Nice!
Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3
-
As A&A Global has, imho, incorrect values for many territories, I submit the following territory value revisions, which are more ‘relatively’ correct (again, imho);
Western Germany 9, Norway 1, Greater Southern Germany 3, Slovakia/Hungary 2, Romania 2, Poland 3, Karelia 0, Novgorod 3, Baltic States 2, Eastern Poland 2, Western Ukraine 3, Ukraine 3, Belarus 2, Archangel 0, Russia 6, Urals 0, Timguska 0, Evenkiyskiy 0, Buryatia 0, Sakha 0, Siberia 0, Soviet Far East 0, Scotland 3, Trans-Jordan 0, South-West Africa 0, Gold Coast 0, West India 3, South India 1 (new)[or include in West India], India 6, Shan State 0, Borneo 2, Sumatra 2, Celebes 2, Bali/Timor 2 (new)[Islands east of Java], Moluccas 1 (new)[Island east of Celebes], Queensland 1, West Australia 0, South Australia 0, Northern Territory 0, British Columbia 2, Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba 2, Ontario 3, Quebec 3, NWT 0 (new)[Canadian blob of land west of Greenland], France 6, Southern France 2, Morocco 0, Northern Italy 5, Albania 0, Finland 1, Eire 1 (new)[Ireland]* include 2 armies defence symbol, Turkey 3, Saudi Arabia 1 and Brazil 3.
I have altered my global game boards to reflect these alterations. Hopefully, whatever game balance is in the original design will be positively or, at least, neutrally affected by these changes (playtesting will tell). -
Mmm, my first thought is that with countries such as Scotland 3, Ukraine 3, West Ukraine 3, Turkey 3, etc… could have big consequences, because major IC’s can be built there, influencing (dare i say imbalancing) the game a lot.
-
I did not consider the possibility for building major industrial complexes on these new 3 value territories. Rather, I was simply suggesting (relatively speaking) more accurate valuations. The national totals are the same - just distributed differently. In regards to building industrial complexes (major or minor) - it appears to me that with all the forces on the board and the time contraints that the Axis are better served maximizing their build for every turn. When exactly do the Axis spend precious IPCs on extra industrial complexes? The same is true of the Allies for the most part too - they have to defend. It appears to me that the setup offers sufficient industrial complexes. To my mind, the game is won on maximizing builds for both sides and on the specific battles and die roll results. Why even bother with extra complexes (or air bases and naval bases, for that matter) or even try R & D?. Just maximize you income and your military builds.
-
I did not consider the possibility for building major industrial complexes on these new 3 value territories. Rather, I was simply suggesting (relatively speaking) more accurate valuations. The national totals are the same - just distributed differently. In regards to building industrial complexes (major or minor) - it appears to me that with all the forces on the board and the time contraints that the Axis are better served maximizing their build for every turn. When exactly do the Axis spend precious IPCs on extra industrial complexes? The same is true of the Allies for the most part too - they have to defend. It appears to me that the setup offers sufficient industrial complexes. To my mind, the game is won on maximizing builds for both sides and on the specific battles and die roll results. Why even bother with extra complexes (or air bases and naval bases, for that matter) or even try R & D?. Just maximize you income and your military builds.
Some players who play as Germany in AAG40 (including myself) like to build a Major IC in Romania, because it allows units to reach the Eastern front faster. Also if America captures Norway its a popular strategy to put a major IC there, and this some would argue is a game breaker (there are other post about this strategy). I agree with you that player should maximize their military builds, but in the end I agree with special forces, changing some of those territory values to 3 is asking for trouble. While history may support the cause, for gaming purposes and balance I believe they should remain the same.
-
A suggestion to limit major industrial complexes to, say, territories with a value of 5 or more might be in order. Along with this, use a minimum 3 value territory for minor industrial complexes. This alteration may be feasible (and be somewhat more realistic too).
-
It is totally unrealistic for any industrial complexes to be built, or for captured complexes to be used, at any time in the game. I do not allow either, meaning that tt values can be more realistic.
There’s no doubt that the values assigned to some territories are deliberately low to prevent factories, the most glaring example being Caucasus which should be worth at least 5.
-
While were on the topic, does anyone feel the oil rich middle east TTs should be worth alot more ipcs ? It would be interesting to have Germany, Russia and England racing to grab and defend all that money. Could be a game changer.
-
No. rather this:
assign oil centers
each time and the first time the enemy captures your original oil center, roll D6 x the IPC, so TT at 3 IPC with oil center gets 3 rolls, result is immediate lost IPC.
Also, you must have at least one oil center under control or face oil shortage.
Exceptions:
Italy and Germany can use the same oil center, Romania
Japan has a 3 turn oil reserve, after that she must roll d6 lose IPC until she recovers one oil center
UK has Borneo and should take Persia if it falls
-
The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.
Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:
http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html
The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough. Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.
Suggested Topics
