@CWO:
Glad you like it. By the way, here’s something I noticed while I was researching the text, and which should perhaps be reflected in the modified Global set-up: the Flying Tiger squadron started being formed (with plane purchases and pilot training) in late 1940, and only started arriving in Asia (specifically Burma) in mid-1941. The Flying Tigers didn’t go into combat until December 20, 1941 – two weeks after Pearl Harbor – so technically the single fighter that China is allocated in the 1940 game (from the very beginning under the OOB rules) shouldn’t be there until the game reaches the second half of 1941.
So, it might be possible to left China empty of Fighter on set-up but with 1 or 2 Fgs in Philippines to use the optional rule about Flying Tigers changing US Fg into Chinese Fg. So, on USA’s turn it might correspond to mid 1941 period.
@Baron:
So, it might be possible to left China empty of Fighter on set-up but with 1 or 2 Fgs in Philippines to use the optional rule about Flying Tigers changing US Fg into Chinese Fg. So, on USA’s turn it might correspond to mid 1941 period.
I don’t think the Philippines could be used in this way. The P-40 Warhawk used by the Flying Tigers had a range of about 650 miles, which is about the distance between the northern tip of the Philippines and the closest point of mainland China (roughly Hong Kong) – and that’s assuming the plane is flying a one-way trip, and that it would arrive over China with no fuel left for combat. A plane could be ferried to China that way, but it couldn’t fly a Philippine-based combat mission.
Nice catch.
Currently it works like this…
“FlyingTiger_ChangerMustActivate” Changes the US Fighter at the Philippines into a “FlyingTiger” unit. This unit may move to Dutch or UK Pacific territories during it’s ncm. When ending it’s turn in a Chinese controlled territory, it will become a Chinese unit. May not enter Chinese territories unless US is at war with Japan. Has same abilities as Fighter.
It also allows for a purchase option in the US unit roster though, so you could buy a replacement, but it still has to be flown over to China from the US somehow.
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
I think we have to assume the maximum range of all fighter aircraft is 4 spaces (regardless of the specific type), which is crazy far for the period, but I think they’d come at us with pitch forks and torches if we tried to nerf fighter movement from M4 for realism. It’s one of the few values that hasn’t changed since Classic.
:-D
Personally I just love the look of the unit. On the physical board I’m always trying to switch out my Lightnings for the 41 Warhawks, since I keep all my fighters in the same big unit tray like a madman hehe
I think Nation specific units can be confusing sometimes, but the Tiger and China are pretty weird already, so maybe it’s not a big deal. Certainly if there was no fighter in China to start, it would be nice if we had a way to include them via US purchases.
I also ment to reply to the AB stuff, but had a long night last night and a kind of rough morning haha. I’ve been trying to link up with Simon to test some stuff live, but RL getting in the way and we’re on opposite sides of the globe. Maybe tomorrow I’ll finally make my way to the lobby.
For now I think what Barney was saying about limited factories gets pretty close. That HR basically puts limits on what units can be produced at a factory depending on whether it also has operational bases. I like Args ideas too, if people wanted to up the importance of the AB, but stop short of a connection between bases and unit production. The built in scramble +1 seems like it might be fun.
I’d still like to separate the Marine unit from the warship=transporting thing. I think our current price structure for marines works well with just normal transports. So it would be nice if the warship transport idea was it’s own toggle, so you could just have normal marines if desired. I guess right now you can player enforce it (just don’t allow moving them onto Battleships etc.) For making warships more attractive I think just lowering the cost should be an option (rather than adding abilities) seems cleaner, with fewer moving parts. So instead of a BB that transports Marines or gets the AA shot or whatever, we should have a toggle that lowers its price tag to 17 or 15 or whatever.
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
My guess would be that the planes were shipped to Burma disassembled (in crates), then forwarded to China via the Burma Road or put together in Burma and flown over the Himalayas to China. The whole Flying Tiger squadron concept was basically a clandestine operation of the Roosevelt administration, which wanted to help China without overtly violating the peacetime status of the US, so they had to use discretion. Flying combat planes to China from the Phillipines would have been too blatant, and would have upset both Congress and the Japanese. In the context of A&A, it might even be considered an act of war. My feeling is that the simplest method would simply be to give China its Flying Tiger unit at the proper phase of the game by adding it to the map as a new unit, not by transferring an existing fighter that’s already on the board. This would replicate the idea that these fighters were sent to China covertly rather than overtly. Also, it would agree with the White House’s fiction that the pilots in question we “civilian volunteers” and that the planes were part of the Chinese Air Force – an illusion that would have been shattered if the US had transferred US Army Air Corps planes to China, flown by American uniformed servicemen.
@CWO:
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
My guess would be that the planes were shipped to Burma disassembled (in crates), then forwarded to China via the Burma Road or put together in Burma and flown over the Himalayas to China. The whole Flying Tiger squadron concept was basically a clandestine operation of the Roosevelt administration, which wanted to help China without overtly violating the peacetime status of the US, so they had to use discretion. Flying combat planes to China from the Phillipines would have been too blatant, and would have upset both Congress and the Japanese. In the context of A&A, it might even be considered an act of war. My feeling is that the simplest method would simply be to give China its Flying Tiger unit at the proper phase of the game by adding it to the map as a new unit, not by transferring an existing fighter that’s already on the board. This would replicate the idea that these fighters were sent to China covertly rather than overtly. Also, it would agree with the White House’s fiction that the pilots in question we “civilian volunteers” and that the planes were part of the Chinese Air Force – an illusion that would have been shattered if the US had transferred US Army Air Corps planes to China, flown by American uniformed servicemen.
If China is considered the last power to play, it might not be that far stretch to put on set-up and out of position a Chinese aircraft, which might be considered the Flying tiger.
Or, giving an initial 10 IPCs bonus to allow Chinese player to built a one time single Fighter.
So, it will only appear on units placement phase.
@CWO:
@CWO:
Okay, that gives me a good start to work on a first draft. I’ll aim for a text that combines a general overview of the war situation in December 1940 with some specific details about the situation on various active fronts and maybe also in areas that will see some notable action very soon (meaning in the first few months of 1941). And for game powers that might otherwise not get mentioned because the time frame for their involvement is still too far way, I might throw in a couple of “Meanwhile, country X is watching with growing apprehension as…” types of lines. I like your idea of mentioning each of the game powers, and it should be easy enough to do given how much was going on internationally at that time. I’ll try to keep the text broad enough so that it won’t hinge on any specific map or set-up adjustments; if there should end up being a few such cases of local situations, however, then the two options would be to either make map/setup adjustments to fit the text or to simply edit those references out of the text.
Here’s the first draft:
It is December 1940. After the swift conquests of the conflict’s first year, which saw much of Europe overrun and occupied, the Second World War is turning into a grim war of attrition. Defeated in the air during the first phases of the Battle of Britain, Germany has called off its contemplated invasion of the U.K. and, since October, has been carrying out a night bombing campaign against London and other large cities across the English Channel. In the Atlantic, German U-Boats have enjoyed several months of exceptionally good luck in their operations against Allied convoys. **Britain, besieged though it may be at home, is preparing to strike back against the Axis in North Africa: with Australian support, it is about to launch Operation Compass, the first major Allied offensive of the Western Desert Campaign. The attack will be a heavy blow to Italy, whose invasion forces in Greece are at this moment being driven back into Albania by the Greek army. **
On the other side of the world, Japan’s invasion and occupation of China has bogged down into a bloody stalemate. Further south, Thailand has gone to war with the Vichy regime to gain control of parts of French Indochina, an area where Japan has had its own presence since September. These developments are raising tensions between Japan and the United States, which is concerned by growing Japanese naval power in the Pacific and Japanese aggression in mainland Asia. The Soviet Union is likewise keeping a wary eye on Japan, its opponent in several recent conflicts along the Mongolian and Manchurian borders. In the wake of Japan’s defeat by the Soviets in the latest of these border wars, the two nations will soon establish a neutrality pact. The accord will put Japan at greater liberty to turn its attention towards the Pacific and South-East Asia, while the leaders of the Soviet Union – having already signed a non-aggression pact with Germany the previous year – will be able to reassure themselves that their potential adversaries to the east and to the west have now been neutralized by the tools of diplomacy…
On various challenge about where to start a 1941 set-up to make it interesting here is a quote from AA50:
Why not have a new starting date for the game? Avalon Hill brand manager Brian Hart and I discussed a 1939 scenario. This idea came with many undesirable problems, however. The game would automatically be much longer to play. The United States would not participate in the game for the first three or four turns. The game would suffer from a rather slow and very predictable start. This, and several other issues, would prove to be too problematic from a game point of view. The war did not become truly global until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We finally decided that this infamous date would be our starting point . . . well almost. As it turned out, by way of some serious lobbying from one of my playtest groups, we concluded that turn one would include both the japanese attack at Pearl Harbor as well as the German attack on Russia (Operation Barbarossa). This would really start the game off with a bang.
It seems they made an historical anachronism to get an interesting moment on Eastern Front…
From 1942 Revised intro, but not a word on Japan expansionism or German’s soldier diehard winter battle hardened:
Spring 1942: The fleet at Pearl Harbor rebuilds from the ruins. Britons stare across the Channel to an occupied France. West of Moscow, Soviet troops dig out from a brutal winter on the Russian front. Greenhorn American soldiers leave their birthplaces for the first time, unclear whether they’ll see the homefires burn again. They face a world at war.
Seems pretty hard to find the original intro texts written under the OOB boxes. If anyone have a link to provide.
This late 1940 date for set-up makes me wonder about Taranto raid. Maybe it can still be part of the first round action on UKE1?
Can this be UK the opening Power in this 1940-1941 scenario?
Pacific 1940 Box Back texts:
The year is 1940. Japan continues to flex its military might in China as political tension grips the world. In Europe, France is about to fall, and Asia braces for the impact. Holland, now occupied by Germany, is forced to leave its resource rich colonies in the Dutch East Indies vulnerable to the oil-starved Imperial Japanese Empire. French Indo-China will soon be occupied by Japanese land sea and air forces. Britain has received an ultimatum to close the Burma Road or risk war with Japan. The United States reacts with an embargo of strategic materials. The stage is set.
Europe 1940 Box Back texts:
The year is 1940. France is about to succumb to the unstoppable German armies blitzing through Western Europe. Italy’s armies are poised to attack in North Africa, Greece, and Southern France. What remains of the British army has recently evacuated Dunkirk. This island nation is about to find itself standing alone and bracing for an invasion that could come at any moment. The United States, separated from world conflicts by two great oceans, remains neutral for the moment. The Soviet Union has concluded a secret agreement with Germany, assuring that it will remain neutral should Germany go to war in Europe. These are trying times, but all of this is merely a prelude to the greatest conflict in human history.
Pacific 1940, first edition Larry Harris intro in rulebook
What if . . . What if the Japanese attacked the United States in 1940 instead of on December 7th, 1941?
We, as players of this game, are about to explore that possibility. The war in Europe has already begun and the German blitzkrieg is presently underway in France. The collapse of several European colonial powers has created large power vacuums in Asia and in the Pacific. Japan is anxious to fill these vacuums. To do so, it will most certainly have to go to war with the other Pacific powers notably the United States. As the game opens, clearly Japan is the dominant military power. The U.S. is in no mood for foreign military adventures, and with a strong isolationist movement in the country, it’s desperately trying to stay out of the war in Europe and avoid one in the Pacific. With this backdrop, the United States consequently cannot and will not make any moves against Japan. Japan, on the other hand, has all its options open. As Japan sees it, war with the United States and the European powers in the Pacific is all but inevitable.On turn one Japan is confronted with two options: attack immediately or use this time window to better prepare for what will certainly be a massive attack that will carry them half way across the globe. With some luck and preparation, Japan can catch the U.S. Pacific fleet unprepared and strike a swift and decisive blow to the American fleet. If Japan can manage to keep the United
States on the defensive and in a weak military state, she can conquer enough resources and victory cities to win the game. One theory is that Japan can create such a strong defensive perimeter that the United States would eventually tire and negotiate a peace with a much stronger and richer Japan.But another theory suggests that time is running out for Japan. On turn 3, due to the realities of the global situation, the United States will switch to a wartime economy. On the U.S. player’s third turn, whether attacked or not, the U.S. will boost its income by 40 IPCs per turn. The British will fill the void created by the fall of Holland and take guardianship of the rich Dutch East Indies. And so, in but a few months, Japan will no longer enjoy its military dominance in Asia, and its dreams of a greater imperial Japan will fade in the setting sun.
@Baron:
Seems pretty hard to find the original intro texts written under the OOB boxes. If anyone have a link to provide.
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis_allies_europe_1940_preview_1_out_of_the_box/
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/image_axisallies_pacific_box_back/
Incidentally, regardless of which starting date is picked, some potentially useful information for an adjusted set-up (if required) can be found in my Global 1940 map analysis…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0
…which includes historical information (going from, about 1933 to about 1942 or 1943) on which territories were controlled by what powers at which dates. This covers both changes of jurisdiction that resulted from wars or annexations, as well as a few game map goofs (such as depicting the Solomons as an ANZAC territory, when it should be British) that can easily be corrected by a roundel change.
@Baron:
On various challenge about where to start a 1941 set-up to make it interesting
[…]
It seems they made an historical anachronism to get an interesting moment on Eastern Front…
All the starting dates for A&A games (the ones that have been used OOB and the potential alternatives that are available) have their own advantages and disadvantages, if we stick close to actual history, so it’s basically a matter of deciding what trade-offs work best for whatever is being aimed for.
Early June 1940, the start date for Global 1940, is also in some ways an obvious design choice, if one works from the assumption (as Larry Harris himself tacitly admits in the Europe 1940 rulebooks) that France has to be involved but also has to be eliminated quickly. A month earlier wouldn’t have worked because France’s large military forces were still intact (and because the British Expeditionary Force was likewise at full strength). A month later wouldn’t have worked because France had surrendered and the men of the British Expeditionary Force had been evacuated to Britain, leaving all their equipment behind at Dunkirk. The problem with early June 1940, of course (again, as Larry himself notes), is that 60% of the major players – US, USSR and Japan – are not yet engaged (or not yet fully engaged) in the wider conflict that the war will become. Japan is definitely at war with China – and has been since 1937 – and the USSR has gobbled up a buffer zone (on the map: Vyborg, the Baltic States, Eastern Poland and Bessarabia) between itself and Axis-dominated central Europe, but all three player power are (appropriately) still operating under partial peacetime restrictions.
The traditional mid-1942 start date that many A&A games have used is an easy design choice to understand. All five of the main powers – US, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan – are at war by that point, so no player has to wait to get into the action. Also, mid-1942 is arguably the point in WWII where the two sides were the most balanced. The Axis has pretty much reached the limits of its expansion; the quick German thrusts of 1939 (Poland), 1940 (Western Europe), and 1941 (Russia), and the quick Japanese thrusts of late 1941-early 1942 (the Pacific and Southeast Asia) are over, and the war is now going to be a back-and-forth slugging match for the next twelve to eighteen months or so. The Allies have managed to check Axis expansion, but are still a long way off from their steamroller counter-offensives of 1944 and 1945, and a long way from achieving an overwhelming material advantage.
Between June 1940 and mid-1942, the two most obvious entry points for the game are June 1941 (the German invasion of the USSR) and December 1941 (the outbreak of the war in the Pacific), both of which are self-explanatory in terms of their huge impacts. The half-year from December 1941 to mid-1942 doesn’t offer much worthwhile maneuvering room as an alterate entry point, so I think I can be disregarded. The half-year from June 1941 to December 1941 is likewise, I think, not particularly useful, though it perhaps has more potential than December 1941 to mid-1942. The period from June 1940 to June 1941, which amounts to a full year, has more scope for an alternate start date.
I think the first round is in some sense the most flexible for a timeline compression or expansion. The way things are typically worded, the opening turn of the opening round usually has an actual date/season attached to it. But after that point, how much time is considered to have elapsed in a given round of play (even the first round) becomes pretty abstract.
Just for example, in the OOB game, it’s pretty open for interpretation, if Japan does a J1DoW is it still June 1940? Or does the player see the second half of the first round as several months going by? Is a J2DoW still 1940 or perhaps further along like January 1941? It’s never made clear from the manual whether turns within a round are meant to advance the timeline, or if it is all like a snapshot frozen time, and the clock doesn’t start moving again until Germany is up.
From a gameplay standpoint, what makes 1940 interesting is I suppose the idea that the Germans or Japanese might have decided to “go to war” earlier, which immediately makes the timeline after that a departure from the historical war. In balance terms, I guess what you’d want for a historical script is a situation where Germany doesn’t declare on Russia until the second round at the earliest (which is fairly standard OOB), and a situation where Japan doesn’t declare until the third round at the earliest (somewhat harder to account for OOB.) But then, if you go with a strict script, it kind of begs the question, why bother having players go through the motions, if you could just advance the timeline to a total war start? It’s kind of a bind.
Personally I like the idea of no fixed timeline, just a start date. Where game time to real time is as malleable as it needs to be, with no real constraints on the imagination there. The only real hangup for this is the whole USA entry thing, where they are allowed to declare in 4th round regardless. I guess that signals the inevitability of the US becoming a belligerent, but it’s never made exclipicit that round 4 is supposed to equate to ‘such and such’ a date. Or why such a date would be particularly significant, absent a Japanese attack on pearl to drag the Americans into the fray.
I guess everyone just assumes it’s December 41 or early 42 by that point? And America would have gone to war by then no matter what?
Personally I like the idea of no fixed timeline, just a start date. Where game time to real time is as malleable as it needs to be, with no real constraints on the imagination there. The only real hangup for this is the whole USA entry thing, where they are allowed to declare in 4th round regardless. I guess that signals the inevitability of the US becoming a belligerent, but it’s never made exclipicit that round 4 is supposed to equate to ‘such and such’ a date. Or why such a date would be particularly significant, absent a Japanese attack on pearl to drag the Americans into the fray.
There are two “desirables” here, in my opinion:
Giving the players the freedom of action to change history if they so wish (which is desirable because it makes the game more interesting and less repetitive)
Following the broad historical outlines of WWII (which is desirable because players have certain basic expectations about the war they’re fighting; for example, wouldn’t the Soviet player feel cheated if, in a particular game, the USSR never ended up at war with anybody?)
These two desirables aren’t mutually exclusive, but they require some creative thinking to reconcile them in a satisfactory way.
Without necessarily getting into overly-scripted games (“such-and-such MUST happen in Round X if it hasn’t already happened”) or into too many strict restrictions ("Power Y can NEVER do such-and-such), the general solution might be to have a table of incentives and disincentives, broken down by game round, which encourage each power to behave in a certain way at particular stages of the game (or discourage them from doing othewise, to view things from the opposite direction). By “behave in a certain way,” I’m only talking about very broad and very significant actions – basically, things like declaring war. And the round-by-round breakdown would be important: for example, a particular action might be strongly discouraged in Round 1, might be left entirely up to the player’s discretion in Round 2, and might be strongly encouraged in Round 3. And some of the encouragement/discouragement elements might hinge not just on the game round but on actions by other players; a historical example would be that the likelihood of hostile action by the US increases if Japan occupies French Indochina.
In PTO, what seems to be the “historical event” is Pearl Harbor raid.
Can it be scripted in someway?
I’m thinking for USA of a no combat, nor naval movement as long as such specific trigger happen:
French Indochina capture and Pearl attack.
However, it might be interesting to get at least 1 less round before US goes to war (if nothing happen like USA2, so to start war on US3).
And still allows more opportunities to purchase things for US.
Does keeping pre-war minor ICs is necessary?
Is it an historical aspects which need to be kept?
While not at war, no NOs bonus might as well restrict purchase.
The general idea is to accelerate the starting pace.
Late 1940 is interesting because it still allows for a “what if” scenario for Germany:
decide to Sea Lion (if pursuing air war) instead of preparing for Barbarossa.
Taranto raid can still be on the table.
Or Greece can receive more help from UK…
@CWO:
@Baron:
Seems pretty hard to find the original intro texts written under the OOB boxes. If anyone have a link to provide.
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis_allies_europe_1940_preview_1_out_of_the_box/
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/image_axisallies_pacific_box_back/
Thanks CWO Marc,
Here is the transcript of both:
Pacific 1940 Box Back texts:
The year is 1940. Japan continues to flex its military might in China as political tension grips the world. In Europe, France is about to fall, and Asia braces for the impact. Holland, now occupied by Germany, is forced to leave its resource rich colonies in the Dutch East Indies vulnerable to the oil-starved Imperial Japanese Empire. French Indo-China will soon be occupied by Japanese land sea and air forces. Britain has received an ultimatum to close the Burma Road or risk war with Japan. The United States reacts with an embargo of strategic materials. The stage is set.
This point about Burma road is interesting. But it says nothing about ANZAC politics or armies / navy…
Nor UK’s Royal Navy…
Europe 1940 Box Back texts:
The year is 1940. France is about to succumb to the unstoppable German armies blitzing through Western Europe. Italy’s armies are poised to attack in North Africa, Greece, and Southern France. What remains of the British army has recently evacuated Dunkirk. This island nation is about to find itself standing alone and bracing for an invasion that could come at any moment. The United States, separated from world conflicts by two great oceans, remains neutral for the moment. The Soviet Union has concluded a secret agreement with Germany, assuring that it will remain neutral should Germany go to war in Europe. These are trying times, but all of this is merely a prelude to the greatest conflict in human history.
All Powers are covered here, at least.
Seems a better text than the first one.
I see that ANZAC politics is not either in your text, but at least you mentioned their army.
Is there something interesting to mention about India (UKPac) and ANZAC political goal or strategic actions in Pacific?
Maybe a sentence on USA political view about Europe, England, Atlantic infested u-boats and lend-lease?
@CWO:
@CWO:
Okay, that gives me a good start to work on a first draft. I’ll aim for a text that combines a general overview of the war situation in December 1940 with some specific details about the situation on various active fronts and maybe also in areas that will see some notable action very soon (meaning in the first few months of 1941). And for game powers that might otherwise not get mentioned because the time frame for their involvement is still too far way, I might throw in a couple of “Meanwhile, country X is watching with growing apprehension as…” types of lines. I like your idea of mentioning each of the game powers, and it should be easy enough to do given how much was going on internationally at that time. I’ll try to keep the text broad enough so that it won’t hinge on any specific map or set-up adjustments; if there should end up being a few such cases of local situations, however, then the two options would be to either make map/setup adjustments to fit the text or to simply edit those references out of the text.
Here’s the first draft:
It is December 1940. After the swift conquests of the conflict’s first year, which saw much of Europe overrun and occupied, the Second World War is turning into a grim war of attrition. Defeated in the air during the first phases of the Battle of Britain, Germany has called off its contemplated invasion of the U.K. and, since October, has been carrying out a night bombing campaign against London and other large cities across the English Channel. In the Atlantic, German U-Boats have enjoyed several months of exceptionally good luck in their operations against Allied convoys. **Britain, besieged though it may be at home, is preparing to strike back against the Axis in North Africa: with Australian support, it is about to launch Operation Compass, the first major Allied offensive of the Western Desert Campaign. The attack will be a heavy blow to Italy, whose invasion forces in Greece are at this moment being driven back into Albania by the Greek army. **
On the other side of the world, Japan’s invasion and occupation of China has bogged down into a bloody stalemate. Further south, Thailand has gone to war with the Vichy regime to gain control of parts of French Indochina, an area where Japan has had its own presence since September. These developments are raising tensions between Japan and the United States, which is concerned by growing Japanese naval power in the Pacific and Japanese aggression in mainland Asia. The Soviet Union is likewise keeping a wary eye on Japan, its opponent in several recent conflicts along the Mongolian and Manchurian borders. In the wake of Japan’s defeat by the Soviets in the latest of these border wars, the two nations will soon establish a neutrality pact. The accord will put Japan at greater liberty to turn its attention towards the Pacific and South-East Asia, while the leaders of the Soviet Union – having already signed a non-aggression pact with Germany the previous year – will be able to reassure themselves that their potential adversaries to the east and to the west have now been neutralized by the tools of diplomacy…
I’m still looking for other texts from AA50 or 1941 last edition.
I wonder if there was a change between 1940 first and second edition back box texts…
What’s curious is that, despite all the special political rules and movement restrictions between the US and Japan, there is still no real incentive for an attack on pearl. Both players have no incentive to allow for the pearl attack, and a lot of options to prevent it, using blockers or by simply repositioning their fleets to make such an attack a total non-starter. In any case, even if the attack is made, there’s no real element of “surprise” to it.
Seems a bit unfortunate that basic design and OOB rules have us bending over backward to prevent so many things from happening (ships can’t move there, this player can’t declare war until such and such), but there’s nothing in there to truly incentivize a play that might actually be desirable for historical flavor.
It’s just kind of amusing that all the games set in 1942 have a scripted pearl opener for Japan (when it doesn’t make much sense for those timelines) but the one game that probably should have a scripted pearl attack doesn’t really do anything to create the necessary conditions to encourage it.
Not exactly. 1941 and AA50 1941 provide a setup which clearly script a light air attack on Hawaiian SZ but clearly deadzoned the SZ. So any amphibious landing or occupation of SZ usually meant a complete destruction of the IJN fleet involved.
However, it is a real challenge to recreate such thing when starting early and leaving more than set-up units to move and reinforce many locations.
To recreate such Japanese opening, on J2 or J3, US and Japan needs special incentive.
One limitation can be about keeping US BB and Sub units in Hawaiian SZ considered as frozen units because it is somehow seen as their Pacific homebase.
After that, it can be either US option to let it be sacrificed, or try to reinforce these two with additional warships and Fgs built on West Coast to land in Hawaii or moved into this SZ.
A kind of all or nothing gamble either to deter Japan from directly attacking or a huge sacrifice assuming US can rebuilt faster than Japan. Usually attacker always have the advantage because it decides which units will be part of the mission.
Maybe US naval movement may be restricted to end either in Hawaii, an Alaskan SZ, USWest coast or Panama’s SZ.
A real challenge to built however.
Thinking to myself, and trying to come up with something that might work earlier, I was wondering if giving the US a peacetime bonus might do the trick? Something that directly relates to sz 26, and gives them a reason to “play chicken” with Japan?
Maybe, for every capital warship in sz 26, the US gets +X ipcs, or something along those lines, while at Peace.
So they’d at least have more of a reason to ride it out and stack up some ships in sz 26, instead of just pulling back to sz 10, or launching forward to sz 54 or wherever.
Or I suppose like you say, you might create a rule where neutrality somehow effects a nation’s ability to ‘mobilize’ units at the front. Its kind of weird that in A&A the incentive is usually to pull way back and consolidate, rather than moving forward to reinforce. It’s sort of the opposite of what you’d probably expect in a build up to war. I guess for Russia it makes a certain sense. At least there you had Stalin all wary of the Russian experience in WW1, and trying not to provoke a German attack through a mass mobilization. But then again, look how that worked out, they nearly got rolled over haha.
With the US on the water, you’d think they’d want to reinforce the front line naval base in Hawaii, but often times it’s more effective to stay in San Diego, or high tail it down to Queensland, or someplace like that. So it’s pretty hard to set up the conditions necessary for a Pearl Attack.
Also, just in keeping with the earlier idea about the US and Round 4… What if a peacetime objective for the US, might in same cases make it actually desirable somehow to push out the DoW even farther, like to round 5 or even round 6, if they aren’t attacked directly by an Axis power?
There is no reason at all do that OOB, it’s just a given that the US should declare as soon as they are allowed to so, because they gain no advantage from prolonging things. There’s also no way for the game to model a situation that might very well have happened in the real War, where the US declared on one Axis power, but not the others. Or at least not on all of them at the same time.
You could maybe imagine a game where Japan declares war on Russia, but not on the West, and the US ends up in a fight just against Germany/Italy. Or similarly a situation where a Japanese attack on the US steals the whole show, and it takes Churchill and Stalin another couple years to persuade the US to join the team vs Germany.
Things like that, which would make the political situation more fluid (and potentially more interesting for gameplay variety) aren’t really represented in the OOB game. So again, it’s sort of like, why bother with June 1940, if you just end up with a game that always has to play out according to the Dec 1941 situation regardless? If the same Nations go to war against each other in the same way, and the only question is whether it happens in round 1, 2, 3 or 4, it sort of diminishes the promise of a the earlier 1940 start date anyway.
Personally I like a game that just gives a nod to the political situation in the first round only, but which catches you up to 1941 by the time the second round kicks off. That way instead of a bunch of complex rules, you just have a kind of restricted opening for the neutrals (familiar from Classic with Russia) and then launch straight into a total war scenario. Perhaps just use the turn order to put the late comers towards the end of the sequence?
For something vaguely familiar, you could try…
1. USA/Russia
2. Germany/Italy
3. UK (+Anzac, UKP, Canada or whatever)/China
4. Japan
That turn order feels almost like Classic once you get going, except here you have Japan closing out the round instead of the Americans, which might be a novel change of pace. In this case you just give the first block (USA/Russia) some kind of restricted opening to reflect the political situation at the end of 1940.
Or I suppose alternatively, if you wanted to really depart from previously explored turn sequences, to give this one an entirely new feel, maybe you try something that definitely hasn’t been done before in A&A like…
1. UK (+Anzac, UKP, Canada or whatever)/China
2. Japan
3. USA/Russia
4. Germany/Italy
Here the British start the game, desperately trying to regroup, and the European Axis close out the game round. You could still restrict USA/Russia or Japan if desired during the opening round. That might be kind of cool to see in action. In either case, you’d have a G40 style game that was pretty distinct from OOB, since Axis would be closing the game round instead of Allies, something that hasn’t really been tried before.
I intentionally left France off the list, but I suppose you could load them back in somewhere, if that makes sense as well. Or perhaps just attach them to the Axis (Vichy), if you want to give the Axis more to mess about with. But for now just seemed simpler to work out a sequence with the big 5 (where Italy is attached to the German turn.)
Yet another sequence that might be fun…
1. Japan
2. USA/Russia
3. Germany/Italy
4. UK (+Anzac, UKP, Canada or whatever)/China
Again you could restrict the first 2 blocks with a nod towards neutrality, and then just open it up for round 2. Kind of has a nice pairing with Japan opening and China ending, as a nod back to 37. Seems like any of these would be doable, if one was willing to tweak with the starting unit distribution or starting income, to accommodate the change.
Finally there is the option discussed many times before of a fully collapsed turn order. To me such a game would recommend a full redrafting, to simplify it down and make the opening turn (in particular) much, much faster than OOB.
Two options there that seem interesting to me…
Block 1: Germany/Japan
Block 2: Russia/UK/USA
all Axis vs all Allies, or the reverse
Block 1: Russia/UK/USA
Block 2: Germany/Japan
Then make the Anzac and French sculpts purely aesthetic (attached to UK), and the same deal with Italian sculpts purely aesthetic (attached to Germany), and same deal with China (attached to US). These sculpts should just be interchangeable with the power they are attached to.
That way you only need 3 actual turns for the Allies, and 2 for the Axis, with less movement/income/placement phases, and less overall information to track. Otherwise the game round would just take a painfully long time to get through, waiting forever for your opponent to count beans and execute all their turns in the block.
Seems to me if one is willing to do something like that, with a more streamlined starting unit spread and less phases to track, that you could do a fully collapsed turn order on the map, and it would probably be pretty fun.
I think you could make the OOB map work for that. Giving China to the Americans (just with whatever units they need to not fold instantly), and do the same with Italy and Vichy given over to G, and with Anzac/UKP/Free France just made part of the British turn again.
Sure you’d need to re balance the whole board for the 5 man, but an All Axis vs All Allies game with 2 turn exchange would probably be worth it.
Ps. I guess you could try for a 6 person game just as easily if you wanted to preserve that option. I still think the game bogs down if you try to go with more players than 6. Even if there are potentially 10 nations in the game, there aren’t ever really more than 6 viable player positions. I guess in the case of a 6 man you break off Italy, and go with an AA50 style distribution of players
3 Allies (Russia/UK/Japan) vs
3 Axis (Germany/Italy/Japan)
Again with the Anzac and French sculpted just purely cosmetic and attached to UK.
In tripleA you’d just assign direct control, so it would be a 6 color mapboard for the player nations/units (plus neutrals.)
Here is a two block XML file for G40 to mess around with (same one I threw together for blueiguana in the other thread). It can be used with the Global 40 HouseRules files linked above earlier.
I also have a gamesave attached below, where I just edited out every combat unit on the entire board. It has the OOB bases and factories but nothing else.
You could use this save adjust territory possession or the starting unit distribution on the fly to be whatever. And then use the save as a draft guide for coding the xml for an actual modification, designed to use a collapsed all vs all turn sequence.
Global_40_HouseRules.xml
G40 2 Blocks no starting combat units draft.tsvg
Here’s another gamesave concept just building off the above. Rough snap shows how the zoomed out map might look with Anzac given over to UKP, and China to the US.
Frankly I don’t miss the purple people eater, or the grey-blue all that much. The tripleA map still feels like it has a nice distribution of color across the board for Classic sensibilities haha.
1. UK (+Anzac, UKP, Canada or whatever)/China
2. Japan
3. USA/Russia
4. Germany/Italy
I prefer this one because you can start with a blazing Taranto raid and also simulate the Greek repelling Italian forces.
Also, I learned it was an inspiration for Pearl Harbor raid.
So, both big warships battle might be interesting to mark the beginning of EuropeTO first turn and the US starting war event for PacificTO.
And as you said, it would be original:
In either case, you’d have a G40 style game that was pretty distinct from OOB, since Axis would be closing the game round instead of Allies, something that hasn’t really been tried before.
On Vichy, this time each country and armies can be distributed according to history.
Makes Vichy pro-axis neutral kind of (IDK) and other France units be part of Allies (kind of pro-Allies neutral) once a British or US enter their TT.
Instead of a separate power, merging it with the other?
Without changing anything to setup you mentioned about start date. You’d have to go with this some what.
Turn 1 - 1940 = Summer - Winter
1941 = Spring - Summer - Winter
Turn 2 - 1942 = Spring
Turn 3 - 1942 = Summer
Turn 4 - 1942 = Winter
Something to this affect. May have to adjust to see US goes to War on a certain turn.
Just give all the countries there normal moves on first turn to keep in time ?
