So I just looked at the map, the rules, and the setup chart for the first time. It’s all very impressive! The graphic design is all professional-quality, and there are some very ingenious solutions to long-standing problems in A&A design. I am going to comment on some of the rules that I found more interesting, on the theory that Der Kuenstler or some of his friends or even just random passers-by on the forum might be interested in the resulting discussion. I realize nobody asked for my opinion, so if you don’t find it useful, please feel free to ignore it!
Hello Argo - thanks for the thoughtful and detailed review of our variant! I’ll try to answer each of your points in blue.
My favorite part of this variant is the idea of having amphibious assaults gift three “free hit absorption” tokens to the defender which can be partially or totally cancelled with the use of a parallel land-based invasion or an airborne assault. I think this mechanic is especially elegant because of the natural way that its usefulness scales up and then drops off as armies get larger. With literally zero defenders, it doesn’t matter if you’re invading by land or by sea. With 1 defending infantry, the defensive hit absorption is helpful but not a huge deal, because keeping that 1 infantry alive longer is only going to do so much damage to the invaders. With 3 defending infantry and a fighter, the defensive hit absorption is crucial, and makes the attacker really prioritize getting (and holding!) a beachhead. With 10 defending infantry, the defensive hit bonus starts to look like a side-show…yes, it strengthens the defense, but when you land a million-man army on the beaches, the success or failure of your campaign will turn on who has the better army, not on where you invade. And all of this emerges naturally from the simple rule, without the need for complicated exceptions! Love it.
Yes we have been using this rule for 15+ games and everyone likes it - simple to implement and makes amphibious assaults more realistic.
My second favorite part of the variant is the highly improved map in Europe, ANZAC, and South America. The Priepet Marshes area is perfectly executed; there’s a tough choice for the Axis to make on offense, a couple of interesting options for the Soviets on defense, and the whole thing is clearly laid out and executed without “garbage” territories that are too small or too boring to be worth troubling with. Boosting Eastern Australia to 2 IPCs gives Britain a focal point to defend in the ANZAC region, and the addition of Fiji, Samoa, Peru, and Argentina to the map give Japan a continuous eastward path of expansion from Indonesia all the way to Brazil, instead of forcing Japan to stall out and turn around, like most A&A maps. Well done!
I’m pretty happy with the map. If I made another one I would like to make Moscow just a dab farther from Germany when the game starts. I would also like to make terrain and weather a factor in some simple way.
I am less wild about giving every Chinese territory five invisible defending infantry every time it gets attacked by Japan. With at least 10 Chinese-controlled territories, I see that as overkill – Japan has a “core income” of about 40 IPCs on this map, counting Tokyo, the Central Pacific, the South Pacific, and the East Asian coastline, which is not radically different from what Japan would earn on the AA50 map. If you conquer India, Australia, Hawaii, Fiji, the Soviet Pacific territories, and about five Chinese territories, that puts you up to about 55 IPCs, which is still not all that weird for a mid-game AA50 Japanese income. So where is Japan supposed to get the income to deal with an extra 50 Chinese infantry?
Yes this was found to be overpowered. We are now playing where 4 Chinese rise up the first time you attack. If you lose the territory and have to attack it again, only 2 Chinese rise up. After that no Chinese rise up. This is in the 7.0 rules version. We’ve found it is still very difficult to totally conquer China (as it should be) but if you can conquer at least half of China they become kind of a non-factor the rest of the game and Japan can go North or South through India. I was able to conquer all of China using these rules last game when the USA player put all of his navy in the Atlantic and the British ignored me. China is no longer just a speed bump on the way to Moscow and we like that. Keep in mind we are using an arms buildup so you can put a rather huge Japanese force there to take out China if you cut back some on navy.
I’m cautiously optimistic about the “neutral negotiation” rules. I like the idea of not knowing exactly when or whether a neutral territory is going to come into play, and I like the idea of being able to pay more money to be more persuasive, and I like the way pro-Axis territories now lean toward the Axis instead of being automatic Axis partners. However, it seems like it would take a long time to check to see which countries are reachable, roll dice, decide whether to use a Sabotage card, and decide whether to pay the required fee for every single neutral country on every single player’s turn in every game round until the neutrals are gone. I could imagine that really slowing the gameplay down. I wonder if it wouldn’t be more straightforward to say that on your turn, you can make one neutral persuasion check for one territory, and depending on what dice you roll and how diplomatically favorable the situation is, that tells you how much you have to pay to seal the deal. For example, for friendly-aligned countries, instead of rolling 2d6 for every single country and needing a 10 to pay 5x face value, an 11 to pay 3x face value, or a 12 to pay face value to bring the country on board onto your faction, maybe you could roll 2d6 for one country of your choice per turn, and then use the chart below.
It doesn’t really slow anything down because you have to be able to occupy the territory with one of your land units, so the most TT’s eligible to be rolled for during one turn is 3-4, usually by Britain. Japan only has one TT, Mongolia, near it and it is Pro Russia, so Japan hardly ever negotiates. Then, you have to roll a 10 or higher just to get the country to talk to you, otherwise you move on. If you see it played out neutral Negotiation is really kind of a little sideshow.
4 or less: Automatic failure
5: Pay face value to convert
6: Pay 2x face value to convert
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert
For a true neutral, you could start the chart at 7, like so:
6 or less: Automatic failure
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert
And for an enemy-aligned country, you could start the chart at 9:
8 or less: Automatic failure
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert
Just a thought; it might speed things up while giving players a little more control over their diplomatic strategy. You can still try to convert multiple adjacent territories before the relevant enemy gets to play, e.g., if Germany’s trying to make progress in the Middle East before Britain’s next turn, then Germany, Italy, and Japan might each be able to make a diplomacy check in the region.
Finally, I’m surprised that paratrooper transport planes are so cheap, at only 4 IPCs a pop, especially since it’s possible to transport ordinary infantry by plane (if I’m reading the rules right), and this actually cancels amphibious invasion penalties at a 1:1 ratio. Paratroopers themselves also seem cheap at 4 IPCs each, given that they attack at 2, defend at 2, and get to disable an entrenchment or coastal gun. I’m just trying to do the math here, and it doesn’t seem to work out fairly. Two transport planes plus two paratroopers cost 16 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips, plus some cool special effects. One transport boat, one infantry, and one artillery in your system cost 15 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips with no special effects – but only if you have command of the sea lanes! A lone transport is very easy to kill with a fighter, bomber, sub, battleship, etc., and so you will almost always have to buy some defensive boats like destroyers to protect it, which seriously jacks up your “price per delivery.” The system isn’t necessarily broken; you’ll still want some transports to offload heavy equipment like artillery and tanks, and if you happen to have command of the sea lanes and/or an existing beachhead to work with, then sea transports start looking more attractive. Still, I would have priced the transport planes and/or paratroopers a bit higher, to better reflect the difficulty of training elite forces who could jump out of planes with primitive 1940s-era parachutes and still be ready to fight, and to better reflect the rarity of paratroopers during the historical World War 2. Given the prices you’ve set up, I’d probably tend to buy an even mix of sea transports and air transports, or even a modest tilt in favor of air transports, whereas I believe the historical ratio was closer to 10 sea transports for every 1 air transport.
The reason the transport plane is so cheap is it has only the one use. We priced them at 6 IPCs for a while and no one was buying them. The Airborne only attack at 2 if dropped from a plane. The short range of the transport plane makes airborne ops pretty limited most of the time. But you are right - the airborne were overpowered in some cases so we’ve made them be able to do their special abilities only on a roll of 1-3 (50% chance) instead of every time, reflecting the possibility of being blown off course, and also limited each country to six airborne on the map at any one time to reflect their elite status.
On the whole I’m really impressed by how much work you’ve put into this and how well the components fit together, and if we’re ever in the same town, I’d be very happy to play a game of Version 7 with you to see how it goes, my various worries and reservations notwithstanding. Thanks for designing this, and thanks for sharing! Cheers, Argo
Thanks Argo - make sure you have the 7.0 version of the rules and the Addendum which we staple to the back of the rules and contains our adjustments or additions, found above. We would love to have you come by for a game - we are an active group - we have been playing every month for the last 4 years.
