@jonathan-rost Yes, although I may just have found a bunch in Mechanicsville.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
For starters, it’s not going to make sense to keep Japan away from Moscow by nerfing Japan – you can’t nerf Japan and buff three of the Allies and still have a balanced game. Instead, I suggest my trusty stand-by of making capitals less tasty: instead of wrecking your whole economy forever, losing a capital should be a noticeable but recoverable defeat. This might mean losing one turn of production, it might mean shifting to a backup capital, it might mean losing half your treasury – but it cannot and should not mean a total loss of your ability to deploy new units. This should free Japan to expand in a variety of directions as called for by the individual game situation, instead of always being drawn to Moscow like some kind of experimental supermagnet.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but my motivation in attacking Russia with Japan is not to get money from Moscow; it is to win the game. The easiest and most reliable way for the Axis to win the game is for Germany and Japan to jointly pressure the USSR and head for Moscow. If the Axis can eliminate the most reachable major Ally, and the only one on the Euro-Asian land mass, they become very, very difficult, if not impossible for the Allies to beat.
The money from taking Moscow is a secondary consideration; if you have made it that far, odds are good you are sucking up most of their income via their territories anyway. And if Moscow is taken, even if they have half their income left (which at that point would be maybe… 10 IPCs?), the odds that they still have a workable factory in Stalingrad or Leningrad is unlikely. And as for a movable capital (which is more historically relevant to the USSR than anyone else), where would they move their capital to? If basically surrounded by Germany and Japan, they would have few, if any territories left.
As far as France, China, and ANZAC, I think most of the boost they need is just a chance to go before their respective Axis opponents. France should go before Germany, and China and ANZAC should go before Japan.
How is this a good idea? Or historically accurate?
This is my extrapolation of a France goes first scenario: First they buy 17 IPCs worth of extra units with which to put Germany through a meat-grinder and kill their momentum in the game. Secondly, maybe they walk in and take Northern Italy, which they would be perfectly capable of doing. Third, they could also wreak havoc with the Italian navy. This would completely circumvent your idea of putting blocking destroyers in place to prevent a ‘first turn mutual annihilation’. France would pave the way for Britain to come in a clean up the Med.
Even if France takes N. Italy and spreads itself out a bit, it will be difficult for Germany to take Paris and Normandy (and perhaps N. Italy too). Not to mention that France will certainly still have Southern France in Turn 2, with an Industrial Complex and 10 or 11 IPCs (if we go with the losing half the treasury rule). All in all, this means Germany and Italy are both drastically slowed, if not crippled to start the game and it takes them at least one more Turn to completely conquer Europe and pivot to the East/Africa. This takes a Sealion attack completely off the table as well; Germany cannot afford to have an Allied strongpoint so close, so early in the game. Ignoring France and focusing on the UK would not be workable.
I’d also support giving China a second fighter. It’s ahistorical, but it’s boring for China to be essentially limited to one weak attack per turn just because they only had 60 operational fighters, or whatever. It’s much more interesting for China to get two fighters and to have to choose between one strong attack or two weaker attacks per turn. That should get us 90% of the way there – we can tweak the national objectives.
I disagree with this. You argue against ahistorical happenings with Italy, but support it in this instance. I understand that sometimes the historical aspect must be slightly compromised for balanced gameplay, but your reasoning is purely emotional. I would propose the ability for China to somehow obtain a second fighter if the first is destroyed. For instance, the USA or Britain flying one of theirs to China and having it then belong to China. This isn’t the same as your fun idea, but it gives China a second chance at more diverse firepower.
Finally, as I’ve written on other posts, France really needs a territory that it can use as a backup capital / factory site after Paris falls. It’s ridiculous to model France as an independent player and then lock France out of participating meaningfully in 90% of games after turn 1 or 2. The Free French are a fun, exciting, historical part of World War II, and we’ve gotta make some room for them. If we don’t put the French backup capital in Quebec because of concerns about historical accuracy, then it should go in the West Indies, French West Africa, or French Equatorial Africa. I don’t like the idea of the French backup capital being in London, because it undercuts the idea of the Free French as an independent player. As a disclaimer, neither me nor any of my close friends or family have any French ancestry – I could give two hoots about the French on a personal level, I just think that as a matter of good game design, having an independent French player demands having an independent French backup capital.
That is why France was not included in previous versions of Axis and Allies: their historical role was about 10% of what the Allies accomplished. Probably less than that. Not that they did nothing or that their contributions were un-noteworthy or unimportant… not at all. They just did not engage in the war nearly to the scale that the other Allies did. It just is what it is, you can’t really change it. I would go so far as to say it is wrong to do so even in this board game.
Backup capitals aside, the Free French can easily be modeled in this game without a capital or an economy. All you have to do is implement a schedule of placing French units (predominantly infantry) into the game as it proceeds. This could be based on objectives as they are achieved by the Allies or the Axis or simply on a Turn based rotation. Now that, I think, could be fun, interesting and historically accurate. No, France still wouldn’t be a fully playable major or minor power, but IMO it should never be that. Even if essentially downgraded to a minor power, Free France would be less interesting to play with than ANZAC or India.
Even though Axis and Allies G40 technically has 9 or 10 independently playable powers does not mean that they all should be played independently or that they should be played with the expectation of having similar amounts of action or import to gameplay. Some, like France, are designed for the historical purpose they served (to look good, be run over by Germany and then be a minor annoyance to the Axis for the remainder of the game) and not to have a continuously playable presence. I am perfectly fine playing G40 with 5, maybe 6, people. I can’t even find more players than that and even if I did, the minor powers would just be bored. And rightfully so.
-
Great feedback and lively debate! I’m on my way to work so can’t respond to everything, but I just wanted to make one quick point as it relates to the starting unit distribution. The A&A units don’t really represent the same ratios of sculpts to historical forces equally everywhere on the gameboard. A single unit in one area might represent X, while the same single unit in another area might represent Y. Often the unit numbers are changed, as a gameplay expedient, even from one edition of the same game to another, with little regard paid to the historical numbers. Usually the smaller player nations in A&A, have more sculpts than would make sense if the ratio of sculpts to historical forces was constistent at all times.
Keeping this in mind, I would just point out with regard to China, that in Classic China was only 2 spaces. Having a single Tiger was plenty. In G40 this has blown out to 12 territories, and China is an independent player nation, but still only a single fighter unit.
Just think of all the Japanese aircraft that were removed going from first to second edition for gameplay purposes. I see the situation as similar here, with some definite flexibility for gameplay. The Chinese fighter unlike every other fighter in the game has its movement restricted. Perhaps it equals 60 actual historical aircraft, or perhaps it equals 30. Some other fighter somewhere else on the map might represent 200 or 500 or 1000.
Ps. Just got to work early, wanted to type a few more thoughts.
About Capitals or back-up Capitals. I think it would preferable to have all player nations work the same way, but this is difficult because for one thing there is no other VC territory for some nations, like France.
Here is an idea I once proposed for China. You could say that the Shanghai VC is their capital, since it encompasses Nanking (though it begins play with its Capital occupied by Japan). My thought here is that you could approach France in a similar way after Paris falls, or any Nation really.
In other words, instead of having “China rules” that are weirdly specific just to China, you could use the OOB China rules as the model for all that Nations when their capital is captured. They are allowed to collect ipcs and spawn infantry only. Perhaps their movement is restricted. The OOB rules make an exception for Chinese movement that includes Burma. Perhaps England could be treated in a similar way, where French units are allowed there, but not elsewhere. So you don’t have the French fighter dancing around the Globe to Moscow or wherever.
Backup capitals seem like they might be a little problematic, can the treasury be looted a second time? Is it always a VC territory, and what do you do if there is no secondary VC (Anzac, China, Italy all only have 1 VC)? Questions like that would need to be resolved if you go with the Secondary capital model, but they could be sidestepped, if you just use the same China-like system for everyone.
It’s not perfect, but at least it gives you a consistent set of rules for all player nations.
I tend to agree with LHoffman, that the boon for taking Moscow has more to do with the strategic advantages of Axis convergence at the center and eliminating Soviet production, than it does with looting the Russian purse. That said, if the Russians could still mobilize units or collect income (on the China model) this might mitigate somewhat the influence of the Moscow magnet. Just something to consider.
Again, excellent ideas everyone. Keep em coming!
-
Great feedback and lively debate! I’m on my way to work so can’t respond to everything, but I just wanted to make one quick point as it relates to the starting unit distribution. The A&A units don’t really represent the same ratios of sculpts to historical forces equally everywhere on the gameboard. A single unit in one area might represent X, while the same single unit in another area might represent Y. Often the unit numbers are changed, as a gameplay expedient, even from one edition of the same game to another, with little regard paid to the historical numbers. Usually the smaller player nations in A&A, have more sculpts than would make sense if the ratio of sculpts to historical forces was constistent at all times.
Keeping this in mind, I would just point out with regard to China, that in Classic China was only 2 spaces. Having a single Tiger was plenty. In G40 this has blown out to 12 territories, and China is an independent player nation, but still only a single fighter unit.
Just think of all the Japanese aircraft that were removed going from first to second edition for gameplay purposes. I see the situation as similar here, with some definite flexibility for gameplay. The Chinese fighter unlike every other fighter in the game has its movement restricted. Perhaps it equals 60 actual historical aircraft, or perhaps it equals 30. Some other fighter somewhere else on the map might represent 200 or 500 or 1000.
I too appreciate this discussion. It’s fun. There is a lot of dead time on the boards, so it is nice when something engaging comes up.
That is a reasonable assessment. And I do agree that there is no set ratio of what a given unit represents; it is (and probably should be) variable. There are more than just the number or divisions and squadrons to take into account, but also their relative training, perceived quality, technological superiority/inferiority and vintage of weapons. A division of Wermacht infantry is not equal to a division of Romanian or Hungarian infantry. A group of WWI vintage Soviet battleships should not be represented on the map with the strength of a battleship sculpt. There are some nuanced capability related factors that need to be considered and I don’t know that there can be an exact science about it.
With regards to the single Flying Tiger fighter in the smaller versions of A&A… it too was probably a case of over-representation, but was included more for the playability aspect. Adding and subtracting units for ease of play and balance is okay so long as we recognize why we are adding/subtracting and so that it doesn’t get carried away. That is my take anyway.
In other words, instead of having “China rules” that are weirdly specific just to China, you could use the OOB China rules as the model for all that Nations when their capital is captured. They are allowed to collect ipcs and spawn infantry only. Perhaps their movement is restricted. The OOB rules make an exception for Chinese movement that includes Burma. Perhaps England could be treated in a similar way, where French units are allowed there, but not elsewhere. So you don’t have the French fighter dancing around the Globe to Moscow or wherever.
Backup capitals seem like they might be a little problematic, can the treasury be looted a second time? Is it always a VC territory, and what do you do if there is no secondary VC (Anzac, China, Italy all only have 1 VC)? Questions like that would need to be resolved if you go with the Secondary capital model, but they could be sidestepped, if you just use the same China-like system for everyone.
It’s not perfect, but at least it gives you a consistent set of rules for all player nations.
China is the aberration as a playable Power though. They were still in the midst of a civil war when WWII broke out in 1936 or 1937, so there was no single government and no capital. The communists and nationalist came together to fight Japan, but there still wasn’t really a government to speak of. China has its own rules for that reason and it makes sense, to me, the way it is.
I am just against a secondary capital rule as a general practice. To me, it would make the game a little more convoluted and, ultimately, I don’t think it would mean very much. Once you go to a secondary capital your whole objective will still be to re-take your original capital. Being able to collect your remaining income and spend it (if able) will likely just delay the inevitable (defeat) in many cases. Britain may be able to retake London, but only if the US is prepped and ready to help. The USSR can re-take Moscow if the circumstances are right(if they bleed and exhaust the Germans and have some reserve units left). France will never re-take Paris on their own. Japan will never re-take their island if the US takes it. Germany is already terminal if the Allies have taken Berlin, give it a turn or two. If the Axis take the Eastern US… well, why are you still playing at that point?
-
LHoffman, thanks for engaging with my ideas in so much detail. It’s good to get this stuff out in the open.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but my motivation in attacking Russia with Japan is not to get money from Moscow; it is to win the game. The easiest and most reliable way for the Axis to win the game is for Germany and Japan to jointly pressure the USSR and head for Moscow. If the Axis can eliminate the most reachable major Ally, and the only one on the Euro-Asian land mass, they become very, very difficult, if not impossible for the Allies to beat.
I have two questions here: (1) do we want the Axis to become virtually impossible to beat after they capture Moscow? (2) do we want there to be other ways for the Axis to become virtually impossible to beat, e.g., capturing London, or capturing India, or capturing Hawaii, or capturing Brazil?
If your answers are yes to (1) and no to (2), then the race to Moscow really is inevitable, and there’s just nothing we can do about that – if you give a player one goal that’s obviously more useful than the other goals, then of course that’s what they’ll try to do. Personally, I find having only a single major goal boring, and not worth the 10+ hour investment required to play a game like G40, but if you enjoy it, that’s fine.
If your answer is no to (1), then we need to work on giving the Allies at least one plausible base from which to fight for Eurasia that works even if Moscow falls. That could be a Russian base, like a factory and secondary capital in the Urals or Kazakhstan or Amur, or it could be a non-Russian base, like India, Persia, Egypt, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, or Norway.
If your answer is yes to (2), then we need to work on giving the Axis exciting goals that can lock down the game for them other than conquering Moscow. The most obvious option is probably changing the starting units so that Germany has a chance to take and hold London if it makes that its top priority. Another option is to bring more of South America into play and providing starting naval bases in, e.g., Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, and Morocco, that shorten the width of the south Pacific (so that moving southwest into Africa / South America / ANZAC becomes a more realistic strategy for economic victory). A third option is to loosen the restrictions on building on island territories, so that if Japan takes Hawaii it has a chance to continue on to Alaska, Mexico, and Panama without losing too much momentum.
As far as France, China, and ANZAC, I think most of the boost they need is just a chance to go before their respective Axis opponents. France should go before Germany, and China and ANZAC should go before Japan.
How is this a good idea? Or historically accurate?
It’s a good idea because there’s no point in setting up the blue pieces only to mechanically wipe them off the board on turn 1 before anyone gets to move them or choose how they’re arranged. You may as well use neutral white pieces if France literally never gets to issue orders to the troops in metropolitan France. Having one turn to set up a French defense after your own stylistic preferences, even if the defense is ultimately doomed, is way more fun than having zero turns to set up the defense and watching the French pieces get picked off in exactly the same way game after game.
In terms of game balance, as we’ve discussed on other threads in House Rules recently, there’s no need to give France all of the same starting units – if you want to nerf France a bit to make up for its turn order advantage, you can. Another option is to give France only a noncombat move on its first turn, so that it can’t attack Italy. Personally, I would prefer to have Italy be neutral (!) on turn 1 and not get activated until turn 2 unless Britain or France attack it. That way, France can attack Northern Italy if it wants, but it brings Italy into the war a turn earlier, so that’s a gambit at best for the Allies.
In terms of history, check out the Saar Offensive on Wikipedia – it’s a little known fact that after Germany invaded Poland, France responded by invading Germany, without waiting for Germany or Italy to invade France. They didn’t get very far, but there’s no special reason why the French couldn’t have attacked harder or done better in their opening attack.
I understand that sometimes the historical aspect must be slightly compromised for balanced gameplay, but your reasoning is purely emotional. I would propose the ability for China to somehow obtain a second fighter if the first is destroyed. For instance, the USA or Britain flying one of theirs to China and having it then belong to China. This isn’t the same as your fun idea, but it gives China a second chance at more diverse firepower.
I’m not emotionally worked up about China having a second fighter; it’s not like I’m Chinese-American or something like that. I just think it makes for better gameplay, for the reasons Black Elk was pointing out: with 12 territories in play, it’s boring to have to pick only one of them in which to attack. I wouldn’t mind if the second Chinese fighter had to come from some kind of American lend-lease, e.g., you start with a fighter in the Philippines, and you can send it to China, where it becomes Chinese, or retreat it to Hawaii, where it remains American. However, I think restricting the gift of a second fighter to situations where the first fighter has already been killed is far too weak: the point isn’t to ensure that China keeps its fighter (generally not too hard, because the fighter can keep landing in safe territories and Japan doesn’t have many AA guns to work with in China), the point is to give China the interesting decision of whether to make one attack or two attacks per turn.
Even though Axis and Allies G40 technically has 9 or 10 independently playable powers does not mean that they all should be played independently or that they should be played with the expectation of having similar amounts of action or import to gameplay.
I strongly disagree. If you don’t want 9+ playable powers, don’t have them: nothing wrong with a game that has Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR, UK, USA, and a bunch of neutrals. If you treat the Australians and the Chinese as pro-Allied neutrals, the game can work just fine. On the other hand, if you have 9+ playable powers, you have to make them freaking playable! Adding extra player powers that don’t actually get to play is a waste of expensive chrome, a waste of setup time, a waste of brainpower spent thinking about a more complicated turn order, and a trap for the unwary: even if you and your friends know that the minor powers aren’t supposed to be interesting, there will always be newbies who reasonably assume that the designers wouldn’t have put a country like France in the box and the rules unless France was meant to be playable, and those newbies are going to be bored stiff. As G40 stands, you could give France, China, UK Pacific, and ANZAC all to the same player, and he’d still have way less fun than the guy playing even a medium-sized power like UK Europe. That’s crazy.
I am just against a secondary capital rule as a general practice. To me, it would make the game a little more convoluted and, ultimately, I don’t think it would mean very much. Once you go to a secondary capital your whole objective will still be to re-take your original capital. Being able to collect your remaining income and spend it (if able) will likely just delay the inevitable (defeat) in many cases.
I don’t see why everyone working out of a secondary capital will be obsessed with recapturing their original capital. As, e.g., the Free French, I might be perfectly willing to work on retaking French North Africa, or Trans-Jordan, or just on supporting an attack on Italy. As a British player operating out of Ottawa or Calcutta, I might be perfectly willing to let the Germans hang on to London for a few turns in favor of a strategic bombing campaign that helps the Russians take Berlin.
Also, I think having a meaningful ability to build units after the fall of your capital will change the point at which players abandon their capitals. Right now, players hold on to their capitals until it becomes abundantly clear that their entire army will be handily wiped out if they try to hold it. By the time Germany has 60+ troops adjacent to Moscow, the Russians barely have any territories left besides Moscow, so the best the Russians can hope for is a wandering nomadic horde that holds one territory at a time. On the other hand, if Russia had the option to fall back to a more defensible position, maybe they would take advantage of that opportunity and therefore be able to trade/hold more territory. A Russian stack holding at Omsk could reunite the Siberian and European armies faster and would be stronger relative to the invading German and Japanese forces. A Russian capital at Omsk wouldn’t have a huge income, but it could reasonably trade and deadzone for 15+ IPCs for a few turns, which could be interesting. I don’t see that as “delaying the inevitable defeat,” because if the Germans or the Japanese have to pull their stack back to defend their own capital, then the Russians could increase their income and sustain themselves indefinitely, whether or not they recapture Moscow.
That said, I’m not wedded to the idea of secondary capitals per se – what’s important to me is that powers have a way to place units after their original capital is lost. I could live with the infantry-spawn idea.
-
Ha-HA! Good points and very well written… thank you for not taking me too seriously… 8-)
I have two questions here: (1) do we want the Axis to become virtually impossible to beat after they capture Moscow? (2) do we want there to be other ways for the Axis to become virtually impossible to beat, e.g., capturing London, or capturing India, or capturing Hawaii, or capturing Brazil?
(1) Yes, in the game as it stands, the Axis should be virtually impossible to beat after taking Moscow. Taking Moscow eliminates the most problematic Ally for Axis victory and enhances Germany and Japan’s strategic, monetary and geographic flexibility immensely.
Now, if you are talking about altering the rules such that Moscow essentially no longer has the significance that it currently does… well that is another story. The whole point of doing so is to make (1) not true.
(2) Maybe, within reason. Would the Axis have become unstoppable if they took India? Hawaii? Brazil??? Obviously as the game (and history) stands, this is an emphatic no. But if you alter the rules to allow players to manipulate politics and geography and logistics, then I suppose it could.
This is where we are deviating more artificially than I like. To manipulate Axis or Ally motivations in a decidedly ahistorical fashion begins to stretch the game away from its purpose as a historical game. As I have said before, playing this very game is an exercise in alternate history, but it is done within the framework of historical and geographical reality. What I mean is that, it is easy to just say “let’s make capitals mobile or movable”, and on a purely political level this is not really difficult. You just move your leaders and their advisers to another location. Works great in a boardgame. However, in reality can you really move the population, the infrastructure and the cultural significance of a capital on a whim? Certainly not and even in a boardgame this lack of reality is felt. It could easily create results unachievable in the real-world. Maybe this doesn’t matter to some people. Maybe it should not matter to me (since this is after all a boardgame). But my point is simply that the more flexibility players are given (especially on a political level) the less and less this game will resemble plausible alternate history.
If your answers are yes to (1) and no to (2), then the race to Moscow really is inevitable, and there’s just nothing we can do about that – if you give a player one goal that’s obviously more useful than the other goals, then of course that’s what they’ll try to do. Personally, I find having only a single major goal boring, and not worth the 10+ hour investment required to play a game like G40, but if you enjoy it, that’s fine.
Within the rather limited realm of historical probability/possibility, this is the case. From my standpoint at least. Not sure what to say. This isn’t Roller Coaster Tycoon where you can build, tear down and move your empire as it pleases you. In altering capital cities you also alter the map and have to change the victory conditions which in turn changes the entire scope and objective(s) of the game. At this point you are using the unit types and combat framework of the game, but not much else. It starts as A&A WWII and morphs into “A&A: Bat$hit Apocalypse 1948 in the Chilean Andes”!
That is slight hyperbole, but my point is expressed.
If your answer is no to (1), then we need to work on giving the Allies at least one plausible base from which to fight for Eurasia that works even if Moscow falls. That could be a Russian base, like a factory and secondary capital in the Urals or Kazakhstan or Amur, or it could be a non-Russian base, like India, Persia, Egypt, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, or Norway.
This premise is interesting, because it makes us consider what the Allies would have done if they were clearly losing or one of their main capitals had fallen. Would they continue to fight and move their HQ until there was no one left or would they have sued for peace even before that point when it became just too bleak? We will never know, but in changing capitals/victory cities and what they inherently mean geographically and politically, the implication here is that the war can be continued indefinitely. My question at that point is why you would want to, at least in a boardgame. Nothing more boring than seeing the writing on the wall and knowing nothing you do from here on out can change it.
If your answer is yes to (2), then we need to work on giving the Axis exciting goals that can lock down the game for them other than conquering Moscow. The most obvious option is probably changing the starting units so that Germany has a chance to take and hold London if it makes that its top priority. Another option is to bring more of South America into play and providing starting naval bases in, e.g., Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, and Morocco, that shorten the width of the south Pacific (so that moving southwest into Africa / South America / ANZAC becomes a more realistic strategy for economic victory).
Again, this is, to some degree, artificial manipulation of reality: sizes and composition of German and British forces, political alterations to South America and changing the size of the planet so it becomes more convenient to traverse two Oceans. That is less of an exaggeration and more of a literal rephrasing of your above statement.
A third option is to loosen the restrictions on building on island territories, so that if Japan takes Hawaii it has a chance to continue on to Alaska, Mexico, and Panama without losing too much momentum.
This I do not mind. Someone suggested it earlier with a certain qualifier for what can be built, if I remember correctly.
As far as France, China, and ANZAC, I think most of the boost they need is just a chance to go before their respective Axis opponents. France should go before Germany, and China and ANZAC should go before Japan.
How is this a good idea? Or historically accurate?
It’s a good idea because there’s no point in setting up the blue pieces only to mechanically wipe them off the board on turn 1 before anyone gets to move them or choose how they’re arranged. You may as well use neutral white pieces if France literally never gets to issue orders to the troops in metropolitan France. Having one turn to set up a French defense after your own stylistic preferences, even if the defense is ultimately doomed, is way more fun than having zero turns to set up the defense and watching the French pieces get picked off in exactly the same way game after game.
I have never played it, but it seems like you would enjoy HBG’s Global War 1939. It is essentially A&A G40, but a little earlier and with many more options including more playable neutrals and (I assume) a France that you can actually do something with… before they get obliterated.
In terms of game balance, as we’ve discussed on other threads in House Rules recently, there’s no need to give France all of the same starting units – if you want to nerf France a bit to make up for its turn order advantage, you can. Another option is to give France only a noncombat move on its first turn, so that it can’t attack Italy. Personally, I would prefer to have Italy be neutral (!) on turn 1 and not get activated until turn 2 unless Britain or France attack it. That way, France can attack Northern Italy if it wants, but it brings Italy into the war a turn earlier, so that’s a gambit at best for the Allies.
The bold statement is a possibility, as is Italy being neutral. Those are not major changes to the fabric of gameplay and could be worked to achieve some of the goals you have.
In terms of history, check out the Saar Offensive on Wikipedia – it’s a little known fact that after Germany invaded Poland, France responded by invading Germany, without waiting for Germany or Italy to invade France. They didn’t get very far, but there’s no special reason why the French couldn’t have attacked harder or done better in their opening attack.
True, but they simply didn’t do it. The premise for Global 40 is that it begins in May? of 1940, just before the invasion of France and prior to the Battle of Britain… as I am sure you already know. By this time the Saar offensive had long passed (Sept. 1939) and France was geared up for the Phony War. Clearly their balk in the Saar showed both a lack of true initiative and their relative inability to conduct a mobile war. Per the Wikipedia article, and supportive of much else I have read, though France had a large military, they operated with outdated equipment and tactics. They were still in a WWI mindset and quickly found that they were physically and mentally unprepared for an offensive war. Axis and Allies models this situation pretty well in limiting the French player’s ability to do much of anything. The game also limits France’s forces such that even if they could do something, it would pale in comparison to what Germany can and did do.
Giving the French player the option of attacking may not actually be a completely bad thing; mostly because I think that it would quickly be apparent that doing so would be a worse move than simply waiting for the Germans to com get you. Especially if Italy is made neutral for Turn 1 or if there is some other dis-incentive for France to attack Italy. Then France at least has the choice, even if they will never do it. I disagree wholeheartedly with France being able to buy before Germany can attack though.
I’m not emotionally worked up about China having a second fighter; it’s not like I’m Chinese-American or something like that. I just think it makes for better gameplay, for the reasons Black Elk was pointing out: with 12 territories in play, it’s boring to have to pick only one of them in which to attack. I wouldn’t mind if the second Chinese fighter had to come from some kind of American lend-lease, e.g., you start with a fighter in the Philippines, and you can send it to China, where it becomes Chinese, or retreat it to Hawaii, where it remains American. However, I think restricting the gift of a second fighter to situations where the first fighter has already been killed is far too weak: the point isn’t to ensure that China keeps its fighter (generally not too hard, because the fighter can keep landing in safe territories and Japan doesn’t have many AA guns to work with in China), the point is to give China the interesting decision of whether to make one attack or two attacks per turn.
I didn’t mean that you were worked up or that your feelings were invested in it. My point was that your opinion seemed based on novelty rather than any quantifiable reason why the Chinese should get two fighters.
Even though Axis and Allies G40 technically has 9 or 10 independently playable powers does not mean that they all should be played independently or that they should be played with the expectation of having similar amounts of action or import to gameplay.
I strongly disagree. If you don’t want 9+ playable powers, don’t have them: nothing wrong with a game that has Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR, UK, USA, and a bunch of neutrals. If you treat the Australians and the Chinese as pro-Allied neutrals, the game can work just fine. On the other hand, if you have 9+ playable powers, you have to make them freaking playable! Adding extra player powers that don’t actually get to play is a waste of expensive chrome, a waste of setup time, a waste of brainpower spent thinking about a more complicated turn order, and a trap for the unwary: even if you and your friends know that the minor powers aren’t supposed to be interesting, there will always be newbies who reasonably assume that the designers wouldn’t have put a country like France in the box and the rules unless France was meant to be playable, and those newbies are going to be bored stiff. As G40 stands, you could give France, China, UK Pacific, and ANZAC all to the same player, and he’d still have way less fun than the guy playing even a medium-sized power like UK Europe. That’s crazy.
In an Axis and Allies game on the physical scale that G40 is, it would be difficult not to more accurately model places like China, India and ANZAC (and France) as their own, independent entities. They certainly cannot be neutrals since that would be completely wrong (not sure if that is what you were implying). And having them as respective parts of larger Powers (ex. Britain-India-Anzac and USA-China) could pose major problems. The USA could concievably “control” China, but can you imagine G40 China being played the same was as it was in A&A Revised or the smaller global versions??? The US could build freaking industrial complexes there and throw their money there!! (Obviously, I assume this would be slightly amended). But more to the point, Britain controlling India and Anzac under one turn and one pool of money could throw things way off the historical track. Can you imagine Britain dumping 40 IPCs into India? They could do it and just ferry loads of tanks up into the Soviet Union or China. The smaller Allied Powers really have to be separated from the Big Allies at this level of gameplay… even if it is painful or annoying to play with them alone. It is not a waste it is a balance necessity (perhaps barring further restrictions and rule revisions).
I would not want to play G40 with a bunch of newbies… way too much going on for their small minds. They really need to be introduced to something less complicated first (like one of the smaller world games) and given time to properly develop. Even then, do you really let newbies play the game without any coaching or explanation at all? Do you let them make the mistake of buying battleships with Russia or do you explain how things work and give suggestions… if not outright control what they do to begin with? That is all rather rhetorical.
I am just against a secondary capital rule as a general practice. To me, it would make the game a little more convoluted and, ultimately, I don’t think it would mean very much. Once you go to a secondary capital your whole objective will still be to re-take your original capital. Being able to collect your remaining income and spend it (if able) will likely just delay the inevitable (defeat) in many cases.
I don’t see why everyone working out of a secondary capital will be obsessed with recapturing their original capital. As, e.g., the Free French, I might be perfectly willing to work on retaking French North Africa, or Trans-Jordan, or just on supporting an attack on Italy. As a British player operating out of Ottawa or Calcutta, I might be perfectly willing to let the Germans hang on to London for a few turns in favor of a strategic bombing campaign that helps the Russians take Berlin.
Unless you plan on re-writing territory IPC values, Capital cities as they are OOB will always be centers of attention and action. If Britain waits a few turns, they will probably never be able to dislodge Germany from their former home Isle.
Having movable capitals just cheapens their very purpose. How often can you move them, what are the limits? It is both confusing and it makes the strategic goals of the game way too fluid. It also ignores other, less tangible things like patriotism, population logistics and defense and something called shared national consciousness. They are less quantifiable things, but they are reasons why, even though very French, Quebec is not Paris and Ottawa is not London. What good is your political capital really if all your people are separated from you under enemy occupation?
Also, I think having a meaningful ability to build units after the fall of your capital will change the point at which players abandon their capitals. Right now, players hold on to their capitals until it becomes abundantly clear that their entire army will be handily wiped out if they try to hold it. By the time Germany has 60+ troops adjacent to Moscow, the Russians barely have any territories left besides Moscow, so the best the Russians can hope for is a wandering nomadic horde that holds one territory at a time. On the other hand, if Russia had the option to fall back to a more defensible position, maybe they would take advantage of that opportunity and therefore be able to trade/hold more territory. A Russian stack holding at Omsk could reunite the Siberian and European armies faster and would be stronger relative to the invading German and Japanese forces. A Russian capital at Omsk wouldn’t have a huge income, but it could reasonably trade and deadzone for 15+ IPCs for a few turns, which could be interesting. I don’t see that as “delaying the inevitable defeat,” because if the Germans or the Japanese have to pull their stack back to defend their own capital, then the Russians could increase their income and sustain themselves indefinitely, whether or not they recapture Moscow.
That said, I’m not wedded to the idea of secondary capitals per se – what’s important to me is that powers have a way to place units after their original capital is lost. I could live with the infantry-spawn idea.
By the time the Germany has 60+ troops outside of Moscow… it will not matter where the Soviet capital is. The Soviets all will die regardless.
-
Ha-HA! Good points and very well written… thank you for not taking me too seriously… cool
Thanks! You too. I’m having fun here. :-)
This is where we are deviating more artificially than I like. To manipulate Axis or Ally motivations in a decidedly ahistorical fashion begins to stretch the game away from its purpose as a historical game.
Mostly that’s fine – different A&A players will put different weights on the historical accuracy vs. the strategic complexity of the game. I tend to lean a little heavy on the strategy, it sounds like you tend to lean a little heavy on the accuracy, but both are part of what makes the game fun for all of us.
My only real pushback here is that part of why Japan didn’t invade Moscow in the actual war is that the logistical challenge of crossing 4,000 miles of unpaved frozen swamps while dodging potshots from hostile militia and trying to either forage for juniper berries or bring your food with you on the back of a donkey or something is just ridiculous. The American army in 1945, with endless tin cans full of pork’n’beans, countless department stores full of fur coats, and an unlimited supply of light trucks and trained engineers, probably couldn’t have gotten anywhere Moscow if they had to march from Vladivostok. The Japanese army in 1942, with light rations of rice, and a major gasoline shortage, would have been lucky to make it to Irksutsk. We’re talking about terrain that’s so hostile that locals could probably hold their ground even while outnumbered 10:1 – if you think Hitler had trouble with the (European) Russian winter at the gates of Stalingrad, imagine Hirohito trying to take ground in Siberia when the temperature is forty below before the windchill.
Can we simulate any of that with house rules? If not, then I can forgive a bit of artificial tinkering with Axis motivations in the name of tweaking the motivations back toward reality, i.e., away from an unhealthy obsession with an unrealistic plan for invading Moscow at speed across the Siberian plain.
Giving the French player the option of attacking may not actually be a completely bad thing; mostly because I think that it would quickly be apparent that doing so would be a worse move than simply waiting for the Germans to com get you.
So you do see the comedy angle there! I’m not trying to turn France into some kind of global superpower; I just want them to have a decision or two to make.
And having them as respective parts of larger Powers (ex. Britain-India-Anzac and USA-China) could pose major problems. The USA could concievably “control” China, but can you imagine G40 China being played the same was as it was in A&A Revised or the smaller global versions??? The US could build freaking industrial complexes there and throw their money there!! (Obviously, I assume this would be slightly amended). But more to the point, Britain controlling India and Anzac under one turn and one pool of money could throw things way off the historical track. Can you imagine Britain dumping 40 IPCs into India? They could do it and just ferry loads of tanks up into the Soviet Union or China.
Well, we routinely see Japan cranking out lots of tanks in Manchuria, Singapore, etc. – is that realistic? I didn’t think they had those kinds of factories; I was under the impression that Japan was stripping mainland Asia for iron, coal, rubber, etc. and doing their manufacturing on the Japanese home islands. There are not a lot of 2-ipc territories in China for the US to build complexes in, and it would be easy enough to rule that they would have to be minor complexes. If you treat China as a pro-Allied neutral, the USA still has the problem of how do they get to China to activate it – from the Philippines? It’s not something that would really kick in until America has already cleared a sea lane and a Chinese port, and once the US has open sea lanes, I see no reason why they couldn’t have shipped over some engineers and machine tools to crank up a bit of local Chinese production if they wanted to spend the money on doing so.
As for 40+ IPC of British Indian tanks, I’m really not convinced it’s optimal – even with tanks, you’re still a full three turns from Moscow. If Britain has that kind of cash to throw around, I’d rather build tanks in Scotland and shuck them to Archangel, where they’re only one turn from Moscow. Or, you know, build fighters, which can transport themselves. If you’re really concerned about it, you can change the rule that limits major industrial complexes to “original territories” so that instead major ICs are limited to “metropolitan territories,” i.e., not in the colonies.
They are less quantifiable things, but they are reasons why, even though very French, Quebec is not Paris and Ottawa is not London. What good is your political capital really if all your people are separated from you under enemy occupation?
It depends how much time you have to evacuate, I guess. Maybe you should be required to declare a capital move before your capital actually gets conquered, otherwise you can’t move your capital.
But to talk about “all your people” being separated is an exaggeration: the UK had about 40 million people in 1940, compared to 10 million in Canada, 10 million in South Africa, 7 million in Australia, and 2 million in New Zealand. If you evacuate not just the members of Parliament, but also some of your best scientists, engineers, artists, and entrepreneurs, and you also bring along financial records from your major banks, and your gold reserves, and your oil reserves, and your machine tools, then it’s going to suck to have to leave behind most of your population, but it’s certainly not going to end your economy or make your productive capacity insignificant. Ottawa isn’t London, but it isn’t chopped liver, either.
-
This is fast developing into my favorite HR thread on the boards. The discussion is spirited, and amusing, and I think it is pulling us in the right direction. Safe to say this is the exact sort of feedback I was hoping we’d be able to gather.
I’m zonked from work, but wanted to just mention one more thing before I retire for the night, a very general impression I have about A&A HR design tendencies…
I’ve noticed in A&A, when it comes to creating analogies between the historical war and the actual game, there is always a tension between two basic ideals or approaches. I’ve seen them at play on the Larry Boards, and here as well, whenever historical questions arise.
On the one hand, you have an approach that favors a more consistent historical analogy for the individual game elements.
On the other hand, you have an approach that favors a more consistent historical analogy for the resulting gameplay patterns.At some point I think you really have to choose which approach you want to give primacy, because the game system is often too simplistic to handle both without internal conflicts arising.
Like if you want to keep the game elements totally concrete and uniform in their historical analogies, then you have to just accept the play-patterns that develop out of them. But if you want to change the play-patterns after the fact, you basically have to let go of the notion that one of those elements represents something very solid.
Let me give an example of what I mean in a game context…
Take a critical game element like IPCs/Money.These are used for all sorts of things in game, like determining territory value (where production can be located, what its worth when traded for units), or what sorts of units that can be bought in a given purchase etc. So in that respect, a Nation’s starting income might be really important.
For some players, this element of the game should be concrete and consistent in its analogy to the real world, or to the actual historical situation in WWII. 1 IPC = 1 million man hours of “Industrial Production.” That’s what it says on the certificate, and what it says on that dollar bill, is exactly what it means. Now depending on how strict you want to be, you can say ‘OK this is our building block’, and this initial abstraction is going to serve as the basis for all the other abstractions we make. It’s a foundational game element, and the analogy or narrative created around it is seen as very concrete and not open to much interpretation. Since units cost a set amount of IPCs, and territories are worth a set amount of IPCs drawn on the map, the IPC is sort of sacrosanct. If we were to suddenly change this element somewhere via HRs, then the change cascades out through the entire game, such that nothing relates in quite the same way to anything else consistently anymore, and the historical analogy of the IPC is broken. Potential uproar. Also, because the IPC value of a territory represents something like resources and raw materials, increasing or lowering it substantially is just off the table, unless you want to entertain total fantasy. Things like starting Income or the value of Objectives, average income in a round etc. trump other considerations because they’re at the root of the game’s design. So after all this you come down to the idea, that starting income should just never be changed.
Or, then again, perhaps the Starting IPC analogy is not the most thing important to you, and there are other things in the game that trump it. In this case, what’s important might not be the IPC starting treasury totals, or the IPC value of a given territory, or IPC objective bonuses per se, but rather how players are using this cash in their actual games. How players are drawn towards certain higher IPC territories, or totally ignore some zero IPC territories. Basically whether or not the resulting game-play pattern feel “satisfying” as a reflection of the real historical war. Here IPCs are just a means to an end, not 1 million man hours of production really, but just some sort of abstract game point that allows other things to happen (things that are more meaningful to the overall narrative you create about the game as player, like maybe combats happening in territories where combat historically occurred.)
You could take another game element, like the sequence of the Turn Order.
On the one hand you could say that the chosen sequence represents something really significant to the game’s design. Having Germany move first, or having a particular nation’s turn fall when it does, attaches to a timeline of events that’s meant to simulate something specific. You could say that turns in the game round = some set number of months, and that the turn order specifically reflects which sort of attack patterns can develop in that time-frame. Like G1 = Fall of France type scenario.
Or again, maybe it just isn’t all that important to you, and something you can tweak if it leads to a more satisfying set of gameplay patterns.Another element might be something like Starting Unit distribution. Whether you consider the starting units to be concrete representations of the actual forces in the field. Or whether they are just vague gamey abstractions, that can be altered like with a bid or a set up change. Similarly you might put the focus on the units themselves, how they move, their combat abilities etc.
In each case, there is this tension, between the desire for the element to be accurate and the desire for the gameplay pattern to be accurate, and frustration when they don’t both align under the games normal rules. Hence the desire for the reboot hehe. Personally, the thing that I care about in G40 is not how accurately the game’s individual elements are modeled at the outset, but whether the gameplay patterns that emerge from those elements feel accurate as the game progresses. And when I say “feel” accurate I mean true to history, or historical probability, where the gameplay over the course of many rounds resembles what actually happened in World War II.
Marc’s Campaigns basically… And then the question, do they actually happen?
Because when they don’t, or when “other campaigns” like the Japanese Tank Drive, or the Western Air Wall to Moscow, take over, I think that’s what bugs.
You know, when the largest naval battle between Japan and American takes place somewhere in the Mediterranean. Or the largest tank battle in human history occurs not between Russia and Germany, but between Japan and UK (somewhere in Russia.) Things like that, they just bug. Even if all the elements seem accurately modeled relative to each other, if they produce a game that departs markedly from what happened in the second world war, then something’s got to give. We just need to pick the focus for what to change.
Perhaps I’m too blitzed right now to spit it out (I’m a smokey character tonight), but I guess what I’m driving at is this idea, that we should figure out which element of the game we care the least about from the historical analogy perspective, and then change that element to create the desired gameplay patterns, (leaving the rest alone, so its relatively easy to adopt). Figure out the simplest ways we can, to create incentives for the Campaigns we want to see occurring, while retaining the entertainment value provided by potential deviations from the history.
I rather prefer to build backwards. Taking the desired play-patterns first, figuring out what’s necessary to get where we want, and then use that to determine what a given element represents, or how it should be interpreted historically. (as opposed to the other way around.) Put another way, I’m happy to accept that a unit in one part of the world, might represent something rather different than the same unit in some other part of the world. Or that IPCs are not quite the same for Russia as they are for Germany, or for Japan and USA. Or that the treasuries of the various nations at the outset need to fall along some kind of weakest-to-strongest continuum with no regard for everything else that’s in play (like what the Nation is actually expected to do with that Treasury in the game haha.) I’d think more in terms of, “is this Nation fun to play?” and “are they doing what they should be doing from a historical perspective?” If the answer is “no, or boring, or could be better,” then I’m willing to suspend the disbelief a bit when it comes to tweaking the elements, if that results in a more convincing play-pattern.
In particular, the Central Pacific campaign for islands is something I’ve always wanted to see in A&A, but never really have.
Another thing I’ve wanted to see, but haven’t yet, is a way for the Axis to win that doesn’t always run through Moscow (esp for Japan).I’d set those up as fairly modest goals that we should aim to achieve, however it is we get there in the end.
:-D -
Good comments, Black_Elk – if that’s what you can toss out when you’re zonked from work, then I look forward to seeing what comes out when you’re well-rested!
A very brief note re: the Central Pacific island-hopping campaign – one of the most fascinating essays I’ve read about WW2 suggests that the island-hopping was a major strategic error for both sides, and that either Japan or the USA could have (but failed to) gain a big advantage by ignoring the islands and striking directly at the enemy’s main carrier fleet.
http://www.amazon.com/Mahan-Ran-Great-Pacific-War/dp/0253351057
I would like to see more focus on the Central Pacific islands, but it is interesting for me to see all the ways that players can fight over the Pacific half of the map without going through the Marianas and Carolines.
-
Mostly that’s fine – different A&A players will put different weights on the historical accuracy vs. the strategic complexity of the game. I tend to lean a little heavy on the strategy, it sounds like you tend to lean a little heavy on the accuracy, but both are part of what makes the game fun for all of us.
Yes, I suppose I do. Not that it needs to have an accurate middle or end (the Allies need not and should not win every time), but beginning with a very historical premise and set of rules will help keep the truly wacky stuff out.
My only real pushback here is that part of why Japan didn’t invade Moscow in the actual war is that the logistical challenge of crossing 4,000 miles of unpaved frozen swamps while dodging potshots from hostile militia and trying to either forage for juniper berries or bring your food with you on the back of a donkey or something is just ridiculous. … We’re talking about terrain that’s so hostile that locals could probably hold their ground even while outnumbered 10:1 – if you think Hitler had trouble with the (European) Russian winter at the gates of Stalingrad, imagine Hirohito trying to take ground in Siberia when the temperature is forty below before the windchill.
Can we simulate any of that with house rules? If not, then I can forgive a bit of artificial tinkering with Axis motivations in the name of tweaking the motivations back toward reality, i.e., away from an unhealthy obsession with an unrealistic plan for invading Moscow at speed across the Siberian plain.
I agree with you. I think this could easily be taken care of with a rule simply stating that “Japan may not cross continental Asia through Soviet territories”… or something to that effect. I do not really like such black and white rules because it truly boxes a player in. For example, in previous A&A versions, Neutrals are simply impassable and unassailable. Nothing you can do about it even if you wanted to. Now in G40, that has changed to where something could be done if you so desired, but nobody makes that choice because the consequences are so bad. I prefer leaving the options open, but surrounding that option with consequences grounded in some sort of historical or geographic reality. (The latter is very hard to simulate in a boardgame like this.)
Well, we routinely see Japan cranking out lots of tanks in Manchuria, Singapore, etc. – is that realistic? I didn’t think they had those kinds of factories; I was under the impression that Japan was stripping mainland Asia for iron, coal, rubber, etc. and doing their manufacturing on the Japanese home islands.
This is the problem I struggle with. Things which have become standard for gameplay (Japan’s rush at India, taking over China, ignoring a naval war with the US…) are not very historical at all. Are we smarter than Japan was in reality? I don’t know… but each player in A&A is free of the ego, social and political constraints, cultural ties and weight of reality that burdened the decisions of historical leaders. You can’t really account for that easily, if at all. So, we both have to accept the deviation from history as necessary perhaps but not have to like it.
As for 40+ IPC of British Indian tanks, I’m really not convinced it’s optimal – even with tanks,
That was more of a random example that needs some refinement.
Wish I could respond to Black Elk… but no time unfortunately. Good post though.
-
Very busy and can’t read everything, so I’m just gonna throw a few bones here and there.
What if air bases and naval bases could get removed from the board if bombed heavily enough? it could encourage players to risk their air units to bomb bases more often.
-
Just a couple of quick (owing to lack of time on my part at this moment) comments to follow up on Black Elk’s most recent post from yesterday.
First, it’s quite correct that it’s absolutely crucial in any game-design process to have a clear idea of just what it is that the designer is trying to accomplish. Brainstorming to figure out what the game ought to accomplish is fine (and indeed necessary), but brainstorming about detailed specific elements before nailing down what the game ought to accomplish is potentially a huge waste of time because such brainstorming can easily lose its focus. Figuring out the game’s basic objectives and basic concepts early and clearly is a good approach because this provives a clear yardstick against which all the subsequent thinking can be measured.
Second, it’s a good point that a designer needs to figure out where the game is supposed to lie on the “event replication continuum”. At one extremity is the concept of a totally scripted game whose rules ensure to such a degree that the events of WWII will occur accurately and in the correct order that there would be absolutely no point in playing it because its course and outcome would always be the same. I’d have no interest in such a game. At the opposite extreme is what I’d call the “box of Lego blocks” approach – a game that is utterly unscripted and barely has any rules…or to put it another way, a game that says: “Here’s a map of the world in 1939, here are the major powers that existed at that time and here’s a box of units representing their armed forces. Now go ahead and fight a war with them in any way you want.” Superb flexibility, but pretty weak scenario-wise in my opinion; moreover, I’d hesitate to call such a thing a “WWII” game because the WWII connection would actually be pretty tenuous. That’s the reason I never took a liking to the games Attack! and Attack! Expansion: they’re set in a kind “non-history” and “non-geography” that vaguly echoes the 1930s but which avoid naming any real countries. And mid-way between the two approaches, you have games like G40 which combine various degrees of accuracy, scripting, and freedom of decision. But of course there’s always the following catch: however much accuracy such a game might have in its starting set-up, it’s immediately going to start deviating form history the moment play begins (unless it’s totally scripted). You could even argue that the main difference between the various A&A games is that they start “deviating” from different points. G40 starts in June 1940, and starts deviating from that point. A&A 1941 does the same with 1941, and A&A 1942 does the same with 1942.
-
A lot of good ideas on here.
In regards to the Soviet/Japan NAP I believe the original rule was just a straight IPC boost to whoever didn’t attack. It seems as if that would still be the simplest approach. I would add the attacking player should pay that boost out of pocket. So if Japan attacks Russia and Russia gets 12 IPCs then Japan should lose 12 IPCs. Or whatever number works the best.
These ideas have been discussed before in other threads. I bring them up again because I’ve playtested a lot more and they seem to work pretty good.
For strengthening China. I added a militia unit. A0 D1 C2 M1 Limit 8. This seems to work pretty good actually. Although Japan can still steamroll it, it takes a little bit more, which helps India just a little bit more. I would give China a AA gun also. The extra fighter is interesting although I wonder if that would make them a little too powerful ? The downside to the new unit is you’d need some dudes for playing FTF. Militia unit is explained in detail here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35404.0
I haven’t seen it mentioned here but I know a lot of people seem to think the Bmbr is overpowered. I usually use Barons rule that lowers the attack to 3 boosts to 4 when with a fighter. TACs A4 and boost tanks to 4D. It makes solo attacks a lot more dicey and limits their mass power. Still just as effective range wise though. It’s discussed more here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.0
Battle of the Atlantic. While there is some action early on it seems like there could be more. I added a couple convoy zones to SZs 104 and 124. Russia gets 2 IPCs if at war with Axis, no Axis warships/subs present, Archangel control and no allied units in original TTs. UK gets 2 IPCs if no Axis warships/subs in 104. It’s easy to prevent the Russian but takes a extra sub. UKs can be prevented early but then they pretty much get it.
All ot the above strenghten Russia a little, directly or indirectly. Also I made Vyborg, Nenetsia and Bessarabia worth 1 IPC. It gives them a little boost early. Combine with one or more of the previously suggested Russian NOs they should be in better shape. There are some good Russian NOs discussed here as well:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.0
I’ve already mentioned I like the 1 IPC islands. I also like to play with the marine unit but no need to get carried away. :)
Anyway just some things that I’ve found to work for me. -
A very brief note re: the Central Pacific island-hopping campaign – one of the most fascinating essays I’ve read about WW2 suggests that the island-hopping was a major strategic error for both sides, and that either Japan or the USA could have (but failed to) gain a big advantage by ignoring the islands and striking directly at the enemy’s main carrier fleet.
http://www.amazon.com/Mahan-Ran-Great-Pacific-War/dp/0253351057
I have that book and my feeling is that its arguments have to be viewed cautiously. The book basically analyzes WWII in the Pacific from the perspective of the theories of Alfred Mahan, author of The Influence of Seapower Upon History. One of Mahan’s main theories – essentially, "Sink the enemy’s battle fleet and you win the war – was a great predictor of the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905-1906 (whose climactic naval engagement at Tsushima was a quintessential Mahanian “battle of annihilation”), but it developed some serious cracks in WWI and WWII. Mahan lived in the 19th century, and his theories did not anticipate several game-changing developments. Some of these developments were new classes of combat vessels which broke away from the concept of armoured, gun-armed surface-combat ships: torpedo boats, destroyers, submarines, and eventually aircraft carriers. Some of these developments were tactical or doctrinal. In WWI, for example, several factors combined to reduce the likelihood of a major fleet engagement: the use of “distant blockade” techniques instead of the close-blockade concept with which Mahan was familiar; Germany’s adoption of a fleet-in-being strategy, whose main effect was to keep the German fleet bottled up in port while the Royal Navy was free to control the high seas at will; and the extraordinary increase in the cost of battleships after the dreadnought type was introduced (with the result that it became more important for battleships to stay afloat than to sink the enemy). As for WWII, the situation which Mahan could not have anticipated was the possibility that the world’s leading industrial power (the US) might be so outraged by the way in which a war broke out (the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor) that it would be prepared to spend as much as was necessary and take as long as was needed to ultimately win, no matter how badly clobbered it had been at the outset. Even if Nagumo had been lucky enough to sink all (rather than miss all) of America’s Pacific fleet carriers, the US could still have caught up with (and eventually greatly surpassed) Japan in carrier construction within two to three years…which, in fact, it did do historically. You can read more about this argument over here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
-
Perhaps I’m too blitzed right now to spit it out (I’m a smokey character tonight), but I guess what I’m driving at is this idea, that we should figure out which element of the game we care the least about from the historical analogy perspective, and then change that element to create the desired gameplay patterns, (leaving the rest alone, so its relatively easy to adopt). Figure out the simplest ways we can, to create incentives for the Campaigns we want to see occurring, while retaining the entertainment value provided by potential deviations from the history.
I rather prefer to build backwards. Taking the desired play-patterns first, figuring out what’s necessary to get where we want, and then use that to determine what a given element represents, or how it should be interpreted historically. (as opposed to the other way around.) Put another way, I’m happy to accept that a unit in one part of the world, might represent something rather different than the same unit in some other part of the world. Or that IPCs are not quite the same for Russia as they are for Germany, or for Japan and USA. Or that the treasuries of the various nations at the outset need to fall along some kind of weakest-to-strongest continuum with no regard for everything else that’s in play (like what the Nation is actually expected to do with that Treasury in the game haha.) I’d think more in terms of, “is this Nation fun to play?” and “are they doing what they should be doing from a historical perspective?” If the answer is “no, or boring, or could be better,” then I’m willing to suspend the disbelief a bit when it comes to tweaking the elements, if that results in a more convincing play-pattern.
I have a bit more time this morning than I did last evening, so I’ll expand on one point (quoted above) of Black Elk’s earlier post that I didn’t comment on directly yesterday.
This is going to be a deliberate oversimplification, and I’ll immediately nuance it a little bit because Black Elk wasn’t stating his argument in such simplistic terms, but at their most extreme the two approaches described above basically come down to “making the game fit history” versus “making history fit the game.”
The “making the game fit history” approach in its pure form would be pretty much what I said in my post yesterday about a totally scripted game that allows no deviations from the historical course of events of WWII. And as I’ve already said, this kind of approach sounds too rigid to make for an interesting game. On top of that, the A&A game system would have to be a lot more complicated to give justice to this concept because economics and logistics had a huge influence on WWII; in A&A, economics are depicted in an extremely abstract way, and logistics play virtually no role. And as has been mentioned by various people in various contexts, the physical geography of A&A is distorted in both shape and size – severely so in some cases. So an A&A game that was made to fit history (and geography) accurately would be a very different creature than what we’re used to.
The alternate approach which Black Elk favours wasn’t stated as “making history fit the game”, but rather something more subtle: identifying the game’s most desirable elements, then trying to see what historical context fits them best. Just to invent an example: let’s say (for the sake of argument) that people really like the way that the game handles (or potentially could handle) large-scale mechanized warfare, and thus that we would like to find a historical context where this game element could be used to its full value. The analysis for that problem would be easy to do, and the solution would not require any historical distortions: the best starting date would be Summer 1941, when Barbarossa was launched, and the starting set-up would have to ensure that the situation on the Eastern Front was represented accurately. By the same token, June 1940 would be a poor choice as a starting date because it would be a year too early from the point of view of when Barbarossa actually happened.
I deliberately chose this nice, clean example because it shows how Black Elk’s concept would apply in ideal, uncontroversial circumstances. The thing to keep in mind, however, is that the choices won’t always be that clear-cut. There will probably be cases in which the identification (or invention) of a great game mechanic will be followed by the discovery that it doesn’t correspond to any historical context that actually happened (either at all, or at the correct moment for the game’s chosen time-frame). So at this point, the question will be: does the problem get fixed by adjusting the game mechanic or does the problem get fixed by adjusting history?
Fortunately, “adjusting history” is a concept that covers a lot of territory. Large-scale distortions, of course, would generate howls of outrage (or at least severe eye-rolling) from this forum’s history buffs. For example: I’ve always considered it unfortunate that China only has infantry sculpts in A&A, and I think it’s desirable for China to be a tougher opponent for Japan (as was the case in real life) than is the case in the game. I understand, however, that it would be very inaccurate historically to depict China in A&A 1940 as the kind of nation it is today: massively industrialized, worth a ton of IPCs, and possessing a full range of military hardware (including nuclear weapons) in vast quantities. On the other hand, there are no historical reasons why China in A&A could not be made a tougher opponent even if we stick just with its nation-specific infantry units and with the couple of foreign unit types it’s allowed to use.
A different way of adjusting history significantly but (in my opinion) acceptably is to position the starting date just before a plausible “historical branching point” and to have rules which allow that alternate path to be taken. As has been discussed in another thread, Japan and the USSR actually did (briefly) go to war against each other in the late 1930s, and the USSR was seriously worried as late as the fall of 1941 that Japan might attack it again. A Japanese invasion of the USSR (or Mongolia) never actually happened in 1941, nor (arguably) was it likely to happen at that time…but my point is that such a scenario is still a credible one, even if it’s not a probable one. So I’d have no problems with rules that allowed Japan to invade the USSR – provided, of course, that Japan couldn’t get from Vladivostok to Moscow in a few easy hops, a concept that would be geographically absurd.
Taking this “historical branching point” idea one step further, you could also set up a game scenario in which such a “branching” is assumed to have already taken place prior to the start of the game. For example, you might have a game scenario which starts in the Summer of 1941, but which assumes that in 1940 Germany had managed to capture Gibraltar – either by persuading Spain to join the war on the Axis side, or by simply ignoring Franco’s objections and launching an attack on Gibraltar through Spain at the tail end of the Battle of France. It never happened, but it might plausibly have happened (and indeed Germany did consider plans along these lines), so I’d be fine with a scenario which made the assumption that this had already happened prior to the start of the game. Three conditions would have to be fulfilled, however, to make such assumptions acceptable: the “historical branching point” would have to be a plausible one, the logical consequences of the branching-off would have to have been considered and accounted for, and these things would have to be explained (briefly but clearly) in the game’s backstory.
-
Simultaneous Play
New Powers
British Far East Command
Novo Estado
-
Portugal: Worth 3 IPC. 3 Inf, 1 Armor, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base, Major Factory
-
Angola: Worth 2 IPC. 3 Inf, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Air Base
-
Mozambique: Worth 1 IPC. 2 Inf, 1 Artillery, Naval Base
-
Brazil: Worth 3 IPC. 5 Inf, 1 Armor, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base, Minor Factory
-
SZ86: 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine
Vichy France
-
The Germans immediately gain 3 IPCs from the bank. This represents looted French assets.
-
The Germans decide whether to bid to influence the alignment of French units and territories. For every 2 IPC�s spent by the Germans, the likelihood of a favorable outcome increases by 1. The German player may spend up to 6 IPC�s total in this manner.
-
If the Germans have occupied Southern France, they must place a Minor Factory on this territory (at no cost). This represents Vichy French production capabilities. If the Germans do not occupy Southern France, Vichy units are placed in France.
-
The British player rolls 1d10 for every French territory not occupied by the Axis.
-
On a roll of 1-2, the fleet joins the Axis.
-
On a roll of 3-4, the fleet is scuttled and removed from play.
-
On a roll of 5-6, the fleet joins the Allies.
Revised Units
Aircraft Carrier
Battleship
Fighters
New Units
Armored Aircraft Carrier
Air Transport
Battlecruiser
Light Aircraft Carrier
Elite Infantry
Paratrooper
Poison Gas:
Self-Propelled Artillery:
-
-
I will leave you all with one thought before I disappear for a few days:
Regarding new and different units, I am struggling to find the right balance of inclusion, potential utilization and attributes. I will post my thoughts, perhaps on a new or existing thread when I can.
Big picture: to really utilize more unit types in the game (which are superfluous) there must be compelling reasons (special attributes) and, above all, enough money.
Cost of units either needs to be lowered or we have to institute more IPC bonuses for achieving certain objectives. Simply lowering the cost of units should scale the change equally between Powers (Russia can buy just as many more infantry as Germany can), but I don’t know if anyone has ever playtested this before? It would certainly take a while to get used to infantry only costing 2 IPCs or something like that.
-
Maybe each power starts with a “gold reserve”, worth say 20 IPCs a turn. Think of the power borrowing 20 IPCS a turn against its gold. This is the money captured with a capital, not the regular income (cash) which could be distributed to any production centre. Some suitable tokens for GR would have to be found, one for each power.
Once a GR is captured it is transferred to the capturing power’s capital and adds to its own GR holdings. “Liberated” GRs are returned to the original owner. Conversely, a power without a capital can still collect regular income and spend it building units at any other controlled home factory.
The amount of GR held could be used to modify incomes further, for example ANZAC would have a smaller reserve than the bigger powers. On the other hand identical GRs would boost the minor powers % income vis a vis the majors.
Yes, countries could move their gold physically to keep it out of enemy hands; if you allow this in the game then that player immediately forfeits any further income from the gold.
-
Happy Labor day! This thread has made for excellent reading today while I eat BBQ
:-D -
Seems like the cruiser and aagun should be on the list. I remeber reading some good ideas on both. I like the idea of giving the crusier a 1 shot aagun. It wouldn’t work for the first rd though. Maybe have it kick in on the 2nd or 3rd rd. Could call it new construction/refit of older models or something like that
-
Black_Elk,
If you want to take a look at my new post this Board it’s ‘Aethervox’s Global 1940 Game Rules’ there are some of my ideas for Bonuses. Also for my own independantly conceived new units. I also posted on Customization Board my list of Territory Changes - my independant design for territory values and for three more territories. With the two combined there are some ideas you might consider. ( I have had the new unit ideas for Years, the G40 Map changes are recent).
Suggested Topics
