Playing the game with 2 turns: How would it affect balance?

You know I think it could go both ways. For example if the Axis went first whats to stop the Italian navy and the entirety or a large portion of the German air force from completely wiping the Med of any Allied vessels? Germany could just have a portion of its Luftwaffe in the Med the entire game to support the Italian stacks in their conquest. On the other hand I think this could potentially make things much more difficult for Japan or for Germany defending in the West (as it should be, defending the coastlines of 5 nations should not be easy). All in all though I don’t think it would be that unbalancing to the point where it breaks the game. Then again I have not tested it, thats just merely my opinion. I do however also think it would model the real war much more accurately. Both the Axis and the Allies did attack together, all the time. Some of the most crucial battles of the war were joint attacks.

I am talking about the regular setup-Alpha 2 that is.

play a turn except i think perhaps China needs to play just before the axis on turn 1. Also, if the Japanese declare war on Russia, The Russian player should get a 1 turn advance warning. The axis double up against them is stronger in this mechanism. Thats been my experience.

combining axis in one turn makes italy pointless. I would strongly prefer just Germany on the map like the old one.

Oh Wait. you guys don’t really understand how the system works. ( or at least how we played it with AARHE)

When more than one nation attacks the same area, we resolve combat separately by nation round by round.

So if Germany and Italy both attack Egypt, Germany fights a round first ( rolls dice) then UK rolls on defense.Loses are removed. Italy then attacks, and both sides remove loses.

Repeat the combat each round with each nation rolling separately.

I guess that was never clarified before but it’s important to making the system work.

So you still got a can opener going.

I only support the All Axis, All Allies 2 turn system if there are joint combat moves, and joint combat.

Nothing else will work.

you guys take my words out of context everytime. Italy being seperate from germany is pointless, because if you combined the two and played them as one country you’d see little difference.
~
if larry harris had to do this…. the entire board would look totally different.  First of all uk’s fleet wouldn’t be out there sitting like ducks in the medit sea.

@mantlefan:

Why?

I admit there are a few complications (such as scrambling and strat bombings), but when it’s made joint combat, how is it decided who gets control of a taken territory? There are complications with both.

Most games are 2-player games, in some cases maybe 3 or 4-players. It will rarely be an issue who controls a territory after a joint attack. And if it is, find a way to resolve it. Roll a die. Or the guy with most units left win control.

Why I prefer joint attacks ? Well, it dont seem fair that the same 10 defending infantry can roll dice against the first attacker, and later against the next attacker too. The attacker roll dice once in a turn, but the defender roll several times during this same turn. Makes no sense.

And if you still want can-openers, just make a Panzerdivision rule that let tanks and mechs that made a succsessful breaktrhrough, move into next territory to exploit and combat again.

I agree with mantlefan. A united Euro-Axis as one country would be very unbalancing. I dont want Germany to be able to drop 10 fighters on West Germany in one turn…

Joint attacks are too strong. In past editions they had a ‘commander rule’ ( Milton Bradley edition)which for this same point got dumped because it was too strong.

The game would definatly play faster if you used that but not really fair, since Japan and Germany will not likely make as many combined attacks as all the allies.

Il, you said it would not be really fair, yet you seem to imply that b/c Japan and Germany can make joint attacks as well that it will balance out. Could you clarify this point? With the joint strike rule, who does it benefit more, Axis or Allies?

“combined” UK/USA/USSR attacks are much more common than German/ Japanese combined attacks. This means since the frequency is greater due to a localities of both nations, it presents an advantage to the allies.

Thats why we never allow having nations combine their attacks at the same time.

What about joint attacks with the Italians? Both the Germans and to some extent the Japanese (In the area around India) would have the potential to attack with the Italians. Lets also not forget that a joint attack system would allow the airforce of any Axis nation to assist its partners. Allowing the Germans to help the Italians in the Med, the Italians and Japanese to joint attack India, and for the Germans and Italians to be able to attack both France and Russia together provide benefits for the Axis that I don’t think are really being explored. For example in the very first turn allowing a modest Italian force to attack France along with Germany would free up even more of the Luftwaffe for other missions.

Oh no doubt it favors the Allies. Im just suggesting that it can be easy to overlook potential joint attack based Axis strategies. You can make them work. Italy and Japan could theoretically meet at India by turn 3. A combined German-Italian attack into Russia could provide lots of bonuses. For example, wealthy Germany could purchase lots of Tacs while Italy focuses on tanks boosting the attack values without each nation having to buy both types of units. Not saying these strategies are the end all be all for this type of play but when no one has even attempted to play with this style I dont think you can really discount new types of successful strategies that could be made

I am very excited to playtest this kind of system. I feel that even if did turn out to be unbalanced with the Alpha Setup that it would still have some truly epic combat moves. Good idea on the Italians assisting Sealion. You may be right about Italy rushing to India with Japan but what if some of the Luftwaffe came along for the ride? That would be a crazy India Crush strategy. All three axis nations…

Lets imagine this scenario. Axis turn 1 joint combat group of German/Italian land units take Paris. Luftwaffe is entirely free. Luftwaffe and Italian airforce on Axis 1 destroys British Navy in and around the English Channel. Axis 2 joint land armies of Italy and Germany help Italy take the southern European countries with less casualties for Italy. Also during Axis 2 combined Axis airforce destroys the Med fleet. Axis 3 Germans go forward with Sealion bolstered by both the Luftwaffe and the Italian Airforce. At this point I think you’d be sitting pretty as the Axis with relatively few casualties to your key units.

Also, I’m assuming this kind of joint-attack setup would change the rules regarding friendly usage of transports. If thats the case then there is a much larger incentive for Germany to be active in the Med. Not only can they attack with the Italians to help them take Egypt in this kind of situation but they can also use Italian transports to get there without having to wait 2 turns.

I have to point out that in AARHE we needed to install straight rules because a combined Italo-German sealion was too strong in the early game.

We made crossing Gibraltar impossible for Italy, unless it was captured and made it very hard to do this. 2 unit limit on attack and it was considered a fortress.

AARHE also made entering the Baltic impossible for western allies unless western europe and Norway were occupied at the start of the turn ( treated like a canal).

No sorry. I dont like a system with separate attacks. I dont like that the US stack attack separately first, then followed by a separate UK attack, because this force the Axis stack to doubble-defend. The defender rolls twice as many dice as they should and that is unbalanced.

Another issue is the management of resolving like 20 small battles in a global game. With joint attacks you resolve all this battles one time each. With separate attacks, then you’ll have to place all this units on the Battleboard twice. It will be like resolving 40 battles when you could have resolved 20, and that is time consuming. Joint battles will speed up the pace.

If you feel that joint attacks is too powerful, just make some rules. USA/UK are just friendly to USSR, but they are not allowed to share territory or attack together. Same with Japan and the Euro Axis. If the US/UK joint D-day is still too strong, just let Germany build the Atlantic Wall. Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

I dont like that the US stack attack separately first, then followed by a separate UK attack, because this force the Axis stack to doubble-defend. The defender rolls twice as many dice as they should and that is unbalanced.

No no thats not how the system works:

UK attacks (rolls dice) Germans defend, both sides remove loses.

USA attacks, Germans defend , both sides remove loses. In this case the german player already lost some units in the UK battle. He is not defending with lost units from the uk battle.

You do this for each round of combat for each side when you have multinational forces.

This is not or never a double defend situation. AARHE was never played that way either.

Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

Blockhouse cost 6 and boost all Infantry and artillery +1 on defense all rounds up to the IPC value of the territory.

A 4 IPC space will only boost 4 units of these types +1.

If taken over fortification is destroyed.