Is the Axis Advantage it's overwheling Air Power?

[cyanight]

ItIsILeClerc are you saying USA should have an economy of 105 per turn.  50 pacific and 55 Atlantic?  I think that is way too much.

I do like your rules on complexes.  I remember when we played the classic Axis game in 1984 and played without the ability to buy complexes.  It did steer the game in a more historical path.  There was no more unlimited production out of the Persian IC.

[Jennifer]

That’s easy enough.

The United States of America is allowed to spend their IPC on either map as they see fit for the first 5 game turns regardless of if they are at war with any power or not.  Thereafter, the United States must spend what it earns on the Pacific map in the Pacific and what it earns on the Europe map on the Europe map.  The 30 IPC national objective may be used for either map at the player’s discretion should they collect it.

That way the US can do a hard focus to catch up on the Pacific map, but still gets hamstrung and forced to at least build something on the Atlantic map later.

Keep in mind, players can still buy naval units and shuck them to the Pacific map with Atlantic map money, it just takes 2 turns to navigate there.  They could also buy land/air power and shuttle them to W. USA easily enough.  Either method is just a little slower than dumping straight into W. USA or SZ 55.

[oysteilo]

Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:

1. Dice game
2. Low luck game
3. Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
   I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
   Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?

[Black_Elk]

@oysteilo:

Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:

1. Dice game
2. Low luck game
3. Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
   I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
   Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?

My position on LL is that the outcomes in such games are hugely weighted on the results of the opening round. By its nature, where every pip is relevant, bidding in an LL game is a more exacting process, and the starting unit set up and production limitations are critical. The air advantage in the opening round is magnified under such conditions.

I favor dice generally in A&A, but specifically because of the way it randomizes outcomes for the game, not just in the first round, but throughout, and especially during the endgame. I favor randomization, whether through cash bonuses, or technology advances, or turn order, or just about any thing, over the pre-placement bid. Because its just so easy with a bid to break the game’s set up.

I think the best solution on game balance is to give everyone more money, through whatever mechanic you like. But do it for all players, not just the one side. The spread doesn’t have to be equal, by nation or side, but if you give everyone something then the likelihood that you get a unique game, and a game not as dependent on opening rolls, is increased. More money allows for more tech, if that is your preference, or more unit replacement as the driving force in the game, instead of putting the whole emphasis on the starting units and whatever imbalances my be inherent in the set up. The game evens out and feels more glorious when you are defeating your opponent (or get defeated by them) as the result or your purchasing decisions rather than from the dice in the opening round scripted battles. That’s my view anyway.

The Axis advantage in any case, is not so much the air units themselves, as it is the lack of Allied cash to respond to the Japanese planes more expeditiously.  :-D

More money likewise accelerates the gameplay, at least in the respect that people are more willing to engage their units when, when the relative cost of unit replacement goes down.

As to the split US, or split UK. I’m not a huge fan of the rules which treat both sides of the map separately for the purposes of income collection or turn sequencing and the like. Its supposed to be global after all. Some might dig that split approach, but if you are going to split, then instead of splitting the USA into what is basically 2 players, I much prefer a hard map restriction on movement by theater. For example, if you just enforce the borders of the full map, and do not allow the map to wrap at the Atlantic/Pacific/Americas boundaries, then you can achieve basically the same effect, but without having to change the rules with the sequence of nations or phases in a given turn. The only thing you have to do is restrict the map the connections to match the display of the physical board on your table. In its simplest formulation this means no movement through the Panama canal, and no direct transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific around cape Horn, or across the North American continent.

This makes the game on W. USA a bit more interesting as well, since it is more viable as a target, with the production limit that results from not being able to move units Atlantic to Pacific. It is essentially impossible in OOB G40 for Japan to take W. US with any real effect, but this not so if you restrict the movement down the middle and simply dont allow it aross theaters, along this route.

From a USA gameplay movement restriction perspective, this could be justified in game as the result of how the US allocated different troops and funds to the war effort in Europe and the Pacific.  From the Axis movement restriction perspective I would justify this by basically recognizing that the rocky mountains exist, and that the panama canal was basically on lock, and traveling around S. America (while novel) isn’t really necessary for the game to still function. This is basically a distraction route anyway, people generally transit as part of a feint, and then they double back, which basically wastes more time for the player attempting it, than it does in confusing the enemy. Plus there is virtually no money on this southern Atlantic part of the board, so its not often missed. But what you do get out of the situation is a more dedicated approach to US spending in both theaters, since they can’t rely on a rapid transit of air or men or ships from one theater to the other. In this respect, I would favor giving the USA something extra to assist in prosecuting the dual theater war.

[toblerone77]

While I have not tried it…yet I think a “build and move” opening round where everyone gets a complete round of NCM and purchasing with no combat could alleviate many problems as well as eliminate bidding. Of course this goes against many grains and touches on too many other topics but it’s something to think about IMO.

[Black_Elk]

I have tried it in AA50 and its kind of interesting. Players almost universally pull back and consolidate. But some players (like Italy and Japan) face some problematic restrictions on their movement, due to blocking by the Allied unit “in the way”. The problem is if you allow everyone to do it for a full round, then the tuv spread becomes very significant. Our approach was to randomize who had the “restricted opening” but that was in AA50,  and with a random start to the turn order sequence. Still I’d be willing to bet that the g40 game would produce an interesting start, even if it wasn’t entirely balanced, if you allow everyone to pull back.

[knp7765]

toblerone 77,
That’s a pretty interesting idea. I think the most notable difference would be the Royal Navy not only surviving round 1, but becoming a pretty large fleet presence. I would think by round 2, they might have both battleships and the carrier plus a number of cruisers and destroyers all together in SZ 92. They would probably trash the Italian fleet then.

Black_Elk,
I don’t think that movement restriction would work well, particularly Central US to Western US. As a game mechanic, it has promise particularly in forcing the US to spend on both sides. I just don’t think any US player would go for it. Say Japan attacks Western US and takes it with just 1 tank or a couple of guys left. There is no way any US player would put up with not being able to attack Western US from Central US. I just don’t see a rule like that lasting.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@cyanight:

ItIsILeClerc are you saying USA should have an economy of 105 per turn.  50 pacific and 55 Atlantic?   I think that is way too much.

I do like your rules on complexes.  I remember when we played the classic Axis game in 1984 and played without the ability to buy complexes.  It did steer the game in a more historical path.  There was no more unlimited production out of the Persian IC.

Thanks for the like, and no I was not trying to say the USA should have 105 IPCs/turn ;-).
I was trying to say that IF an economic split is made for the USA, I think that they cannot rely on their Pacific income alone, for the pacific war.
They will have a base income in the Pacific of 15 (+10 if they don’t loose the NO), assuming they will loose the Philippines.
I know from previous analyses that the USA needs to spend at least ~50IPCs/turn in the Pacific (on average) to prevent an axis 6VC there if Japan is played Cow-style (i.e. all or nothing strategy into Hawaii/Sydney).

Now those numbers may be hit on the (painful) right spot or they may be a little off, but they come close enough.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I’d consider a split helpful for the allies, but it will have to be considered carefully.
Also, if talking about a split -and thus, the USA cannot focus all income on any map anymore- 105IPCs/turn suddenly becomes no so much after all! 50IPCs/turn is a lot and will outproduce Japan during the first turns but then Japan gets to that ~90IPC income/turn quickly and that US 50IPCs ain’t so much anymore, considering no IPCs from Europe maps can go into the Pac… Europe income likewise.

Of course, if you split the Us-economy, you would also need to prohibit US fleet/air movent from one map to the other somehow. Otherwise they would just gamey-invest a fleet in Europe and then sail it into the Pacific or vice versa…
So on second thought I think 1 US economy is best, but I DO wonder if the current US income isn’t a little bit too low.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@oysteilo:

Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:

1. Dice game
2. Low luck game
3. Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
   I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
   Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?

Good observations, oysteilo. I think you are right.
With LL the allies have huge difficulties with the current axis ‘economic strangle’ strategy, where they do not DOW (well, not before turn 4 anyway ;-)), and thus have the USA + Russia idle for 3 complete turns.

Personally I have not had as much difficulties with the other axis strategies I have seen, but so far this one makes me think that it is an ‘I always win’-button for the axis. Given LL and a seasoned axis player, that is.
I admit I am not considering a KJF strategy (yet), as I personally do not want to be narrowed/limited to the Pacific. Only once a Europe-first strategy (not ignoring the pacific defenses) seems to work I want to consider a KJF as well.

I have always been able to find a fitting allied answer, but not to this one so far. Maybe we start a new thread on that strategy someday so we can all elaborate on how to deal with this as the allies…

[TheMethuselah]

Granted that I have played very few games of G40, would you mind briefly outlining what the “Axis economic strangle strategy” entails? To my mind, that means Germany gobbling up 15ipcs of NOs in Russia while stalling DDay, not Germany and Japan delaying their DOWs.

[Gargantua]

@Young:

I agree, fishing for oob counter strategies to deal with the successful ones the Axis already have, has become a waste of valuable gaming hours. The bid system has worked for online games, but does not transition well on table tops because there is usually a rotation as to who’s turn it is to play the Allies. Therefore house rules seem logical to achieve balance, but where do we begin and when do we stop. The truth is not many games are using purely oob rules, heck… every online game played in tripleA is modified with added pieces to the setup, and I know that I’ve been guilty of over doing it when it comes to house rule sets. The issues with the game as knp and Wittman have pointed out, go far deeper than just removing a few planes or adding a sub or some other bandaid unit. I honestly think that the game can be repaired by modifying and/or adding a few new national objectives, for example…

Using all out of box 2nd edition rules with the following modifications and/or additions to national objectives.

UNITED KINGDOM

_Reinstate this old Alpha National Objective:

NO U-BOATS IN THE ATLANTIC = 5 IPCs
There are no axis submarines in the Atlantic_

Plus:

AROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING = 3 IPCs
The United Kingdom has conducted a successful SBR on a German production facility this round

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

AMERICA AT WAR = 5 IPCs
The United States are at war with all the Axis powers

GERMANY

_Reinstate this old Alpha National Objective:

LONDON = 5 IPCs
Germany controls London_

SOVIET UNION

_Split the oob National Objective “National Prestige” into the following:

LEND LEASE ACT = 5 IPCs
The Allies control Archangel, and there are no Axis warships in sea zone 125

NATIONAL PRESTIGE = 5 IPCs
There are no Allied units on any original Soviet Union territories_

Plus:

SECOND FRONT = 5 IPCs
The Allies (not including Russia) have at least 1 land unit on an original German territory

JAPAN

CHINESE CAPITULATION = 5 IPCs
Japan controls all original Chinese territories

UNITED STATES

AROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING = 3 IPCs
The United States has conducted a successful SBR on a German production facility this round

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

ANZAC

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

CHINA

_Modify the national objective “Burma Road” to the following:

THE BURMA ROAD = 2 Free artillery units
The Allies control all territories connecting the Burma road_

This is excellent.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@TheMethuselah:

Granted that I have played very few games of G40, would you mind briefly outlining what the “Axis economic strangle strategy” entails? To my mind, that means Germany gobbling up 15ipcs of NOs in Russia while stalling DDay, not Germany and Japan delaying their DOWs.

Rough outlines of The Grand Strategic Plan:
Germany + Italy focus on the Mediterranean/Gibraltar/ME for the first few turns. Germany takes Southern France and builds a fleet there GE2. Meanwhile Japan advances into China + Russia.

During the midgame, Germany indeed does what you described. Japan just builds up unhindered by the USA and takes Calcutta J7-J8. Last couple of games I have played the Axis get to ~200IPCs/turn while the allies barely reach ~150 and convoying still need to be subtracted from that.

For this strategy to work, Japan must wait with its DOW, otherwise the USA will absolutely ruin the Axis progress in the med. Also, as this means Germany is weaker on the eastfront, GE1/2/3 on Russia is pointless. Furthermore, Russian air in the med/Africa can also ruin the axis advance.
GE4 however, Germany is again strong enough to push Russia back.

So that’s why the axis wait with their DOW.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

You could also balance it in the Pac. if you Change Japans IPC production from 8 down to 6 and split the remaing 2 Ipc’s down to Mariannas and Paulau and or Caroline Isand.
Now the Focus for Japan is on these Island as well and need to be protected If Japan wants to keep it.
Aircrafts could be the best way to do so.
(Maybe introduce CAP’s back in)
This is what I also miss on G40 in the Pac. on Japan, it goes full force against the mainland and is not at the slighliest interested on all Islands to be protected.
The US has no need to chip all the Islands away and only has to focus on clearing sz 16 and Australia and going ALL In when ready to conquer Japan!

[Jennifer]

I have to say I like the idea of giving all nations more money.  Perhaps each nation collects their normal income + national objective income and then adds 2d6 bonus economy to add in randomness?

That should only average an extra 6 IPC per nation (6.090909… really) but would be flexible enough to give only +2 or as much as +12 both of which could add some flair and randomness to the game.