No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
The worst National Objective: and one quick way to fix game balance. *HR
-
The russian NO for spreading communism can be easy used to gain 15 extra income that is hard to take away. Italy and Germany can hardly context africa or ME.
True Germany + Italy cannot easily contest Russian NO’s in Africa/ME, but Japan can (moving directly after Russia).
That is, if the USA is NOT doing the KJF-thing where it almost completely ignores Europe first 6 or 7 turns.
Japan simply attacks and removes all Russians after they took an area, since no allied units can reinforce the Russians. It is really frustrating to see how easy this is for Japan with a relatively small fleet. Long story short, Japan will loose about 6 land units to deny Russia each and every last NO it had hoped to grab in the ME/Africa… -
How much do you think would be the bid if you could only bid for russian units on the german front ( zones west of russia ) no restriction on placement so you can plant 3 inf in Eastern poland if you wish ( for example ).
This is an example of a restricted bid. Such options have been used in other games. For example “No bids on Russian fighters in the east to attack Japanese transports.” Or just more generally the requirement that you can only place units in a territory which you control and which already has units in it. The problem with all this stuff is that its entirely informal. The creator has refused to formalize the bid process, and so its fallen to people who run tournaments to set the standards. The more restrictions you place on the bid, the less options you give the underdog. In the most extreme case, you end up with just a hard forced change to the board set-up, e.g. “sure, you can have the bid at X, but you have to spend all your money like this!” At that point, you’re basically just redesigning the starting unit set up to suit your tastes.
Short answer to the question, if you removed the normal bid convention of 1 unit per territory, I’d say that the Russians would still need a fair amount of infantry to compensate for the Axis advantage. The problem with infantry is that its boring. At least if you give the bonus to income, the Russians are more likely to buy forward attack units like Artillery or Armor, which increases the dynamism (esp. if total production is being limited through bombing or factory capture). If its just a stack grind though, I guess I’d want as many bid infantry as I could get for fodder, especially since they can’t do anything other than defend for half the game.
I really do favor the old Classic system, where the bid in IPCs was awarded for starting income only, and not for pre-placement units. Because under that system it was much easier to see how much of a real disparity in income the game actually involved. So for example, say in the Revised game, if Germany needs a bid of 8 ipcs pre-placment, but 20+ ipcs if the bid is only to starting income, then you can start to get a better picture of how much more potent the extra bid is when its used pre-placement, as opposed to on normal income. This is exactly why I think its necessary to provide a comparatively larger amount of IPCs to Russia on Balance, then is currently being bid for UK, since the money would be entering play through the normal purchasing mechanics, and because Russia cannot use the money in the opening round the way that UK could with a pre-placement bid.
Also, not exactly related, but I wanted to just say one quick thing about Godzilla Japan, and KGF, and the overall Allied Victory conditions. In terms of the bigger picture, I think what annoys people is how the game can be resolved in one theater totally independently of what is happening in the other theater.
For example, you can be setting up an excellent Pacific game, but then the war in Europe/Moscow decides everything before the Pacific even matters. Or the same thing in reverse, you can be putting the grind on in Europe, only to see the Pacific game clinch everything with no real way to effect the outcome in the other theater. This sort of thing happens in most A&A games, but its especially apparent in Global, because of the way the Victory Conditions are written (and probably as a result of G40 being two games combined into one.) I’d anticipate the response “but that’s what we want! a way to win in each theater independently, so recovery is possible, on one side of the board, even if things are going terribly on the other side of the board.” I get that too. But the problem here is the speed at which all that resolves, weighted so heavily in the opening rounds. So you have these games where the outcome is basically sealed before you even enter the midgame. The constant rub with either KJF or Japan going monster, or the Center Crush vs KGF, is that its all one side or the other, and the production/income spread seems to support this OOB. I think it would be better from a play standpoint if the NOs all worked more towards split theater strategies, since those are more fun for the gameplay, even if basically sub-optimal strategies under OOB income conditions.
-
Hey Black Elk
Was reading YG’s thread and came across this one. There are great ideas in both so I decided to bust out a Triple A mod.
“Nazi/Soviet Pact” Theme: Armaments and Technology Received from Germany.
When Russia is not at war with Germany they receive 2 PUs.When Russia is at war with Germany:
“The Great Patriotic War” Theme: Soviet Sphere of Influence.
5 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian territories.“Arctic Convoys” Theme: Access to Allied Lend-Lease via the Arctic Supply Route.
3 PUs if SZ 125 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Archangel is Russian controlled.“The Northern Trace” Theme: Access to Allied Lend-Lease via the Northwest Staging Route.
3 PUs if SZ 4 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Soviet Far East is Russian controlled.“Persian Corridor” Theme: Access to Allied Lend-Lease via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route.
3 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), French Madagascar, Persia, Northwest Persia are Allied controlled and Caucasus is Russian controlled.“Red Advance” Theme: Propaganda Value and Spread of Communism.
2 PUs for each originally owned German, Italian and Pro Axis Neutral European (includes Scandanavia) territory that Russia controls. This excludes all African TTs and Mediterranean Islands.
3 PUs for each. Russian control of Iraq and Korea.So it came out a little different but with the main theme being “Get Russia a solid 10 bucks a turn” it should accomplish that. I know there was some debate between 3 bucks and 5 bucks on the convoy routes. I thought 5 might influence player decisions too much. Mostly Japan invading Russia. So decided to throw in a couple mini extra ones. The 2 bucks when there not at war with Germany isn’t going to break any openers and fills a historic place as well. Korea gets the historic label also and a 3 bump. If Japan leaves the North underdefended and Russia attacks, She’ll at least get a 3 spot for her efforts. And if she can hold for a turn take 3 from Japan. While Iraq doesn’t necessarily qualify for historic purposes it keeps the “what if” option open. It’s 5 bucks. People are used to using it. Giving a solid 10 and take away a potential 5 seems counterproductive to the whole idea. If you do take it UK/US can’t build on it. So there’s a bit of a tradeoff anyway. Lots of folks didn’t seem to like the Africa/ Med Island deal, I didn’t, so it got launched. Thought KNP made a good point in the other thread about lowering Spread of Communism to 2 to give a German sealion more of a chance.
Went with SZ 4 for Northern Trace so Japan would have to use CV based air or a bomber to trade. Unless Japan commits to a full scale invasion the US should be able to keep it open most of the time. She’ll have to invest in a bomber and support forces out of BC or AK though. Unless she wants to go big in the Aleutians. Should create more action up North anyway. (Added a blockade symbol to SZ4. This just identifies the zone that disrupts the convoy and does no blockade damage.)
The Persian Corridor has the most ways to be contested but should be the easiest one to keep. If Egypt falls and depending how badly it’ll be a little harder. With the extra dough Russia’s gonna have though, she could have a slightly larger mech force ready to assist. Added Madagascar for historic purposes and more options. A sub from india can hit SZ 80 in 2 requiring the Brits to keep it open. There’s usually a few ships left over from the Med and IO fleets. She can always build out of SA if she wants. If Japan goes India Crush she can make it in 3 to Madagascar and make a landing to kill it off good. But it puts her ships out of position. Also if the British respond it takes power away from Egypt/ME. Don’t know how likely these options are but they’re there.
The Arctic Convoy is now cheaper to match the others, but Russia isn’t getting it anyway.
So all the convoy routes require one Russian controlled TT to activate. Persian has more overall but is easier to protect. You kinda get a Hard (Arctic), Medium (Northern Trace) and Persian (Easier). Patriotic War gives them the Most and Easiest. Should be a solid 8-11 per RD with a potential prewar bonus 6.
Don’t know if this will be a big enough boost or not. We’ll just have to see. I’m thinking probably not. Maybe tweak the not at war to 3? Or you could boost Persian to 5? Give’em all 5? If you wanna keep Russia at a solid 10 you could activate the Pacific Islands when Japan kicks off. That ought to do it. Although if you’re playing FTF that’s a lot of new stuff to deal with. What might work best is to add a US cash per turn bid that some people are starting to test. Keep Russia from overachieving and have a way to matchup different skill levels. I’ve been using a couple more convoy zones in the Atlantic that Germany has to decide if she wants to contest. That’s been working good. Makes for some more “Battle of the Atlantic” action. I won’t go into it here but I’ll add it to this over on the TripleA mods. I’ll post this one here as well as over there.
-
Why do you require French Madagascar to be held? There doesn’t seem to be a historical reason for it…
-
At some point during the war, the British invaded Madagascar for fear the Vichy French would allow Japan to set up a submarine base there. I suppose if that were the case, Japanese subs could have harassed Allied ships on their way to Persia.
-
I remember Churchill saying Madagascar could have fallen easy and that would have cut the route around the Horn. Although I think he was more concerned about stuff getting to the Brits to fight Rommel. I think it was in one of his volumes on the second world war. It’s just to give more options. If it doesn’t work out it can be launched.
Ran a couple test games. Seems to be working pretty good. A lot depends on the Med battles. Especially the 91 cruiser. Japan can interdict the Trace route pretty easy if US doesn’t have a DD off AK with Aleutians blocked.
-
Yes, an Axis-occupied Madacascar could to some degree have threatened Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean, and it would have been relatively easy for Japan to take over Madgascar from the Vichy government, in the same same way that Japan took over French Indochina from the Vichy government. That being said, however, Madagascar in Japanese hands would have been in a very precarious position. To get from Japan to Madagascar by sea, you have to travel practically halfway around the world – so a Japanese base there would have been at the end of a very, very long supply line. Japan had a surprisingly small and poorly-coordinated merchant shipping capacity for a resource-poor industrial island nation, and in WWII it already had enough trouble importing oil from the DEI and supplying its Pacific island garrisons, all of which were much closer to Japan than Madagascar. Case in point: by 1945, the Japanese troops occupying the Andaman and Nicobar islands (which are in the eastern Indian Ocean) were virtually starving, even though those islands are comparatively close to Japan relative to Madagascar (which is in the western Indian Ocean).
Also note that the Indian Ocean was for most practical purposes a British lake, due to British / Commonwealth control of key places like South Africa, Aden, and of course India. The IJN made a few raids in the Indian Ocean in 1942, but never seriously challenged British naval control of the area. Britain set up a major wartime naval base at Addu Atoll, in the Maldives, which would have been more or less astride a potential supply route between Japan and Madagascar. And as Operation Ironclad showed, the Allies were quite capable of carrying out an amphibious invasion of Madagascar if they felt threatened by it. So all in all, I think a Japanese-controlled Madagascar would soon have been isolated from resupply, then knocked out by an amphibious landing.
-
Biggest problem with Russia in pretty much every game is that it simply is too weak throughout the entire game and is a bore to play for most players. Russia should start out weak like it did historically. However there should be some sort of mechanic not unlike the US where Russia at a certain point accelerates production wise.
Honestly I’ve never cared for NOs anyway. Turn triggers or event cards would be much better for the series IMO. The way production is handled in this game has become convoluted and ahistorical in each subsequent edition.
Off topic but I think relevant is a suggestion to all parties with rights to the franchise. Sell it. Let someone else reboot Axis & Allies who actually gives a damn. Reboot Classic for the launch. Spend two years developing a “bug-free” global. While that is in development offer two expansions a year for the Classic Reboot. Throughout this whole transition keep selling 1942SE boxed with a small catalog of “what’s to come”.
A&A needs a game company not a toy company like Hasbro to produce it. My suggestion would be Fantasy Flight or possibly a wargaming miniatures company that produce tabletop games, rules, and minis.
-
Spot on analysis CWO. Japan’s island garrisons and even their bigger bases like Rabul were woefully undersupplied. Shortage of spare parts for aircraft grounded more planes than lack of pilots. As you said, they probably could have taken Madagascar, but supplying it would have been a task they most likely fail at.
I think the board would represent that pretty well. If you take Madagascar you’re out of position and hard to reinforce reflecting the long supply lines. A British counterattack out of S Africa and as the Germans say Japan would be “kaput”.
-
Killer mods Barney!!! I’m eager to check them out. Nice work, as always!
I agree with you Toblerone, on all those points. I pine for a somewhat less cumbersome game, or one that uses more cards and chartboards rather than NOs that you have to memorize and track. The information could be duplicated in the rulebook for easy reference or in case a card is lost, but I favor a box that comes packed with more materials of that sort.
:-DAs to Russia, I feel as you do, they are consistently nerfed, and would be more fun to play with a gradual but regular boost to income, rather than more starting units.
In terms of a reboot, for a 5 man like Classic, I would prefer a game where the primary KGF focus for the Western Allies would be the Liberation of France and conquest of Italy (not the Baltic amphibious hit on G). I have suggested in the past that a starting factory in France might be a way to achieve this, since it would force a more dramatic D-Day, and a more resilient German defense. Right now (and in most previous A&A games) France is designed for the double dip, and light trading. Most competent Allied players will set up their KGF (and even their “cross channel” invasion into France) from Eastern Europe or Scandinavia. And the Berlin hit itself, usually comes from UK/USA in Axis and Allies.
But for a more historical style of play, it would be nice if the Berlin hit, or at least the deathblow to G, came most often from Russia! Russia on a land invasion, not UK/USA on amphibious. And to this end, it would be nice if it was Russia, and not UK, that dominated and determined the balance against G on the eastern front during the KGF endgame.
Its hard for me to imagine how that would work, without a fairly substantial production redesign for Russia, and a more substantial anchor point for the Anglo-Americans in western Europe.
It probably also requires a different focus for Japan, one other than the Center (Moscow/India/Suez), but oriented more against North America/Australia. Even a China focus, as opposed to just steamrolling into the Center for J would be better. I think a Russia boost would work well to this end. Thinking more about the standard 5 man games like Classic/Revised/1942.2 where China is USA controlled (rather than AA50 or Global where China is a separate player nation.) For ease of use and general game flow I favor the 5 man, with Italy under German control and China under USA control. The prospect of a real 6 man might be cool, but I think I’d want something more simplistic than the 7 man AA50 with all those NOs.
I have lots of ideas for a potential reboot, but I think you’re correct in the “just set it” idea.
I think part of what we’re dealing with now in Global is this issue that the game has been out for a while with no fresh successor board to distract us. Sec edition 1940 is fairly similar to the first edition. Over time people have come to see that, absent a dedicated but sub-optimal Sea Lion from G, the situation with Russia is much the same here as on all the older boards. Basically designed for center collapse and the Moscow crush. Russia rarely fights an offensive war during the endgame, unless the KGF is already well under way and succeeding, or if G botched their endgame on a London gambit. This creates a rather bizarre endgame where Russia has a hard time turning the corner, and instead reverts to their familiar “just stay alive and try not to die too soon!” role. The real war looked rather different at its conclusion than most A&A games do, where the Soviet Union came out of the conflict dominating most of Eurasia and contesting the post war balance of power among the Victor Nations.
I think it would be cool if A&A showed a bit more of a nod to the Soviet contribution in World War II. A&A has always been a bit jingoistic in favor of the Anglo-Americans.
:-D -
Thanks Black Elk! I’m gonna add the xml with the extra atlantic convoy zones to the zip. It’s the one I’ve been playing. It’s not so much a money boost but the fact Germany has a choice, to contest, which takes dough away form the East or let Russia and UK get a couple extra bucks.
What do you think about
5 bucks for Russia once Germany declares
5 more bucks the 2nd and 3rd RDs after Germany declares
5 again for the 4th Rd.
-5 anytime there are allied units in RussiaSo it would be An extra 5 the first Rd. Extra 10 RDs 2 and 3 after DOW. Extra 15 from then on. -5 if any allies present.
Is that to simplistic? Germany should still have time to get pressure on Moscow I’d think.
I’m on my 3rd test game and the 10 bucks seems to be a good number. Egypt fell once. Which forced Russia to send some dudes to help hold Iraq. She was still able to slow Germany a little.
Updated the zip with the xml with the new convoy zones. 104 is UK, 124 is Russia. They’re worth 2 bucks. Took 1 PU away from Alberta.
I"ll post it here too. -
Off topic but I think relevant is a suggestion to all parties with rights to the franchise. Sell it. Let someone else reboot Axis & Allies who actually gives a damn. Reboot Classic for the launch. Spend two years developing a “bug-free” global. While that is in development offer two expansions a year for the Classic Reboot. Throughout this whole transition keep selling 1942SE boxed with a small catalog of “what’s to come”.
Here’s a fun idea that (theoretically) could be implemented in the real world: the members of the A&A.org community could form some sort of joint stock company, put their spare change together, buy out Hasbro (or just WotC, which would be somewhat cheaper than the parent company), take control of the A&A franchise, sell off all of WotC’s other assets and product lines, and use the sale profits to finance a re-energizing of the A&A games.
On second thought, maybe not. Given how highly opinionated the people here (myself included) are about what they’d like to see in A&A, we’d be more likely to end up with an anarcho-syndicalist commune (Monty Python fans will recognize the phrase) than a joint stock company. :-D
-
Well, one reason that Russia always end up retreating to Moscow and struggle to survive until USA amphibious assault Berlin, is the A&A map don’t have terrain features that effect movement and combat. In the real war, Leningrad was a fortress with marshes, swamps and lakes as natural flank protection, and between the Pripet marsh and Leningrad there was only a narrow corridor that the German tanks could use. In A&A all territories are treated equal, and that makes the A&A Leningrad impossible to defend. And even if Russia place a stack in Leningrad, the Moscow stack will be too weak. I have attached a pic from the WiF game to make my point.
One way to change this with HR,s is IMHO to ditch the German 5 IPC NO they get from occupying Leningrad, I never figured out how an enemy occupier can get more money out of a burned, scorched and bombed territory than the original owner anyway, and then tie Leningrad to the Russian 5 IPC Lend Lease NO, forcing them to protect it
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb
pic337633_lg.jpg_thumb -
That’s a great idea Narvik, anything that tempers German income even a little will help Russian defense, and the few turns Russia keeps Leningrad while at war will help its defense budget.
-
@CWO:
Off topic but I think relevant is a suggestion to all parties with rights to the franchise. Sell it. Let someone else reboot Axis & Allies who actually gives a damn. Reboot Classic for the launch. Spend two years developing a “bug-free” global. While that is in development offer two expansions a year for the Classic Reboot. Throughout this whole transition keep selling 1942SE boxed with a small catalog of “what’s to come”.
Here’s a fun idea that (theoretically) could be implemented in the real world: the members of the A&A.org community could form some sort of joint stock company, put their spare change together, buy out Hasbro (or just WotC, which would be somewhat cheaper than the parent company), take control of the A&A franchise, sell off all of WotC’s other assets and product lines, and use the sale profits to finance a re-energizing of the A&A games.Â
On second thought, maybe not. Given how highly opinionated the people here (myself included) are about what they’d like to see in A&A, we’d be more likely to end up with an anarcho-syndicalist commune (Monty Python fans will recognize the phrase) than a joint stock company.  :-D
It’s a good laugh, but seriously I wish they and LH would just sell the license to a company that would put some effort into the franchise. Fantasy Flight games by and large give the best bang for the buck when it comes to “Ameritrash” games. A great example is the reboot of Fortress America. Absolutely top-notch production and quality.
-
I agree that the Leningrad NO should go. Germany can easily capture the city and start building there. Why give it 5 bonus too?
-
@wittmann:
I agree that the Leningrad NO should go. Germany can� easily capture the city and start building there. Why give it 5 bonus too?
I think that capture a city, or a Capital, should give you a one time bonus. You can plunder a city once, not every day year after year. Now that should put a stop to the back and forth trading of capitals too.
Iron trade with Sweden and Lend Lease convoys should of course give you NO money every turn
Suggested Topics
