I have spent a lot of thought lately about G40 production units and their rules, and I believe they grossly favor the Axis and could be the culprit behind the game’s balance issues.
1. Germany receives 3 free production units from France making it incredibly difficult for the Allies to begin a sustain a meaningful strategic bombing campaign.
2. Germany receives 2 free production units from Russia allowing their advance on Moscow to springboard unrealistically across a vastly large front.
3. Japan can build at least 3 and sometimes 4 production units to decimate China and eventually India.
4. While Japan enjoys many spawning points to choose from, the IC restrictions placed on the US make it impossible to supply a significant attack on the Japanese naval blockade, let alone Asia.
5. The major IC in India works against the Allies when Japan delivers max damage and the UK can not build a single unit.
6. If and when ANZAC makes any significant income, they are limited to building only 3 units unless they purchase a 2nd IC in Queensland.
7. The production units the UK starts with in Canada and South Africa usually take a back seat to the need for one in Cairo, or Persia.
I agree with your overall premise.
On your specific points:
@Young:
1. Germany receives 3 free production units from France making it incredibly difficult for the Allies to begin a sustain a meaningful strategic bombing campaign.
I have little problem with this. I know we might want strategic bombing to be more effective, particularly for historical reasons, but having 3 production units in France serves to highlight that France was (perceived to be) a major power, as well as in my opinion they effectively yet simply support Vichy France concepts, and also serve as a nice springboard for D-Day momentum.
@Young:
2. Germany receives 2 free production units from Russia allowing their advance on Moscow to springboard unrealistically across a vastly large front.
It’s not on board with the famous scorched-earth policy, but I think it’s appropriate for the size of the map to have these capturable facilities. Gameplay > historical accuracy (when they must be at odds). What isn’t OK though is how Leningrad can produce a pathetic max of 3 and therefore falls too easily.
@Young:
3. Japan can build at least 3 and sometimes 4 production units to decimate China and eventually India.
….and I think they fairly well could have/did in real life, too. Particularly Korea. I say this be OK.
@Young:
4. While Japan enjoys many spawning points to choose from, the IC restrictions placed on the US make it impossible to supply a significant attack on the Japanese naval blockade, let alone Asia.
Agreed. An IC on islands, especially Philippines, should be allowed. I know the reason they aren’t is because it can make islands a !@#$ to take, but the rule just fixes one problem to make another.
@Young:
5. The major IC in India works against the Allies when Japan delivers max damage and the UK can not build a single unit.
Yes. With UK Pac’s small economy, this was an oversight of development that has an outsized impact.
@Young:
6. If and when ANZAC makes any significant income, they are limited to building only 3 units unless they purchase a 2nd IC in Queensland.
This. This so much. It’s almost inexcusable (except I can think of one or two excuses, but they’re definitely not good enough to be reasons).
@Young:
7. The production units the UK starts with in Canada and South Africa usually take a back seat to the need for one in Cairo, or Persia.
Yes, Middle-East is Priority #1 for a new UK production center. I’m not sure what that has to do with Canada and South Africa, though.
Canada is there to give you a safe place to build ships if the Germans take control of the seas around London.
South Africa is there to let you reinforce the Mediterranean if you never had the means or will to make a minor complex in Egypt.
I think the issue is reconciling what is a true industrial production center and what is a mobilization point, since ICs represent both in the game. Spreading ICs on the board represents a rail/supply chain of advancing forces deeper into a front, but it certainly distorts history when powers can deploy heavy weaponry, aircraft and warships in remote, industrially incapable (China, for example) or even hostile locations (like France or Russia).
I think ICs need to be refined like in Halifax or completely blown up and integrated with a rail system. The former seems like an easier task.
Exellent points to consider… Thanks.
Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive.
Production in A&A is and has always been arbitrary.
For example, it takes a nation 1 turn to build a Capital ship. It takes at least 2years of construction in real life and I’d say that’s worth 4 turns in A&A. Cruisers not much less, for a more complete picture.
I feel that naval production is indeed too expensive.
In another strategical level wargame I play that is more true to history (a lot), it costs 4 ‘build points’ to construct a Carrier, 3 ‘BP’ for a Heavy Cruiser, (for reference) 6 ‘BP’ to form an armored corps and 3 for an infantry corps/army/army group…
Here is my solution…
The strategic bombing campaign isnt really an issue most of the time, besides yes germany can produce 3 units in france, well nice if you need them in russia that is a long way off.
And even with all the production what is germany going to do with it 50 income you can spend on 1 major facility.
Just because the axis can produce at a lot of points does not make it an issue, they dont have the money to actualy do so.
Also what is preventing the anzac to build another facility?
Japan is building them so your comparison is flawed there, you say japan can build a lot and anzac also needs to build.Japan also almost is required to build facilities as the size of the maps requires them to be all over the place, making a decent suppy line is pretty hard, the US is near australia in 2 turns and japan also takes 2 turns to get to the money islands so the supplylines of the allies are not that bad. Same goes for europe 2 turns from US to attack german or italian area that is really small. Compared to germany it takes 1 turn to get into russia for mech then another turn to get anywhere close to the action.
For Japan it takes 1 turn to be at the coast another turn to get into position and then you can attack with your stuff.If you make units cheaper this will change the balance of the game pretty fast. As the allies have a huge income advantage when attacked turn 1 this is around 60 production more then the axis ( or about 60%) if you make stuff cheaper especialy navy it is the side with the most income that will benefit the most
Thanks for your opinions, you’ve made some good points. Is there a link you can provide to a thread that may have house rules for such cost adjustments?
The strategic bombing campaign isnt really an issue most of the time, besides yes germany can produce 3 units in france, well nice if you need them in russia that is a long way off.
And even with all the production what is germany going to do with it 50 income you can spend on 1 major facility.
Just because the axis can produce at a lot of points does not make it an issue, they dont have the money to actualy do so.
As you said, the SBR-campaign is effective most of the time ;-). I want to emphasise that. Recently I saw when it is NOT: if Germany + Italy completely prevent allied landings in Norway and western Europe with a lot of troops. Yes, this is possible and yes this means they cannot grab Moscow but no, unfortunately this doesn’t mean Russia can do something about Germany on the eastfront. The Red Army still becomes a harmless bird in a cage…
Long story short, I call this the axis economic strangle strategy where they do not hunt down VC’s quickly but only squeeze the life out of Russia while preventing any permanent allied landings. This means the allies can SBR West Germany but that’s about it. Berlin can stay out of harms way if the allies do not have a safe landing spot for their STR in western Europe/Scandinavia. SBR a lot of minor IC’s (Paris, Normandy, Southern France, Ukraine, Leningrad, Stalingrad) works contra-productive in my opinion, since this means loosing more TUV on average (shot down bombers) than the average damage caused.
Also what is preventing the anzac to build another facility?
Japan is building them so your comparison is flawed there, you say japan can build a lot and anzac also needs to build.Japan also almost is required to build facilities as the size of the maps requires them to be all over the place, making a decent suppy line is pretty hard, the US is near australia in 2 turns and japan also takes 2 turns to get to the money islands so the supplylines of the allies are not that bad. Same goes for europe 2 turns from US to attack german or italian area that is really small. Compared to germany it takes 1 turn to get into russia for mech then another turn to get anywhere close to the action.
For Japan it takes 1 turn to be at the coast another turn to get into position and then you can attack with your stuff.
I never build an IC with ANZAC, because a) their income gets reduced to 10 or below and so they can very rarely build more than 3 units anyway and b) any production other than land/air units is dangerous and must be done very cautiously. Allies must Always be aware of Japan taking advantage of too few defenders in Sydney.
If you make units cheaper this will change the balance of the game pretty fast. As the allies have a huge income advantage when attacked turn 1 this is around 60 production more then the axis ( or about 60%) if you make stuff cheaper especialy navy it is the side with the most income that will benefit the most
Wholeheartedly agreed. I personally find that the allied Navies need more loving from the setup/game system because that is where their historical strength was and that’s completely absent in this game. At least in Europe, the allied navies were able to move and attack wherever they wanted to, even if the complete Luftwaffe would have stayed in the west, leaving Russia alone. SO I wouldn’t mind if the allies gained a real advantage at sea (at least in Europe). AFAIC, the UK/French are setup more into the rear, where G1 cannot reach them. That is simple enough and would not disrupt the balance too much. I find it annoying enough already, that Germany can hold off the allies in the west for 10+ turns AND birdcage Russia as well at the same time. Germany should have to make a choice there, really
Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive.
This and transports not being able to defend. I still feel that transports not defending is the biggest mistake in this game. Makes the Europe side impossible to play as allies.
Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive.
This and transports not being able to defend. I still feel that transports not defending is the biggest mistake in this game. Makes the Europe side impossible to play as allies.
Gotta disagree with you there. One of the things that irritated me no end in Classic was seeing someone with a couple of battleships and a stack of transports using them for cannon fodder. Transports were supposed to be protected by the warships and I think the defenseless transport rule makes the best of this.
The only think I don’t like is 1 ship or plane taking out a whole stack of transports. That’s why in our house rules, we only allow a max of 3 transports sunk by any one warship or aircraft.
If the game allowed for it I’d like to see two kinds of transports. The standard 7 Pt transport, and a transport that costs 9 can take a hit and defend on a 1 but cannot be taken as a hit when attacking until all the other ships are dead.
Each nation may only purchase a maximum of 3 minor factories per game.
I think the above rule may be too harsh considering minor factories will be removed from the board once captured. It might come down to nobody being able to build factories because they have met their quota on purchasing factories for the game. Its an interesting house rule though. I’m looking forward to hearing how it plays out.
Each nation may only purchase a maximum of 3 minor factories per game.
I think the above rule may be too harsh considering minor factories will be removed from the board once captured. It might come down to nobody being able to build factories because they have met their quota on purchasing factories for the game. Its an interesting house rule though. I’m looking forward to hearing how it plays out.
Gonna ask my group, but thinking about changing it to read "Nations may only have a total of 3 factories that have been purchased on the board at any given time.
Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive.
This and transports not being able to defend. I still feel that transports not defending is the biggest mistake in this game. Makes the Europe side impossible to play as allies.
I don’t think it makes sense though since the warships job is to protect the transports.
However I think the worst thing though is when you can lose and all of your transports no matter the quantity. That’s something that should be changed IMO
Interesting points. I’d only add that Russia should have a 3 factory behind Moscow. In 1930’s the Urals were industrialized. Making all those territories 1 value is an error. Anyhow, have a 3 factory behind Moscow would reduce the bomber damage the Axis can do to the USSR. A full bomber strike against the USSR can be devastating.
I honestly think these rules are good, our games have been fun and entertaining lately.
Here is a YouTube video explanation of these rules…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R-BL8m6GqQ
Production Unit Profiles:
Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage of 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a major factory once captured
Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage of 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a minor factory once captured
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage of 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with a victory city (Islands included),
or any territory with an IPC value of 3 or greater (Islands not included)
Immediately removed from the board once captured
Production Unit Rules:
Only production units on territories that have been captured are downgraded by one level. Production units on territories that have been liberated remain the same level, and must be relinquished to the territory’s original owner.
Production units may never be upgraded, however there is one exception; the United States will upgrade their major factories on Washington and San Francisco to industrial complexes automatically once they are at war.
Strategic bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational air base.
Nations may only purchase and place minor factories on the board if they are at war with at least one other nation.
Each nation may only have on the board at any given time, a maximum of 3 newly purchased minor factories.
Production Unit Setup:
Industrial Complexes
United Kingdom
France
Western Germany
Germany
Northern Italy
Russia
Japan
Major Factories
Western United States
Central United States
Eastern United States
Quebec
Southern Italy
Novgorod
Volgograd
India
New South Wales
Minor Factories
Normandy
Southern France
Ukraine
Union of South Africa
One idea I’ve had about the transport issue is this:
a transport gets to roll a “maneuver” (basically a chance to avoid an attack) at a 1.
So you have a transport by itself and Germany sends a bomber at it: you get one roll and if you hit a 1 you survive but without the ridiculous addition of your transport killing a bomber.
One idea I’ve had about the transport issue is this:
a transport gets to roll a “maneuver” (basically a chance to avoid an attack) at a 1.
So you have a transport by itself and Germany sends a bomber at it: you get one roll and if you hit a 1 you survive but without the ridiculous addition of your transport killing a bomber.
This is a great idea, I’m gonna post a new thread in house rules for discussion.
I had to have a good one eventually!
Thanks, I’ll jump over there and chime in
