Isnt the game just broken if USA builds a major factory in Norway?

@eddiem4145:

In the global game, a major IC captured gets downgraded. So if germany builds a major, or even a minor, it prevents the US from have a major. Since it cannnot destroy the complex and you can only have 1 per territory, doesn’t that keep the US from developing a major complex.

I also agree with the house rule that the US cannot move its ship off the coast until at war.

US can pay 20 to upgrade it to a major

@Imperious:

Do you know that at least one of the play-tester groups had only 3 sessions to playtest the game?

Does that mean to you at least in that case it is enough to entirely discover any glitches in the game?

It took me one game to get to the conclusion that AAP40 had something wrong and Japan had way too many planes. I knew this by just looking at her setup sheet even before starting play.

I don’t know is AAE40 is balanced or not but my suspicion is after getting US to a point where they can hold Norway, i don’t seem to find a way to counter it by any means.That conclusion is FROM PLAYING GAMES FROM BOTH SIDES. Russia can’t fall by turn G5-7. Its impossible unless the player for Russia is incompetent.

Germany cant deal with 10 units pumping out. They must have a naval solution to counter this, and if it does not do it early it has little chance to recover IMO.

I hope i find a solution but it looks really bad.

Wait, I thought the game is broken due to your sealion strat of blocking Z104 with a CC

What is CA. carrier aircraft or cruiser. I see different abbreviations

@Imperious:

Do you know that at least one of the play-tester groups had only 3 sessions to playtest the game?

Does that mean to you at least in that case it is enough to entirely discover any glitches in the game?

It took me one game to get to the conclusion that AAP40 had something wrong and Japan had way too many planes. I knew this by just looking at her setup sheet even before starting play.

I don’t know is AAE40 is balanced or not but my suspicion is after getting US to a point where they can hold Norway, i don’t seem to find a way to counter it by any means.That conclusion is FROM PLAYING GAMES FROM BOTH SIDES. Russia can’t fall by turn G5-7. Its impossible unless the player for Russia is incompetent.

Germany cant deal with 10 units pumping out. They must have a naval solution to counter this, and if it does not do it early it has little chance to recover IMO.

I hope i find a solution but it looks really bad.

I agree that it is major hard for Russia to fall to Germany if the person playing russia knows what they are doing.  My friend and I were going to try the Germany Navy next to try get the troops needed to Moscow through Lennigrad.  I am curious to see how it works.  Every game we have played resulted in the Russian stacks getting too big for Germany to handle. We tried mechs and tanks but the russian stacks just grew too big.  Germany just did not have points to build all those expensive units to take over Russia and still defend against America.  Now we are thinking inexpensive art/inf shucks over by transports might work but I really don’t know how it will go till we try it at least once.

We both have concerns about the balance of the game because if America goes all in the Atlantic it is going to be really hard to stop them from landing somewhere in Europe, holding it, and popping up a major factory.  At that point Germany is in major trouble to say the least.  While Japan can grow to US point level, it can’t get major factories very close to Russia.  So from our experience it is hard for Japan to get to Moscow before US can get to Berlin.  Now my friend has tried going for victory cities as the axis and if America leaves the Pacific alone they can get quite a few but if America then blows a hole in Europe before Axis can get 14 victory cities they have no choice but to try and take an allied capital.  Chances are at the point Rome or Berlin will fall to US first and then the axis are all but doomed.

We have played games where America spends in the Pacific and it can seriously mess with Japan if Japan does not take and hold Hawaii.  US spending in Pacific is a viable way to get an allied win.  The problem seems to be that spending all in the Atlantic is an even more viable way to win.  My friend used Japan to try and attack the west coast of US and convoy raid but America can put down many cheap units in mainland and then Japan can’t really do too much.  The convoy raids soon become ineffective because of America gaining points in Europe.

Maybe we just need more experience but we have not been able to find a way for Germany to Crack Russia and hold off America.  I believe that if Germany does a turtle from the word go and just aims to take one Russian city that they could hold back America for quite some time but that seems like a boring way to play.  We were hoping to use Germany to kill something.

People are shouting you down now IL about raising balance concerns but I suspect within 3-6 months you will here more people saying that you have valid points.

If you ignore Japan, don’t go into Siberia or North America; take India and attack Middle East, Caucasus, and East Africa.

Someone please tell me what CA is?

The answer in balance and realism is in solving the AAP40 problem. China needs to be stronger in Asia, and Japan needs to be able to take more of an advantage in the Pacific forcing the US not to ignore them. This is the fix.

Let China go before Japan. Give China one extra infantry per territory it held at the beginning of the turn. In exchange, give Japan a double impusle attack on its first turn at war with the US and force the US to keep its pacific navy in Hawaii except for its aircraft carrier.

This creates the realism of pearl harbor and the surprise advantage Japan had where it quickly sank the UK navy near the dutch east indies and took over those islands quickly. It decimates the pacific navy and leave Australia for the taking UNLESS the US spends money right away to stop it. They have the money to do it but gives Germany a few more turns.

If the US does not do it, the power the Japs have in the pacific force it to use it. And once Australia is taken, then it is to easy for Japan to harrass the US with economic raids, taking Hawaii, even invading South America. The point is, they have a naval force with no opposition, so use it. With a captured factory off of Australia, they can ferry men to South America, or central america, ect…. At this point, the US ignores Japan at its peril. Japan can reach over 90 IPC’s by turn 3 or 4 if done right unless the US acts.

Eddie

@eddiem4145:

Someone please tell me what CA is?

Eddie, a CA in military acronym stands for a Cruiser (I believe the ‘A’ part is for “Attack”).

Aircraft Carrier is CV (Carrier Vessel)

Luke

@oztea:

House Rule

No major factories may be built on foreign soil.

or: no major factories on territories (without victory cities) which are not worth at least 3IPC

@13thguardsriflediv:

@oztea:

House Rule

No major factories may be built on foreign soil.

or: no major factories on territories (without victory cities) which are not worth at least 3IPC

As good as coming up with alternate rules is… It remains that nobody is really answering IL’s question. Does the US putting a major factory in Norway effectively end the game for Germany, and thus Japan.

I, for one, cannot say, becasue I haven’t played yet. I can only imagine that Germany can prevent it. Though I am not sure about them retaking it after the Allies get a hold on it.

I will say that if the Allies hold Norway and the US puts a major factory ther… I don’t see how Germany can fight any longer. By this time they will have to deal with all 3 Allies: the US can do what they want, Russia will be a substantial challenge itself and the UK will play an important support role, even if they are a weakened form of their former selves.

Let’s address the question and not try to make up excuses to bypass it. We have not even established that it is a legitimate problem, so we don’t need a fix based on rule/map alterations yet.

I am not a fan of “Broken Game” whistleblowing, but when a legitimate possibility is raised it is worth taking a look at.

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

@Koningstiger:

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

I agree with this and I like the idea. I often play with Germany and one problem with having combined arms forces (tanks, infantry and fighters) is that your “soaker” forces, the guys who should take all the punishment, the infantry, cannot keep up with tanks and planes. For that reason alone Germany could surely use a factory closer to the front lines. I would be far more inclined to buy infantry if they were closer to the front.

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

@LHoffman:

@Koningstiger:

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

I agree with this and I like the idea. I often play with Germany and one problem with having combined arms forces (tanks, infantry and fighters) is that your “soaker” forces, the guys who should take all the punishment, the infantry, cannot keep up with tanks and planes. For that reason alone Germany could surely use a factory closer to the front lines. I would be far more inclined to buy infantry if they were closer to the front.

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

Well, in this game, most powers have a lot of money, so Germany can afford a navy. At Norway, you don’t have to build surface ships. Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

Well, in this game, most powers have a lot of money, so Germany can afford a navy. At Norway, you don’t have to build surface ships. Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

Then I’d add a Russian destroyer to the sea zone off of Archangelsk. Possibly the Russian sub is still there. If not, at the very least the Russian player can use his planes to take out the sub(s). I wouldn’t consider one sub on its own (or even multiples without escorting surface ships) a serious problem for the Russians.

@Koningstiger:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

Then I’d add a Russian destroyer to the sea zone off of Archangelsk. Possibly the Russian sub is still there. If not, at the very least the Russian player can use his planes to take out the sub(s). I wouldn’t consider one sub on its own (or even multiples without escorting surface ships) a serious problem for the Russians.

I don’t think that a German sub there is a big problem either. But have the rules changed or something? I thought planes on their own were not allowed to attack subs?

I’ve only played one game and it became very apparent that the game is seriously broken.  In aa50, it was still possible to win with either side even if the allies concentrated entirely on one axis.  In aag40 however, some of the rules are seriously broken and need to be adjusted for the “global” game.

1. ports are fine in the pacific, but in europe, it’s a disaster for the axis.  There is no way the axis can prevent a large US naval stack with 5 or more transports sitting on the atlantic side of gibraltar.  With air on carriers and bombers in uk, the US could strike anywhere in france, norway, or either german or italian capitals with a stack that could be as large as 20 units very early.

2. japan can’t do enough against north america to prevent the US from going all out kgf by moving all their naval units to europe.  They can be annoying but the US income is too large and the building base too high on continental US to seriously threaten taking w. US.  It would also mean giving up china and the rest of asia to put in a serious enough of an attempt on w. US which means japan’s income is just too small.

3. as discussed here, once the US takes norway, it’s over.  Germany would have to spend too much just to defend their homeland which doesn’t leave enough to do anything against ussr if that player is half way competent.  10 ground units with a stack of air every turn means germany gets picked apart pretty fast.  With the US strike force starting off at gibraltar, it’s impossible for the axis to defend everything with both their homelands are at risk.  Building a major complex in norway first doesn’t help since germany isn’t exactly rolling in dough.  The only way to even make any attempt of holding norway is by giving up any assault on ussr but people can see what would happen there eventually.

4. unlike aa50 where japan can eventually get strong enough and advance quickly enough to actually help germany, aag40 board is too large for japan to do anything to help against kgf.  Anyone looking at the unit counts can see it starts to go downhill for the axis very quickly.  There’s too big of a gap in incomes.

The only thing I can see possibly offsetting these factors are victory cities.  I haven’t lookated at it closely enough, but I guess if victory cities for the axis were set low enough, it might be possible for them to win that way if japan can take out all of asia before germany gets crushed.

Probably can add

5. tanks costing 6 now kills germany.  It was bad enough taking moscow in aa50 with only 3 territories between germany and moscow, but look at how many more territories there are now.  Only an idiot would lose ussr in this game.