE by making mech inf now attack with a 2 when paired with armor.  I like the unit changes in that it makes combined tactics and units more fun for the game (and especially Germany), but Russia really really REALLY needs a buff somewhere to counter those starting units.

Giving Russia some more mech and arm units at the beginning of the game, with some possibly starting in Siberia that can arrive on the Eastern Front by turn 3 or 4, would really balance things against Germany and force Hitler to decide on either Sealion or Barbarossa.  Historically, Russia had just finished a successful minor border war with the Japanese in 1939 and was in the process of shipping its armor units back to Moscow, its also why Japan/Russia have a peace treaty at game start (battle of Khalkhin Gol, really it was a Japanese rout before WWII officially began).  So there would be an easy precedent to introduce those units into the game.  Really good article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol