UPDATED 11/18/13
In addition to what is currently being discussed here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.0 (G40 enhanced), i have something i have been thinking about for the Global game.
A 4 Player variant. Wondering what others may think of this?
Allies and Russia vs European Axis and Japan Empire
Allies and European Axis move, conduct combat and research as one power, but incomes are tracked separately (similar to how UK is treated OOB) for each as follows:
Allies. USA + UK + France + China + ANZAC + Canada
All South American gains go to Atlantic USA.
All Pacific islands gained go to Pacific USA, with the exception of all the Dutch islands and New guinea. (both to ANZAC)
All other gains go to UK
Movement restrictions for China does not change from OOB
USA income must be split 50/50 between the Pacific and Europe board. Odd numbered IPCs can go either way.
European Axis. Germany + Italy
All African gains go to Italy.
All other gains go to Germany.
Turn order:
1-European Axis
2-Russia
3-Japan
4-Allies
Map setup: India IC reduced to minor.
No Allied units may enter any original Soviet territories at any time during the game.
To me this would make more historical sense (Allies working together but Russia not quite, same with Germany + Italy with Japan), would be simpler to play and would add more strategic options to both sides.
Not to mention less clutter on the board.
Use UK tan for UK/Canada/ANZAC/France
Use USA green for USA (Once USA enters war replace with UK tan)
Use China green for China
Use Germany black for European Axis
Use Japan orange for Japan
Use Italian brown for pro-axis neutrals
Use France blue for pro-allies neutrals
Use ANZAC grey for strict neutrals
Thoughts?
@Uncrustable:
To me this would make more historical sense (Allies working together but Russia not quite, same with Germany + Italy with Japan)
This is essentially correct. On the Allied side, WWII consisted of three primary and (to a rather large extent) independent wars: the Russians on the Eastern Front; the British and the Americans in Western Europe, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and the Americans in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. There was cooperation and cross-over, of course, but these war can be viewed on their own as three separate but linked conflicts. Or as four, if you add the war in China to the list. On the Axis side, the European Axis countries (Germany and Italy mainly, with Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia supporting and with Finland as a co-belligerent) fought a war that was almost entirely separate from that of Japan. The Axis never achieved anything like the level of coordination which the Allies did (which itself never approached full integration).
My one suggestion would be to change the “Allies” part of “Allies and Russia” to something else, since the USSR was an Allied power (one of the Big Three, in fact). My first idea was “Western Allies”, but that doesn’t work because the term has to include China. I can’t really think of a satisfactory phrase, but if I get an idea later I’ll post it.
Gargantua had an idea for Axis, Allies & Comintern that was interesting. Allies and Comintern would fight against a common enemy, but there could be a game within a game of the Western Allies (+KMT) and USSR (+CCP) competing to dominate the new world order (could be ranked for the purpose of competitions).
My only concern would be the possible changes in game balance. I don’t think there’s any real good way to know how it would change without some play testing. With significantly reduced opportunities for can openers, and allowing the allies to attack together, especially in places like China, this would be very interesting to test out.
My only concern would be the possible changes in game balance. I don’t think there’s any real good way to know how it would change without some play testing. With significantly reduced opportunities for can openers, and allowing the allies to attack together, especially in places like China, this would be very interesting to test out.
Yes on the surface atleast it would seem to benefit the allies the most.
Maybe make a rule, No allied units may enter any original soviet territory.
This would tone down the advantage.
But right now (OOB) the axis are favorites, so it may not unbalance as much as one might think.
Updated OP:
No Allied units may enter any original Soviet territories at any time during the game.
But i dont feel balance would be too far off (right now axis are favored), as it is more an allied buff. But with Germany and Italy working together, and the USSR on its own (barring any lend lease rules or NOs) it is not that big of a buff.
Could Russia declare war on UK/USA and not go to war with Germany? Could Germany and USA/UK team up on Russia? That would be cool.
Could Russia declare war on UK/USA and not go to war with Germany? Could Germany and USA/UK team up on Russia? That would be cool.
This could be fun, but would seem impossible to balance.
@Uncrustable:
Yes on the surface atleast it would seem to benefit the allies the most.
Maybe make a rule, No allied units may enter any original soviet territory.
This would tone down the advantage.But right now (OOB) the axis are favorites, so it may not unbalance as much as one might think.
On the other hand, it removes the possibility for USA to open sea lanes for ANZAC forces to take islands, which helps out Japan a lot. And removes the possibility of USA grabbing Denmark and then UK hitting Germany right after it, which helps Germany defend western Europe more easily. I think overall it greatly strengthens the allies on land, but makes them a bit weaker on the ocean. Would be really interesting to see how these changes play out.
So in this variant, Germany and Italy would move at the same time? Same with USA, UK, ANZAC, China and France? I know they would all have separate incomes and therefore make purchases separately, but what about combat movement, combat and non combat movements?
Basically, would they be able to make combined attacks? Like German and Italian units both moving into France to attack Paris. Or USA and ANZAC ships combining to attack a Japanese fleet.
If so, that would be really cool. Also, it could be devastating to the European Axis if the USA and UK can combine their forces.
So in this variant, Germany and Italy would move at the same time? Same with USA, UK, ANZAC, China and France? I know they would all have separate incomes and therefore make purchases separately, but what about combat movement, combat and non combat movements?
Basically, would they be able to make combined attacks? Like German and Italian units both moving into France to attack Paris. Or USA and ANZAC ships combining to attack a Japanese fleet.
If so, that would be really cool. Also, it could be devastating to the European Axis if the USA and UK can combine their forces.
Allies and European Axis move, conduct combat and research as one power, but incomes are tracked separately (similar to how UK is treated OOB)
Germany and Italy move as one power. As does USA UK China ANZAC France. Incomes and purchases are separate.
It works exactly the same as UK does OOB (Europe vs Pacific)
Uk income is no longer separate in this version however, and it’s IC in India is reduced to a minor.
Possibly add Canada aswell to the Allies.
Adding canada would help out a little towards balance.
Remember also that the allies can never enter any original Russian territories, so it might turn into a Moscow rush.
Just need some NO and political adjustments
Well, making the India IC a minor, makes it even more trivial for Japan to take.
No allied units in Russia going to make it very difficult to hold Moscow. Can Russian units enter allied territory? With no retreat from Moscow option, I can definitely see it being more difficult for the allies to win.
Well, making the India IC a minor, makes it even more trivial for Japan to take.
No allied units in Russia going to make it very difficult to hold Moscow. Can Russian units enter allied territory? With no retreat from Moscow option, I can definitely see it being more difficult for the allies to win.
Japan will have its hands full with ANZAC UK China and USA moving/attacking as one.
There are no restrictions on what Russia does.
The dynamics will definitely be different but there is plus and minuses for both sides.
Maybe UK income should stay separate as OOB. Idk
I am liking the sound of this. If for no other reason, I like the idea of two or more countries’ units being able to attack together. We could get some really cool battles going on.
One other question: Since we are using the Global 1940 setup, are Russia and the US still neutral for the first 3 rounds (or until Axis attacks them)?
I am liking the sound of this. If for no other reason, I like the idea of two or more countries’ units being able to attack together. We could get some really cool battles going on.
One other question: Since we are using the Global 1940 setup, are Russia and the US still neutral for the first 3 rounds (or until Axis attacks them)?
I’d say no other rule changes,
Once everyone is at war you could replace all the units with one color, so only 4 colors on the board.
Or if your playing using LH42 you could just start with 4 colors.
Would really reduce some of the clutter.
I do think that the Russian Japan treaty would need beefed up though, for balance purposes.
Also it might be wise to go back to USA keeping 2 incomes and UK the same.
So the allies would have 7 incomes tracked separately.
UkEurope, UKPacific, USAEurope, USAPacific, ANZAC, China and France.
Also could add Canada. (See below)
I would then let USA land aircraft (only those that started the game on the Europe board) in London while not at war. Those aircraft would defend London if it came under attack. Once the Axis attempt to take London the Allies May DOW.
Makes for sea lion balance if Canada is added.
Hey all,
Not to offend anyone, but I am vehemently against this type of game. The historical reliability of the game would become too compromised. The US and UK would be limited in their strategic points of attack, for instance: The US in our games aims for territories in which ICs can be placed, and the UK uses transports and bombardment to attack the axis. The UK sends as many men as possible to Russia for defense, and the US aids Britian out by producing tanks and land forces with their ICs.
Tis kind of corporation is (for me) what makes A&A cool, that all these powers have to work together to defeat the axis. The axis have an advantage as they can (for the most part) attack as one group. All the allies attacking at once would prove devastating for the axis as well as a-historical.
Sorry uncrustable, but I just don’t think that this variation adds to either the balence or playability of the game. Again, I’m not trying to offend anyone, just inputting my opinion.
Thanks,
At the end of the day it is a house rule, if you dont like it dont play it.
To say that it is unhistorical is silly, much of this game is unhistorical.
And i would argue this version is more historical than OOB, Allies working together with neither Russia nor the Allies quite trusting one another.
Germany and Italy working together while they and Japan dont quite trust each other.
Currently the Axis have the advantage, these changes may swing the balance to the allies. But not much more than a 9-16 IPC bid (what the allies get now OOB)
Remember that the Allies can never enter Russian land, the Allies income is split up all over the board.
There are pluses and minuses for both sides.
It also would be simpler to play, and less clutter on the board.
Updated OP
Changed Allies to:
Allies. USAPac + USAEur + UK + France + China + Common Wealth Dominions (ANZAC, SAfrica, SWAfrica, Canada)
All South American gains go to Atlantic USA.
All Pacific islands gained go to Pacific USA, with the exception of all the Dutch islands and New guinea. (both to UK)
All other Pacific gains go to Pacific UK
All other Europe gains go to Europe UK
Movement restrictions for China does not change from OOB
Hey Unscrustable, I thought I’d let you know about a post I put up in a thread a little while ago about implementing Canada. You’ll obviously have to adapt it to your idea here, but otherwise I think it would work.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29640.15
My posts are on the second page.
As for your idea itself, if I were to use it, I’d leave all the specific colours for each nation the way it is (not that it truly matters in the end). I’d also leave all territorial gains to the country that actually did the work to get it. I have no idea what that does for balance however, so I think I’d have to try both your style and OOB if I wanted to determine that.
I agree that this way of doing it is more historically accurate as well.
@Uncrustable:
Updated OP
Changed Allies to:Allies. USAPac + USAEur + UK + France + China + Common Wealth Dominions (ANZAC, SAfrica, SWAfrica, Canada)
All South American gains go to Atlantic USA.
All Pacific islands gained go to Pacific USA, with the exception of all the Dutch islands and New guinea. (both to UK)
All other Pacific gains go to Pacific UK
All other Europe gains go to Europe UK
Movement restrictions for China does not change from OOB
Okay, I’m getting confused again. I see that you are combining UK Europe and UK Pacific into a single UK, and you are adding the new Commonwealth (ANZAC, South Africa, SW Africa and Canada). However, you didn’t change where the gains go to.
Wouldn’t any Pacific gains go to the Commonwealth now?
Perhaps any gains on the mainland go to UK, and the Dutch islands go to Commonwealth.
What about gains in Africa?
Also, this is just a comment, I think it’s weird that you split the US economy. That will take some getting used to. What about the US NOs? I would guess that the $10 for controlling EUS, CUS and WUS would go to US Atlantic, and the one for Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America and West Indies also go to US Atlantic.
The one for Philippines and the one for Alaska, Aleutians, Hawaii, Line and Johnston Islands would both go to USA Pacific, right?
