Here’s a compressed version of my thoughts on a redesign
new turn order ?
new set up ?
new units ?
modify existing units
aagun
crusier
bomber
Modify SBR
Fighters hit at 2
Stronger China
Stronger Russia
Change Russia/Japan NAP
New NOs
Change PUs
Bonus income ?
I’m fine with Germany going first. But China has potential.
I like YGs idea on only giving the SBR +2 when leaving from a AB. Makes bases more valuable and helps Russia when Germany starts bombing the snot out of Moscow. The fighters at 2 seem cool as well. It’s only for 1 rd if you intercept, so not a huge gamble either way. SBR is discussed in more detail here:
Topic: Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles
Bonus income. Sounds like redrum might change the ai bonus setup to work for people too. So a +5 or w/e to USSR and /or + 10 to US when at war might be pretty cool. Obviously you wouldn’t need that for ftf games.
This list is not in any order of preference. I know you’re on it Black Elk just wanted to throw it out there. :)
There’s a lot of sweet ideas on this thread, but as stated earlier too much change and it will be hard to get people to try it. When a working game is ready to go a Black Elk Redesign Tourney might be a good way to playtest.
P : )
Link didn’t post correctly. On a different machine. I’ll try later. :)
Lend Lease seems like another one
and neutrals
Some of the best house rules I’ve seen to date were offered up in an article hosted here: “Six Countries: House Rules for Axis & Allies Pacific.” The set of rules did several things, many of them compelling.
First, it added what appears to be a viable Dutch East Indies, independent of both Australia and the FEC. All three powers received territory IPC value adjustments to ensure that they could still generate enough income to remain playable. These changes can be made using roundels. I’m not sure if there’s an ideal way to change IPC values on the map.
Second, it introduced distinct areas-of-operation for Allied powers. The rule was as follows: “The Indian player controls all units in and to the west of Malaya, and the units in sea zone 46. The Australian player controls all units in and to the east of Java. If units move from one sphere of control to the other, control of the units changes as well.” I really like this rule. I think it provides both greater realism and more interesting intra-team dynamics.
Third, the Lend-Lease options for China and the Dutch East Indies. Lend-Lease production certifications spent differently than ordinary IPC’s. For example, it could be used to purchase special equipment. It could also be interdicted by a determined enemy. China got theirs flown in over the Himalayas.
Fourth, “triggers” that reflect the benefit of specific territorial conquests by rewarding the victor with production bonuses.
Fifth, changes to combat units. The “fight to the death” mechanic for Japanese infantry (2 hits on defense) was neat.
To CWOMarc, I think the concept of a national “special unit” is interesting. I also like how you considered a practical option using a generic marker to achieve this. While I agree that an actual sculpt would definitely be cooler, a simple marker is definitely more accessible, with the upside that it gives players a way to try out the rule and see if they like it before investing money in sculpts. The randomization element would be fun as well I think.
I have a definite preference for some kind of initial dice roll, or random draw from a card deck, or something similar that appreciably alters the starting set up from game to game, you know, in a way that is hard to predict. Sure one could make the case that combat rolls already provide a certain level of randomization, but the combat stuff is rather less pronounced and rather more predictable than what I have in mind.
In the past I proposed some ways that a standard deck of playing cards might be used in conjunction with dice, to achieve similar randomized effects. Not sure the extent to which other people would enjoy those ideas though.
Sometimes I think are two ways to make a game, either you can create the perfect game by achieving the perfect 50/50 starting balance, or you can create the perfect game by making it essentially impossible to determine what the starting balance really is, ever. I often think the later situation would be easier to achieve. But what does that look like? Well basically, it means ditching the set script and instead using gameplay mechanics for some of the initial set-up/balance of forces distribution.
Currently Axis and Allies is not like this. In A&A you read a set up chart and plug in the values. There’s no real gameplay element to any of that. Its just read and set. The closest you’d get would be in the bid process, but bidding (or haggling for sides) is not a particularly engaging gameplay element unto itself.
I think the reason why balance is such an issue in A&A, is because the set up is unchanging. Everything written on the set up chart or the map is basically pre-determined. The starting income, the unit placement, the turn order, these are all locked in from the get-go. But those things could be built into some sort of gameplay process though. You know, like with coin flips, or rolls, or random draws. Things that make it effectively impossible, to say what the “balance” will be, before the game even begins. I’m down if this is something that other people are interested in taking on. It’s perhaps a very tall order though, and a somewhat dramatic departure from the normal type of A&A game. But it strikes me as problematic that there is such an obsession in A&A with “game balance” or “which side can win,” or which can’t win, given optimal strategy and average rolls. Or which can’t win “without a bid of at least X” etc.
I believe this sort of attitude about balance could be altered, while still operating within the same basic game architecture and with the same basic feel of normal Axis and Allies.
As for the territory/sz connections or production values, its very hard to adjust the map directly, or to change information that is clearly represented graphically on that map. But its not impossible. If attempting a change of that sort something that I think you really have to keep in mind is the question, “how laborious is this change going to be to track?”
This is kind of a digression, but just a quick thought on two different kinds of house rule (or any rule really)…
:-D
First you have the rules with a broad application, which cover a number of different situations in some uniform way. And then you have rules with a very narrow application, which cover one specific situation, or maybe just a couple nuanced situations in variegated ways. The later are much harder to memorize and much harder to track.
Lets take IPC or production value as an example. Say we wanted to change the value of some territories such that players are awarded more IPCs for controlling them during the collect income phase. You could approach this many different ways, some which are going to be easy for players to track, and some which aren’t.
One way you might do it, a particularly bad way in my view, is just to create a large list of territories and adjustments that players then have to reference or memorize. Something like “Territory X + 1 ipc, Territory Y + 3 ipcs, Territory A -2 ipcs, Territory B -1 etc.”
Another way you might do it, a much better way in my view, is to focus on a certain class or set of territories rather than specific individual territories, where that class is fairly easy to recognize/memorize. Something like “All island territories with a base value of Zero are now worth +1 ipc” or perhaps “All territories with a Victory City are now worth + 1 ipc” or similar with the formulation “All territories that meet such and such a criteria, receive some uniform bonus.”
The alternative of trying to manually tweak specific territories, seems like it just lends itself to confusion/annoyance, when the time comes for players to add up their income. If we want to change the production or income spread, there are uniform ways to do this and then there are more nuanced ones, like National Objectives. I’ve never been a huge fan of National Objectives really. Ever since AA50 came out I grumbled about them as being exactly the kinds of rules that are too narrow in application and too hard to track. I know they add a degree of novelty, once you get used to them and memorize them, they can be a cool way to add new dimensions or quick fixes to the game. But the OOB game is rather over reliant on them. Do you think it is even possible to create a game on the G40 map using the OOB roster that is enjoyable to play without National Objectives? Or that would look anything like World War II? Again just things to consider.
:-D
My attitude is that it would be great to develop a core HR game off the G40 map as it is, with the materials already provided, that affords the same style of gameplay and strategic thinking, but where the initial set-up is such that no one side has the clear advantage from the outset. Or at least no advantage that can’t be overcome by some counterbalancing option.
There are simpler ways we might explore, that go beyond “hits” or “duds” in the opening combats to introduce a randomizing effect to the first round. I’m interested in any rules or ideas that people have for creating conditions like those.
:-D
I tend to agree with Trenacker, there are some combat units in the current roster that are rather underwhelming. One unit that I always enjoyed though was the factory unit. The “empire building” unit. In every A&A game, people always have fun considering whether a factory in such and such place can work, before ultimately determining that it can’t haha, but G40 is very restrictive. Bases are a bit better because you can build them anywhere. A lot of the gameplay interest and strategizing for this game revolves around where to place bases, or how to use existing bases, or how to counter enemy bases.
Thanks for the quick recap Barney. Helps to keep us focused. If new units or unit modifications are something we want to explore, then the game will need a new battle board. Something that can be printed out showing the relationships with whatever attack/defense hits are altered, for easy reference. Or a printable cost/abilities chart indicating whatever combined arms might be in play.
I agree the most problematic units are cruisers and aaguns, as I almost never see these purchased. The Tac B is rather underwhelming, though it has some uses for carrier attack.
I like the +2 only if taking off from an operational airbase as suggested by YG. The airbase is probably the most important unit in the game.
I wonder if anyone else finds the OBB scrambling system a bit weird? It slows down email and forum games considerably, with constant confirmation requests. Sometimes I think its a little silly, but it’s such an important part of what makes G40 unique from a combat perspective, that I’m reluctant to change it dramatically. I feel like the air base scramble should have been more like an AAgun roll or Kamakazi token. You know, instead of putting actual fighter units into the fray, it could just be some automatic combat advantage, a free hit or whatnot. Some cimbat feature of the air base itself, rather than the fighters parked in the territory.
Naval bases might be handled in a similar way. Basically giving both base types some functionality independent of the defenders combat units (or lack thereof.) The idea being that an airbase always has at least some kind of air defense or aircraft in place. Similarly a naval base might be assumed to have some naval defense vs ships built in.
If it was an automatic combat bonus, you wouldn’t need to constantly ask. And it avoids the issue of turn order exploits (scrambling your friends fighters) or building an airbase just to get a combat bonus exploit out of an ally’s aircraft. Also avoids the situation where a player chooses not to scramble, for fear of losing a fighter, in a situation where it would obviously have made sense to scramble if it was a battle in the real world.
For example:
Air base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the territory itself or adjecent sea zone.
Naval base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the sea zone itself or adjacent sea zone.
This way there is always some basic combat benefit for a base that the player can utilize automatically, and just preserve the interaction between bases and combat units as purely movement/repair related.
Alternatively if you think a defensive hit is too potent, you could make it a hit absorption instead. Then at least the airbase could “scramble” (ie absorb a hit) during an attack on the actual territory where the base is housed.
Anyone else think its odd, that there is no scrambling during an attack on the land territory where the base is actually located (the base plays no role in such instances, since the fighters are already in place defending regardless.) OOB scrambling is basically just something that happens in adjacent sea zones. But we could improve on that and make a more automatic ability instead of one that requires the attacker to wait while the defender to make a decisison.
The OOB system kind of messes turn sequence I feel, it makes planes behave a bit like subs. Where the attacker has to wait for the defended to decide, or click a prompt.
Subs are another issue altogether, but I’m running out of steam at 3 am haha
Sometimes I think are two ways to make a game, either you can create the perfect game by achieving the perfect 50/50 starting balance, or you can create the perfect game by making it essentially impossible to determine what the starting balance really is, ever. I often think the later situation would be easier to achieve. But what does that look like? Well basically, it means ditching the set script and instead using gameplay mechanics for some of the initial set-up/balance of forces distribution.
[…]
I think the reason why balance is such an issue in A&A, is because the set up is unchanging. Everything written on the set up chart or the map is basically pre-determined. The starting income, the unit placement, the turn order, these are all locked in from the get-go. But those things could be built into some sort of gameplay process though. You know, like with coin flips, or rolls, or random draws. Things that make it effectively impossible, to say what the “balance” will be, before the game even begins.
[…]
My attitude is that it would be great to develop a core HR game off the G40 map as it is, with the materials already provided, that affords the same style of gameplay and strategic thinking, but where the initial set-up is such that no one side has the clear advantage from the outset. Or at least no advantage that can’t be overcome by some counterbalancing option.
There are simpler ways we might explore, that go beyond “hits” or “duds” in the opening combats to introduce a randomizing effect to the first round. I’m interested in any rules or ideas that people have for creating conditions like those.
I think there are two distinct concepts being discussed here, plus a couple of background elements. I’ll address the background elements first.
One background element (if I’m understanding correctly) is something that’s been raised earlier in this thread: the idea of building a redesigned G40 game around a set of game mechanics rather than around a WWII-specific context. In other words, the idea of having the WWII context “serve the mechanics” rather than the other way around. In this approach, the real point of the game would be to give players the opportunity to do various cool things with the mechanics and the game equipment placed at their disposal, and the WWII context would be a secondary – or even an incidental – consideration. In principle, this approach could be transplanted to any context (a WWI game, a WWIII game, a science-fiction game, and so forth) since it’s the game mechanics rather than the context which are the drivers of the concept. Personally, I’d have no interest in this kind of approach (at least not in its pure form), but that’s just my personal opinion and I may be the only one here for whom this would be a serious issue. But just to clarify: I’m not advocating the opposite approach either. In other words, I’m not saying that the historical context of WWII should be the sole driver, with the game mechanics being completely subordinated to serving historical reality, because the result would be a simulation rather than a game. What I’m saying is that there has to be a proper balance between the mechanics and the context, with both components working harmoniously.
The second background element is a wish to produce a game that has high replay value, and hence more variability than G40 currently has. This is a perfectly valid point, and I agree completely that we should bring components (or at least options) to the game which encourage variability. Various ideas along these lines have already been floated, and many more are undoubtedly possible – and I look forward to reading these ideas. What I’d like to address now, however, are the two distinct concepts (as I see them) that Black Elk mentioned above: start-up balance and start-up predictability.
I’m having some difficulty in following Black Elk’s argument because it seems to be saying different things about the same subject. Some parts of the argument seem to be saying that it’s desirable to have a balanced set-up (“where the initial set-up is such that no one side has the clear advantage from the outset”). Other parts seem to be saying that it would be better to have an unpredictable – and hence potentially unbalanced – set-up (“create the perfect game by making it essentially impossible to determine what the starting balance really is, ever”) rather than a set-up which is balanced but unchanging (“create the perfect game by achieving the perfect 50/50 starting balance”). I’ve been trying to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory concepts, to try to understand what Black Elk is getting at, and I’m not having much success. My best guess is that Black Elk is saying that it would be nice to have a system that would randomly generate balanced set-ups – in other words, a system in which the starting set-up would always be different from game to game (which would be great from a replayability viewpoint), but would always be balanced so that no side would start out at a disadvantage (because nobody would want to play a game in which they’re given a losing hand right from the start). Theoretically this is a great concept…but how would it work in practice? Game balance depends on some things that are hard-wired into a game’s basic architecture – things like game objectives and winning conditions – so how could starting set-ups that are random in nature always manage to give all the players an opening position that is always balanced?
@CWO:
Theoretically this is a great concept…but how would it work in practice? Game balance depends on some things that are hard-wired into a game’s basic architecture – things like game objectives and winning conditions – so how could starting set-ups that are random in nature always manage to give all the players an opening position that is always balanced?
This is a big point for me in terms of a randomized start that is balanced. I think the most difficult thing to “balance” the start game is the geography of the board. If you give each power 5 INF to start the game (obviously an exaggeration, but you get the idea in terms of balance), the UK is still going to be at a disadvantage having to come from an island/having a dispersed empire. In other words, balance doesn’t just mean equal troops (as I’m sure you know), as a German or Russian player would have a large advantage by having their troops consolidated in one place and on the mainland, where a UK, Japanese, etc. player would need ships to start with as well. Point being, I’d hate for you to go about trying to find a “starting balance” to just come full circle to having starting setups not so unfamiliar to what there may be now.
I for one like the idea of keeping a historical perspective in the game. I of course don’t want a scripted game play (I want to win as the Axis of course), but it’s a lot of fun for me to feel like I’m also re-enacting historical events as well, like fighting island for island, and storming the Normandy beaches. Reasons like this are why I like the idea of a earlier start date, where alliances can still be formed, minors absorbed, Spain is in the Axis, etc.
What I’m saying is, it will be hard to have a balanced game at the beginning as well as have a historical perspective as well with the 1940 start since most allegiances were already drawn by that point.
I may not be helping much with my input here, so I apologize if that’s the case. I’m just trying to throw food for thought out there.
I for one like the idea of keeping a historical perspective in the game. I of course don’t want a scripted game play (I want to win as the Axis of course), but it’s a lot of fun for me to feel like I’m also re-enacting historical events as well, like fighting island for island, and storming the Normandy beaches. Reasons like this are why I like the idea of a earlier start date, where alliances can still be formed, minors absorbed, Spain is in the Axis, etc.
What I’m saying is, it will be hard to have a balanced game at the beginning as well as have a historical
Good points, and they’ve made me realize something that could, perhaps, be useful to model into the game. It’s true that in June 1940 many nations which would ultimately be drawn into WWII were not yet at war – the US and the USSR being the two most significant cases. This technical state of neutrality, however, didn’t mean that these countries were operating in a vacuum. The USSR and Germany, despite their non-aggression pact, were bitter ideological enemies who were virtually predestined to go to war at some point in the near future. Relations between Japan and the US had been growing increasingly bad since the Japanese conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937; those tensions got a lot worse in September 1940 – just three months after Global 1940’s early-June starting date – when Japan walked into Vichy-controlled French Indochina. Similarly, the “Pro-Allied” and “Pro-Axis” political status indicators on the map basically anticipate which way various countries jumped (or were pushed) later in the war. And in my opinion, several of the “strict neutrals” are misrepresented; some of them definitely leaned towards one side, and could very plausibly be drawn into the war on the game map if house rules allowed it.
So my point is that it might be possible to work some kind of “belligerency predisposition” rating into the game: a number that indicates, for each nominally neutral country, in which way it’s inclined, to what degree it’s inclined, and how stable its position is. This rating wouldn’t guarantee that Country X will necessarily join the same side it joined histroically, but it would let people know just how much the circumstances would have to change (as a result of play) to make Country X take a different path. (Turkey at the beginning of WWI is a good example: the Ottoman leadership was basically trying to figure out which horse to back, in order to get on the winning side. I’d describe their position as having an inclination of zero degrees but a high degree of instability. By contrast, I’d describe resolutely-neutral Switzerland as likewise having an inclination of zero degrees but (unlike Turkey) a high degree of stability.)
@CWO:
My best guess is that Black Elk is saying that it would be nice to have a system that would randomly generate balanced set-ups – in other words, a system in which the starting set-up would always be different from game to game (which would be great from a replayability viewpoint), but would always be balanced so that no side would start out at a disadvantage (because nobody would want to play a game in which they’re given a losing hand right from the start). Theoretically this is a great concept…but how would it work in practice? Game balance depends on some things that are hard-wired into a game’s basic architecture – things like game objectives and winning conditions – so how could starting set-ups that are random in nature always manage to give all the players an opening position that is always balanced?
Well I think what I’m driving at here, is that the initial game balance (the balance of the starting set up, leading into the first round) has more to do with the “impression” or “feeling” of fairness than anything else.
The contrast I was trying to set up was between two rather different kinds of games, on the one hand you have A&A, on the other you might have a game like Go or Chess, which many consider to be perfectly balanced, and which “feels” very fair, even at a glance. People often cite Chess as an ideal, and pine for A&A to be more Chess-like. But its pretty obvious to me that A&A is not Chess, just looking at the gameboard and the starting pieces, the two sides in A&A (unlike the two sides in chess) do not mirror each other. Probably A&A is more like Backgammon or Battleship than Chess, but even there, the analogy is not very solid.
In searching for possible analogs its interesting to see how games are categorized. Here’s an interesting list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_board_games#Two-player_abstract_strategy_games
But when you get down to it, the A&A game is unique enough that it really defies ready comparison to other games. So I’m interested mainly in the feel of balance on terms recognizable in A&A as we’ve come to know it. Not by stripping out all the randomized elements that already exist, but just tweaking them or expanding on them, in a way that’s somewhat more equitable between the two sides.
Here’s a thought experiment, instead of focusing on the balance in the first round, consider the balance in the second. There are thousands of things that could happen between the first round and the second, which can lead to a dramatically different balance of forces. The second round balance-by-sides is largely unpredictable to a player who begins in round 1, in a way similar to what I was trying to describe above. Its not entirely unpredictable, patterns do emerge, but there is a lot of variation. This unpredictability is why we play I think. I guess what I find interesting is a way to perhaps condense some of that variation that is already present when we go from round 1 to round 2, and find a way to just put that directly into the round one set up, using some gameplay mechanic that achieves similar variability but without violating the sense of "some reasonable connection to history or historical possibilities. Again not sure if I’m explaining it in a way that makes sense. It’s kind of hard to get my head around the argument, even as I’m trying for to make it haha.
To the earlier point about the background element, where the game is designed to service the gameplay mechanics over the historical context, I’m not sure that I’m suggestion something quite that stark. I suppose the way I look it at, the OOB game already adopts a rather compromised position on that point. It’s not a simulation to be sure, the OOB game makes a lot of allowances for gameplay interest over reliable historical context. If anything I’d try to find ways to improve the historical connection, while still preserving the sort of gamey elements that make it function as an entertaining game. As long as they don’t just throw out the historical context conpletely, to make the game more strategically dynamic, I see a lot of middle ground we could occupy. I’d start from the historical “range of reasonable possibilities” and then work backwards from there to see how the mechanics can be made more play full or “game-full” in ways that don’t just open the thing up to total fantasy. I think this could be done, while still preserving strong historical connections.
I like that last point above regarding belligerence predisposition. There was a conversation in Argothair’s neutrality thread, where a kind of "belligerence point system was suggested as a way to determine which side a neutral leans.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36503.0
I wonder if something like that might be worth perusing as an alternative to the OOB system, where the eventual leanings are ignored entitely (treated as true neutral) or else sort of pre-set and backloaded into certain neutrals at the earlier start date (treated as pro-side neutral.)
I can see why some people might regard chess as a kind of ideal, but I would argue that chess is only an ideal as far as one fundamental type of game is concerned: games of pure skill. Games of pure chance are another fundemantal type, and then you have games (like A&A) which blend elements of the two. Games of pure skill are gratifying because any success you have as a player can be credited entirely to your skills (with no intervention from the dice gods), but their inherent problem is that players have to be at roughly the same skill level for a game to be balanced; once the difference in skills passes a certain point, the less experienced player faces certain – and usually very rapid – defeat. Not a fun experience. Games of pure chance – pulling the lever of a slot machine would be an example – aren’t what I’d call satisfying either, at least in the sense that the player basically has no thinking to do. So I like the fact that A&A combines both elements; the proportions are debatable, but the combination concept itself is sound.
There are two military board games that might be interesting to study for ideas that could perhaps be used in an A&A redesign. One is Diplomacy, the game that prides itself on having no element of chance. The game features unpredictability, but the unpredictability comes from the fact that the game outcomes are determined by putting together all the written orders that the players have prepared (in secret) and then by “resolving” the combinations of orders using the game’s rules (and a certain amount of interpretation). The other game is Stratego, which technically has no luck element either. The unpredictability in that game comes from the fact that each side knows the position of every enemy unit, but not its type; it’s only when two opposing units meet that their type is revealed and that the surviving unit is determined (based on what the rules say about which unit types have dominance over which other unit types).
Regarding your aspiration for “a feeling of game balance”, here’s one idea you might consider. It isn’t developed, and I don’t have time to develop it because I have to leave in a few minutes, but here’s the essence of it. The starting point would be to prepare an inventory of what factors should be considered when one is assessing the relative advantages of each player power, and how they apply to each power in the OOB game as we know it. An example of this sort of thing is Larry’s statement (in one of the A&A rulebooks) that the Axis starts out strong militarily but weak economically. That’s too general to be useful, but it’s what I’m driving at: Power X might have a whole bunch of strengths and weaknesses that, added up, are very different from the cumulative strengths and weaknesses of Power Y, but which don’t necessarily create an imbalance. (I hesitate to use an analogy from Star Wars Episode III, but I’ll do so for convenience. Someone once said this about the final duel between Obi-wan and Anakin: it’s a fair match because Obi-wan is more experienced and Anakin is more powerful.) Once you have such an inventory, you might have the basis for a randomization system that would vary – within certain limits – the strengths and weaknesses that each power starts out with in each game BUT which somehow makes sure that the “totals” for each power always stay roughly equal. As a purely abstract and ridiculously simple example, let’s say that Power X is allowed to have between 5 and 8 points in Category A and between 2 and 9 points in Category B. In one starting set-up, Power X has values of A=5 and B=4, while in another starting set-up, Power X has values of A=7 and B=2. They’re different set-ups…but they both add up to 9. The same principle (though not necessarily the same number ranges) would apply to the other powers.
That’s all I have time to write now, but you probably get the idea.
I like that last point above regarding belligerence predisposition. There was a conversation in Argothair’s neutrality thread, where a kind of "belligerence point system was suggested as a way to determine which side a neutral leans.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36503.0I wonder if something like that might be worth perusing as an alternative to the OOB system, where the eventual leanings are ignored entitely (treated as true neutral) or else sort of pre-set and backloaded into certain neutrals at the earlier start date (treated as pro-side neutral.)
You’re probably at least partially referring to my thought processes from that thread (maybe the build off from my original post appeals to you more). I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I won’t detail completely what I said there since people can check it out themselves, but it’s something I think could certainly be interesting that could lead to a randomization of the game. It’s something I’ve been trying to concoct for quite some time. My initial thought was a pre-war start date, 1936-1939, where minor power alignment would largely be unresolved.
To make an example, let’s use Greece. Greece would be considered a true neutral at this point in time, but perhaps a slight lean to a Allied sympathy on the scale mentioned in the thread Black_Elk linked to. Political influence could be used to lure them to one side or the other. The Axis may find Greece important enough to not want to invade and instead incorporate the Greek armies to their fold and so use political capital to gain favor. Or they may find a neutral Greece in their best interest and do what they can to keep it that way (ie: if the Allies are expending political capital to sway Greece their way, the Axis may counter to keep it neutral leaning). Events can also change the scale. If the Axis invade a neutral Yugoslavia you could have that be something that knocks Greece closer to Allied alignment, or the fall of major cities could alter the scheme one way or another, or if Greece joined one side a major defeat of say 6 units in one battle (probably pretty large for a minor power) might knock them a point on the scale back towards neutrality.
Take that concept with all the other neutrals and it could become really interesting I think. You’d have some that were forgone conclusions like Austria, where they would be so far Axis sympathetic that it wouldn’t be worth the Allies trying to coax them away, but might see political maneuvering in Spain, Norway, Denmark, etc. where either side has a chance to influence. This could change game to game easily depending on what side focuses where to expend their political capital. You may even have games where no neutrals are brought in at all. This would take some work to get a scale put together with fairly accurate ideas of where nations would fall on said scale at whatever your start date is, but is definitely doable.
I’m getting a bit off base from a 1940 start period, as I know that’s your objective, but this could be applied with the 1940 map as well, just on a smaller scale of course, with Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Argentina. If the Axis takes Cairo for example, that could politically influence Spain and Turkey to sway towards the Axis, or at least farther away from the Allies. Or “X” amount of U-boats in the Atlantic influences Argentina. It would of course be much less complex given the much smaller amount of neutrals on the board in the 1940 map, so may not have the same desired “randomness effect” one may want, but could be a start.
@Young:
1. Bombers only receive the +2 damage bonus to factories if they have departed from an operational airbase (that’s if the whole SBR system is still recognizable after the redesign).
I like this idea.
Minor Industrial Complexes: Â Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only. Â Major complexes can build whatever. (Does not apply to the United States (E. USA, C. USA or W. USA prior to being at war.) Â Â IDEA: Â These are stripped down, WWI style factories and dry docks. Â Game relevance: Â Limit major builds to major complexes and thus limit the usefulness of dropping minor complexes everywhere. Â Â ADDON: Â Perhaps with the limits, dropping the price to 10 IPC for a minor complex? Â
Change the American NO (Alaska) o “Island Hoping”: Â Allied forces control Hawaii, Midway, Carolines, Marshals and Paulau islands (Philippines are already an NO and there’s already way too many NOs regarding the Dutch East Indies…) Â The idea here is to reward the United States (and her Allies) for liberating the S. Pacific from the Japanese overlords, instead of just skipping them entirely. Â This is a “chain” of islands as well, so it would represent creating a supply line into the S. Pacific for the United States (aka the reason we did it…needed to put fuel, ammo and medical facilities SOMEWHERE!!!)
b. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:
i. Archangel, sz 125
ii. Persia, sz 80
iii. Siberia, sz 5As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.
I like this one too. Â Never liked the idea of Allied units in Russia and I do think Russia needs another NO when at war with the Axis powers (it’s not reliable enough that they will “spread” communism into Europe…and they lose a lot of land in the East already.) Â
China: Â If China owns ALL of it’s original territories (including all the ones that are occupied at the start of the game) it’s fighter can make attack runs over the sea zones adjacent to Chinese territories AND China may move units into NE Asia and SE Asia (i.e. anywhere on the Pacific map that is part of the mainland.) Â Basically, it lets them liberate some Russian territories and take Korea…might even be able to liberate India if you happened to lose it… Â Again, they have to own ALL of their territories, else their generals won’t let them leave! Â
ADDON: Â If China loses a territory, any ground units not IN China are stuck in the territory they are in currently and may not move until China owns all of their territories for one full game round (just like holding an industrial complex.)
Re: FRANCE: Â I hate that they really can’t do anything after they lose their capitol, but I have no idea how to negate them in the turn order…you have to give them a turn, even if all they have left are 2 infantry in England…it’s just annoying. Â
I guess you could remove them from the game by making them a pro-allied neutral, but even that isn’t a good solution since you NEED the threat of their navy remnants and their fighter for can opening strategies, blockers and/or attrition units…
Given how we’ve essentially gone back to “gang up on Russia” as the main strategy, perhaps we need a bigger penalty for violating the Russo-Japanese pact? Â Maybe, instead of Mongolia, the Russians get 18 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Russian controlled territory on the Pacific map if Japan attacks and if Russia attacks, Japan gets 9 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Japanese (originally Japanese, not controlled) territory/sea zone? Â It might be more of a deterring effect this way. Â (18 IPC could be 2 tanks, 2 infantry, it’s nothing to skoff at! Â Also, if Russia gives up their shield AND gives Japan money, they might be less enthused with the idea of DOWing Japan and invading China.)
I am going to agree that it is a bad idea to let France go before Germany. Â 17 IPC of units + Consolidating in Paris = Nightmare for Germany. Â
Again, I really don’t have a solution for France, so I am gunna just stick with “leave it alone.” Â
I think an Airbase put back in Malta (perhaps another in Gibraltar too) like they used to have, might negate he allied bid too. Â Might not…but it feels to me that the Allies are weakest in the Med so bids kinda gravitate around there - either troops or ships or what have you. Â Might even add an infantry to Gibraltar - it’s not going to add a lot to British combat prowess but it does make Gibraltar harder to take over than just walking in…after all, it was a strategic advantage for England, I can’t see them not garrisoning SOME troops there…
Submarine interdiction: Â Transports moving through a sea zone containing submarines or through sea zones adjacent to enemy submarines may be attacked by said submarines (yes even if escorted by surface ships - but those surface ships get to defend against the submarines.) Â Submarines are moved into the sea zone in question and attack while transports (and escorts) defend. Â
My hope is this will encourage more Axis submarines in the Atlantic since they can choose to attack or not attack just like you can choose to scramble or not scramble. Â If you add this to the above suggested NO for England revolving around no Submarines in the Atlantic then you have a two fold reason to put out a submarine or two a round. Â Maybe even split the 10 IPC NO for America in half and make half of it be “no Axis submarines in the Atlantic” so you have a 3 fold reason to put out submarines. Â (AKA: Less troops going after Moscow again…cause you are putting out Submarines…) Â
These are just off the cuff ideas…I didn’t think deeply on them. Feel free to poke holes or fill in gaps in them as you see fit - I won’t get offended, promise!
@Cmdr:
Minor Industrial Complexes: Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only.
This would go a long way towards solving the Japanese mech drive.
You might have to add transports to that list though, or else a lot of minors would be worthless. Another approach to handling the limitation for pre-War USA, or a nation like Anzac, would be to just give them a starting Major, and skirt the issue.
I’m totally in favor of anything that gets an island campaign going in the Pacific. Outlined many of my thoughts in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.0
Also totally in favor of a new Russian NOs. Lots of ideas here…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.0
@Cmdr:
Given how we’ve essentially gone back to “gang up on Russia” as the main strategy, perhaps we need a bigger penalty for violating the Russo-Japanese pact? Maybe, instead of Mongolia, the Russians get 18 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Russian controlled territory on the Pacific map if Japan attacks and if Russia attacks, Japan gets 9 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Japanese (originally Japanese, not controlled) territory/sea zone? It might be more of a deterring effect this way. (18 IPC could be 2 tanks, 2 infantry, it’s nothing to skoff at! Also, if Russia gives up their shield AND gives Japan money, they might be less enthused with the idea of DOWing Japan and invading China.)
NAP approaches along those lines would be my preference, just a simple bonus or penalty. Something a bit more consequential than the Mongolian infantry. Oh and on subs or interdiction. We discussed a lot of interesting stuff in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.0
As for adjustments to the turn order. I tried to develop a working concept before. I had a thread outlining some ideas, but nobody ever commented on them haha. So I’m not really sure what people think. I spent a good six months exploring the concept in AA50, and I still think it would be an interesting and relatively easy way to randomize the game…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34157.0
The basic thrust was that, if you wanted to keep the same (or a similar) starting unit set up as OOB, then you need to offset the turn order change with a starting income change. So clearly if you let France open, then you have to compensate the Axis (esp. Germany and Italy) to accommodate them.
@CWO:
Regarding your aspiration for “a feeling of game balance”, here’s one idea you might consider. It isn’t developed, and I don’t have time to develop it because I have to leave in a few minutes, but here’s the essence of it. The starting point would be to prepare an inventory of what factors should be considered when one is assessing the relative advantages of each player power, and how they apply to each power in the OOB game as we know it. An example of this sort of thing is Larry’s statement (in one of the A&A rulebooks) that the Axis starts out strong militarily but weak economically. That’s too general to be useful, but it’s what I’m driving at: Power X might have a whole bunch of strengths and weaknesses that, added up, are very different from the cumulative strengths and weaknesses of Power Y, but which don’t necessarily create an imbalance. (I hesitate to use an analogy from Star Wars Episode III, but I’ll do so for convenience. Someone once said this about the final duel between Obi-wan and Anakin: it’s a fair match because Obi-wan is more experienced and Anakin is more powerful.) Once you have such an inventory, you might have the basis for a randomization system that would vary – within certain limits – the strengths and weaknesses that each power starts out with in each game BUT which somehow makes sure that the “totals” for each power always stay roughly equal. As a purely abstract and ridiculously simple example, let’s say that Power X is allowed to have between 5 and 8 points in Category A and between 2 and 9 points in Category B. In one starting set-up, Power X has values of A=5 and B=4, while in another starting set-up, Power X has values of A=7 and B=2. They’re different set-ups…but they both add up to 9. The same principle (though not necessarily the same number ranges) would apply to the other powers.
I really like this idea, or at least the general direction of the idea. I think something like this is possible.
The more we discuss the more I wonder, what elements of the OOB game we really want to preserve?
To me the Map is core. I think the main purpose of developing a mod, would be to give all those people who spent a couple hundred bucks to acquire the 1940 game maps with a new way to play it. So basically not requiring someone to print out a new map, or acquire a ton of additional game materials. Its reasonable to ask players to find some abstract markers, or to use common readily available things like a deck of cards…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34327.0
But its harder if they need to acquire a whole new set of unit sculpts. That’s why I like CWOMarc’s idea on the previous page, of using the generic national marker to stand in for a special unit of some sort.
Another thing you can do is to cannibalize existing materials to use them in a new way. An example would be some of YGs ideas, to use Anzac or French sculpts for other purposes, like creating new or expanded factions, like the Commonwealth or British Empire Pacific concepts he’s discussed.
There’s a strong advantage to restricting ourselves, at least in principle, to just the boxed materials, (or some new riff on the box materials), because everyone has access to them. It’s generally easier to tweak an existing unit or existing mechanic than it is to create an entirely new one. So those would probably be the best places to start.
Does anyone else feel that the game might benefit, from some form of randomization to starting income?
Randomization within certain limits, of course, but some way to alter those values slightly as a way to create more dynamism in the opening round?
I’m talking here about something as simple as each nation roll 1d6 and adds the result to their starting income. A mechanic like that, carried across 9 player nations would introduce considerable diversity to possible purchasing strategies that could develop in the first round. Instead of a single starting income value in every game, you’d have 54 potential outcomes.
But none of these are like totally insane, “make your brain explode” outcomes. Under this system each nation would be guaranteed at least +1 to starting income over OOB, so already you’d have new purchasing strategies on offer. At the high end +6 you might see some potentially very interesting stuff develop, especially for a weaker nation like Italy or Anzac, which starts with an extremely low starting income value.
On G1 alone you’d have six potential purchases at 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, or 36 ipcs. Expand that sort of thing by all 9 powers, and you have some definite variation in the possible first round buys.
Is it like playing the nickel slots Godfather 2 style? Maybe a little, but at least each Nation gets a chance and everyone wins at least 1 ipc hehe.
Another idea I liked from the previous page was Flashmans suggestion about Gold Reserves.
I don’t know how willing people are to graft historical rationales onto gameplay mechanics which exist purely for entertainment randomization purposes, I know some prefer to move in the reverse direction, from the history to the mechanics. But in a case like this, I think you could come up with an explanation that doesn’t totally break with the games sense of history or historical flow. Its just like one of those small elements that would help smooth over the potential OOB balance deficiencies. I really think Starting Income is one of the simplest things to change in Axis and Allies, because its so abstract to begin with. Like in the OOB game German income doubles after the first round. Through objectives, smaller Nations like Italy or Anzac can triple their income in a very short span of time. So if you’re perfectly fine to see things like that happen with income once the game starts, why not explore some ways to tweak income before the game begins? I think it would be worth looking into. Not sure if the proposal above is something anyone would go for, just a simple 1d6 roll, but a similar idea could be used in conjunction with other possible advantages, in a scheme like the one Marc was just discussing.
For sure Chris Henry! That neutrality point value idea was the most interesting I’ve heard in a while. I like it because it makes neutrality Politics a more subtle part of the gameplay, as opposed to something that is just totally predetermined by the set up cards or the rules.
I don’t see a huge payoff for the Politics system in the OOB game. They are just used as a way to constrain what Player/Nations can do, scripting them into a corner introducing a lot of prohibition type rules (you can’t do X, you can’t do Y, you can’t do A until B or C happens, but only if EFG.) I mean its convoluted in the way politics is hahah, but its just not a terribly engaging aspect of the gameplay. A point system to determine how the neutral powers attach to the major Alliances might provide an alternative.
Other people have suggested a separate Soviet block. Axis and Allies always strikes me as essentially a two player game, and the 3 way is tricky to conceptualize. It’s hard to get three motivated people together in one room, but the 3 way is interesting to consdier. That would surely return us the question of Victory conditions and Alliances. It might be interesting if there were more ways to Win, like a prestige Victory for each Nation.
In the OOB game Victory is tied to a side of the gamemap, and based purely on territorial acquisition. You could have the largest navy in world history, gigantic standing army and a huge war chest, but if you lose the right city at the wrong time, you lose the game. I know we’ve discussed before that there are really only 3 kinds of “Victory” in OOB 1940.
Japan Wins on the TKO in the Pacific.
Germany Wins on the TKO in Europe.
Or Axis give up.
At the very least, we should create a way for Allies to actually win the game outright.
Traditionally I have played Axis and Allies games to Victory by Concession, ie one player just surrenders. But I think its rather poor game design, when you leave it up to the players to determine who wins or who loses based on feelings of hopelessness.
I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball.
Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. Most games have an 8 ball of one sort or another. Capital capture is the closest thing we have, but even that doesn’t force the game to resolve, it just makes the situation so hopeless for the one who gets conquered that they’re more likely to give up. As it stands the current VC Axis win by Pacific/Europe side of the map, just doesn’t provide the kind of Victory conditions I wish the game offered.
Granted, Wars don’t resolve the way games do, but this is a game first and foremost. To be a good game, it helps if both players have a way to win. Instead of one person having a way to win, and the other one only having ways “not to loose. yet.”
:-D
Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.
RE: Minor Industrial Complexes
Good catch, yes Transports would have to be added to that list.
RE: Powers without a Major Complex
I would have no problem adjusting the United States to 1 Major Industrial Complex in E. USA. The problem is, it still does not solve the build issue in the Pacific. Another potential solution (regarding the Pacific and still limiting their minor complexes) would be to add a minor complex in Mexico. They would be barred from BBs, CAs and ACs but could build 6 DDs for instance - prewar that is.
As for turn order… What about:
Germany
Russia
Japan
ANZAC
England
Italy
France
China
USA
It’s not a “major” change so it won’t upset the balance much, but at least France isn’t out there with it’s own round just to screw with the turn order for no good reason. :P I swear Larry just put France between Italy and Germany to mess with us forum gamers, lol! (that’s a joke!)
There are lots of interesting subjects in Black Elk’s latest post – too many for me to comment on all at once, so I’ll focus just on a couple of them.
There’s a strong advantage to restricting ourselves, at least in principle, to just the boxed materials, (or some new riff on the box materials), because everyone has access to them. It’s generally easier to tweak an existing unit or existing mechanic than it is to create an entirely new one. So those would probably be the best places to start. <<
I agree fully. The G40/2 map (perhaps with a few roundel modifications) and the unit categories supplied in the box as sculpts and markers are a good baseline because everyone can be assumed to have them on hand – so a redesign built around those elements is a good idea. This basic redesign can always be expanded later in more radical ways, for instance to include new unit types or new player powers, but for starters I think it’s very sensible to focus on a basic redesign.
I really like this idea, or at least the general direction of the idea. I think something like this is possible. […] Does anyone else feel that the game might benefit, from some form of randomization to starting income? Randomization within certain limits, of course, but some way to alter those values slightly as a way to create more dynamism in the opening round? <<
I’m not as rushed as I was last afternoon, so I’ll take a shot at developing more fully the very general concept I sketched out yesterday.
In the very abstract example I gave previously, I alluded to the fact that each player power’s starting position is defined by a number of variables. Some of these variables are purely quantifiable: for example, the number of units of each type a power has on the board, how many IPCs it has in the bank, what its starting IPC income is based on territories held, and so forth. The turn order specified in the rules is arguably another “purely quantitative” factor. Some other variables, on the other hand, have “values” that can’t be quantified directly because they involve factors that are qualitative or positional or political in nature. Examples of these include: where the power’s units are positioned on the game map; what special OOB rules (if any) either give the power a special allowance or place it under special restrictions; what national objectives or national advantages a power has (or might have); and how easy it is for each side to achieve its defined winning conditions. That last one is a whole subject in and of itself, and as I’ve argued before it’s a fundamental feature of the game that has to be considered at every step of a redesign process; the only thing I’ll say about it now, as far as the quantification issue goes, is just to point out that the OOB rules are built around a huge difference between the Axis and Allied sides. In pursuing their victory conditions, the Allies are given the challenge of capturing three enemy capitals that more or less equate to capturing most or all of three enemy countries. (Japan is the most extreme case: by capturing Tokyo, you’re in fact capturing the totality of Japan’s home islands.) The Axis, buy contrast, has a whole gaggle of Allied “victory cities” to choose from – many of which aren’t even capitals.
Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand: let’s assume that we have some sort of system for quantifying these different variables, or at least for expressing their importance. The next step would be to calculate how much all of these factors “add up to” for each of the player powers under the OOB rules. This will give us a rough idea of how “balanced” the OOB game’s starting setups are, in a very general sense. The next step would then be to decide by how much we would want these different values to potentially vary under a semi-randomized redesigned setup system.
To explain this, I’ll use a more concrete example than I had time to write yesterday – but an example that will still be purely for illustrative purposes. It’s not an actual proposal, and it will only focus on one element (unit types) in order to keep the example simple. The same principle could be applied to the numeric variables I’ve mentioned (IPCs being an obvious candidate) and perhaps be adapted in some way for application to other variables . The example I’ll use will be France, since it has only a few units at its disposal at the start of the game.
Leaving aside ICs and bases, and ignoring the consideration of where these units are placed on the map, France starts out the game with:
15 Infantry
0 Mechanized Infantry
1 Tanks
3 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
2 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
2 Cruisers
2 Destroyers
0 Submarines
0 Naval Transports
Now let’s assume that we want to replace this starting setup, which uses precise and unvarying numbers, with a setup that offers range brackets. Using some purely arbitrary figures (which are just meant to illustrate the concept I’m talking about), let’s give France this new setup table:
13-18 Infantry
0-1 Mechanized Infantry
1-2 Tanks
1-4 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
1-3 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0-1 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
1-3 Cruisers
1-4 Destroyers
0-1 Submarines
0 Naval Transports
There are several possible ways these brackets could be used. Here are the options I’ve been able to think of, though of course there may be more:
The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, and there are no limits on the total unit value (TUV) to which these choices can add up. Obviously this option won’t work because the player will simply choose the highest number in each category.
The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, but the TUV of his choices can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup. On the plus side, this option would require more thought and involve more compromises than option 1. On the minus side, this option may eventually neutralize the goal of making the game more variable: players will probably figure out the optimal choices and stick with them from that point forward.
The figures are determined by random dice rolls, without any restrictions on the TUV (except of course the built-in restriction that the figures in each category have to stay within a bracketed range). This could result in individual powers (in this case France) starting out a game with a significantly stronger or significantly weaker opening position than in the OOB setup.
The figures are determined by random dice rolls, but the TUV resulting from these random rolls can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup. This is probably the best option for generating variety from game to game without produding wildly stronger or wildly weaker opening positions. To make it work, we’d need a mechanism to control the TUV. I can think of a couple of possibilities for this:
a) Once the random rolls have generated a semi-randomized setup, the player calculates how much unit value has to be subtracted to bring the TUV down to the required level, then chooses himself which units to delete. The subtractions would not be allowed to bring any category outside its bracketed value.
b) The unit deletions are accomplished randomly by successive dice rolls (combined with some sort of results table) until the required TUV is reached. Rolls that would bring any particular category outside of its specified bracket would be disregarded.
I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […] Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.
Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions. Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side. When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.” And no, I’m not kidding. This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game). A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.
I’m of the opinion that balance is less important than the possibility of being able to do “interesting things.” That kind of approach is, of course, much more viable in a game involving numerous players that will likely end in a negotiated victory for one side rather than in a game of “standard” format with just two players.
The Lend-Lease mechanic is viable even without changes to the map.
A small deck of about 52 cards would allow for an elegant introduction of both random events (e.g., harsh European winter, neutral accession to a particular alliance bloc) and specific strategies that players may choose to deploy for a cost (e.g., activation of a national advantage, deployment of a special unit type).
I think the inclusion of minor nations, particularly the British Far East Command, the Dutch East Indies, and maybe even a Portuguese Empire, would also be a great way to spice up the game.
Fantastic! Can’t wait to see the charts.
They’re now ready and posted over here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0
They ended up being structured very differently than I had originally expected, but I think they work better this way.
Awesome notes Marc! I’m reading them intermittently on my breaks at work. Tons of useful info in there which I’d like to make good use of.
Also like the leader idea that Narvik posted above.
I tend to agree with tenacker, I enjoy the ability to do interesting things as well, which seems a bit easier to qualify than overall balance (given that the later is so dependent on the results of the round 1 combats.)
Will be back for more soon as I get a real day off! Haha
Catch you in a few
My global (no pun) perspective on G40 and its operational mechanics can be generally defined as political constraint and strategic flexibility. Unless you don’t mind screw-ball scenarios like the the UK joining the Axis or a land war in South America, there needs to be some level of political constraint imposed upon Powers which allows them to operate beyond the “One, two, three… fight!” script, but not deviate to the point of historic implausibility. That is my view anyway… otherwise, as Marc said, you have a game which uses the rough 1940s geo-political premise, but is decidedly not about the Second World War.
When we played as younger kids, we would make jokes about coup d’etats and deposing Hitler and ridiculousness like that… Seems like some people are looking for that kind of flexibility, where you can just totally ignore history and create your own rules. I suppose that is fine if it is what you are into, but it defeats the premise of the game to me.
A Tri-Team Game: Somebody talked about this and it really intrigued me. I have never heard this suggested before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. USA-UK (and UK Empire holdings + pro-Allies) vs. Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy) vs. Soviet Union (+ pro Allies?)
This truly could work. It would more accurately represent how the war was fought and the political/geographic motivations for each side. A more distinct winner could be crowned based on the accomplishing of specified objectives. Heck, you might even be able to (or maybe should) split the Axis into Germany-Italy and Japan. They would still be allies, with benefit to cooperation, but have individual victory conditions that may or may not be co-dependent. China is another problem, since you have both pro-USA-UK forces and pro-USSR forces, but that could be worked out. US-UK and USSR would still be nominal allies as well, but the interplay between them would more accurately reflect the real-life suspicion and ambitions between the Free Market Economies and the Communists.
I don’t envision an “8-ball” style clean-cut win like Black_Elk is looking for, but it would change how you view victory in the game.
I thought someone posted a link about this Tri-Team idea being discussed in the past… if so I would really like to investigate it further.
@Cmdr:
Minor Industrial Complexes: � Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only. � Major complexes can build whatever. (Does not apply to the United States (E. USA, C. USA or W. USA prior to being at war.) � � IDEA: � These are stripped down, WWI style factories and dry docks. � Game relevance: � Limit major builds to major complexes and thus limit the usefulness of dropping minor complexes everywhere. � � ADDON: � Perhaps with the limits, dropping the price to 10 IPC for a minor complex? �
Change the American NO (Alaska) o “Island Hoping”: � Allied forces control Hawaii, Midway, Carolines, Marshals and Paulau islands (Philippines are already an NO and there’s already way too many NOs regarding the Dutch East Indies…) � The idea here is to reward the United States (and her Allies) for liberating the S. Pacific from the Japanese overlords, instead of just skipping them entirely. � This is a “chain” of islands as well, so it would represent creating a supply line into the S. Pacific for the United States (aka the reason we did it…needed to put fuel, ammo and medical facilities SOMEWHERE!!!)
Submarine interdiction: � Transports moving through a sea zone containing submarines or through sea zones adjacent to enemy submarines may be attacked by said submarines (yes even if escorted by surface ships - but those surface ships get to defend against the submarines.) � Submarines are moved into the sea zone in question and attack while transports (and escorts) defend. �
My hope is this will encourage more Axis submarines in the Atlantic since they can choose to attack or not attack just like you can choose to scramble or not scramble. � If you add this to the above suggested NO for England revolving around no Submarines in the Atlantic then you have a two fold reason to put out a submarine or two a round. � Maybe even split the 10 IPC NO for America in half and make half of it be “no Axis submarines in the Atlantic” so you have a 3 fold reason to put out submarines. � (AKA: Less troops going after Moscow again…cause you are putting out Submarines…) �
I like these as well.
@CWO:
I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […] Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.
Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions. Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side. When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.” And no, I’m not kidding. This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game). A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.
I don’t particularly like this, as you may have guessed. Too much flexibility.
