G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Here are some additional thoughts on the subject I discussed a couple of days ago: the issue of rigid scripting versus freedom of choice.  I had described totally rigid scripting as being at one extremity of an “event replication continuum” and total freedom as being at the other extremity, with some sort of middle ground existing between them.  A point I may not have expressed clearly enough, however, is that the middle ground doesn’t involve completely avoiding each extremity; rather, it involves combining elements of both approaches in a judicious way, so that the players have free but constrained choice.

The phrase “free but constrained choice” comes from John Keegan’s book The Mask of Command, where he uses it to explain why he chose the middle years of WWII to study Hitler’s military leadership style.  Keegan says he didn’t use the first year of the war because it was characterized by easy German victories and by an environment in which French and the British had essentially left the strategic initiative to Germany – meaning that Hitler had the widest possible scope of options open to him.  Keegan likewise didn’t use the last year of the war because, by that time, Hitler could do little more than order his armies to fight and die where they stood.  Instead, Keegan started his analysis by looking at the circumstances leading up to the Stalingrad operation.  In the spring and summer of 1942, Germany was appreciably constrained (it did not have the strength to attack along the whole front, as it had done in 1941), but at the same time it still had a wide latitude of action open to it.  From a gaming perspective, offering players “free but constrained choice” is probably a good balance: it imposes certain limitations on them, but it also challenges them  (and allows them) to think and operate creatively within the framework of those limitations.

The concept of free but constrained choice could be a useful yardstick for evaluating both proposed HRs and the many kinds of G40 OOB “special rules” that players have often complained about: the “China Rules”, the non-aggression pacts, the ways in which neutrals (all three types) are handled and so forth.  For any kind of rule which basically states that “A player MUST do the following thing” or “A player CANNOT do the following thing” or “Such-and-such a thing cannot happen UNLESS [whatever]”,  the fundamental question that would need to be asked is: Why?  The “Why?” question, expressed in more specific terms, would take the form of several more precise questions such as: Does this rule reflect accurately an important reality (geographical, demographic, technological, political, etc.) of WWII?  Or is it just an arbitrary rule created for the purpose of convenience and simplicity…or maybe even just because the rule designer thought that it would be cool if the game had such-and-such a feature?  Does the rule impose unreasonable limitations on the player’s freedom of action, for instance by arbitrarily preventing him from pursuing certain strategies or by forcing him to do dumb things?  Does the rule allow him too much freedom of action, to the point where it permits him to do things that were patently impossible or to the point where it permits him to escape the logical consequences of what those actions ought to have been?  It might be possible to conclude in some cases that some particular “special rules” are in fact be perfectly sensible and justified, but that others should be re-thought or, perhaps, even discarded altogether.

I tend to think in these terms:

Will the design allow the game to play out exactly as the historical events did if the players make the same decisions as the powers of the time (and the luck of the dice balances out)?

As long as this condition is accommodated then allow complete freedom of action within the game mechanics.

The appeal of a historical game is still the “What If?s”; but an exact replay of history must be one of the possible outcomes.

To consider the most obvious issue: it could be argued that there is no need to have an enforced Japanese-Soviet non aggression pact, as each player may still decide not to attack the other. What is needed to turn off the Moscow tank magnet is for Japan and Germany/Italy to be separate blocks with individual objectives and victory conditions.

I prefer to consider the Pact as an in-place political reality, which can only be undone if specific conditions occur under which the powers concerned would themselves have broken the treaty; specifically Russia would not have started a war in the East with Hitler still at large, and Japan would never have deliberately fought Russia and the Western powers simultaneously.

Anyone experimented with having just a few giant sea zones?

For example North Atlantic would be one sz. Ships can be either “in port” off a friendly land tt or “at sea” in the ocean space. Ships attempting to cross the ocean would be liable to attempted interception from enemy ships at sea, subject to search rolls.

This could make sub warfare far more effective than has been the case in Axis and Allies. In game context it really shouldn’t take more than one turn to cross the Atlantic, but with multiple szs this gives no real opportunity to intercept.

@Black_Elk:

Here’s one idea though that I’d like to think about, and relates to the points that were just made by Marc and Flashman. We are almost certainly going to require new set up cards for the player  nations. Many of the OOB cards include roundel changes (to adjust starting ownership.) It would be fairly easy for us to change the starting territories of certain nations if this allows for more historically accurate start conditions.

For example, I’ve mentioned Sierra Leone as a starting British possession, not neutral, for the 1940 start date. In another thread a similar point was just made about Greenland as a US possession, not neutral, for the 1940 start date. So if there are other historical inaccuracies like these that can be easily corrected with a roundel change, I think it’s worth doing.

This is a well-timed proposal because I’ve been working for a while on an analysis of the G40/2 map, specifically on preparing an inventory of which map roundels (and other jurisdictional status indicators) are valid and which ones aren’t.  Last weekend I finished the first part of the analysis, which is something I call a “block inventory” that describes the map as it actually is.  The next part of the project (which is still in progress) is to cross-index the entries of the block inventory chart (which is arranged by nationality) against a chronological chart that lists what territories changed their status in what way from 1931 onward (this starting date being dictated by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria).  The rationale behind the chronological chart is that certain G40 map status indicators are incorrect for June 1940 but are valid if you move the calendar forward.  Other map status indicators are arguably either correct or incorrect based on non-chronological factors.  The Chinese island of Hainan, for example, is shown with a Japanese roundel; this violates the roundel and/or orange-border conventions used for the rest of China, but presumably reflects the rule which says that Chinese troops cannot leave the mainland.  And some other map status indicators are highly debatable regardless of time or rule considerations.  Mexico, for example, is shown with a US roundel, even though it was (and is) a sovereign country; for this roundel to be valid, the US roundel has to be interpreted as representing a “US wartime block”, since Mexico entered the war on the Allied side shortly after the US did so.  There are all sorts of oddities like that on the map, and I’m hoping to identify most or all  of them in due course.

I can’t estimate when my two charts will be complete, but I made good progress on the second one last weekend, so with luck it won’t be too long before the work is done.  I’ll post the charts here when I’m finished.

@Black_Elk:

I really think that what is needed is not the perfect HR, or set of HRs per se, but rather a general concensus and a critical mass of players all using the same set up. Basically a face to face/tripleA mod that everyone can get behind. Otherwise, even the best House Rules idea, has a way of just being forgotten after a couple weeks.
I’d be reluctant to offer too many “varients” or an endless list of “options” for the mod. Better to come up with something cohesive and fully comprehensive. At most I would suggest one set of core modifications, and then one expansion/suppliment for people who want to go next level with it. The former should focus on the boxed materials, the latter might include additional materials that are readily available from places like HBG.
Basically I’m not looking for a “Black Elk’s G40 redux” type thing, because frankly, I don’t think anyone beyond myself and maybe a few of my friends would ever bother playing it haha. Instead I would propose a mod by the “A&A.org Community” as something with some actual staying power.
Clearly it will be a bit more challenging to achieve a general concensus, it’s always tricky to create a modification that pleases everyone. But there are enough of us here who all seem to want similar things, that if we truly make this a collaborative effort, I think that effort will be worth it in the end.

Just a comment on this.  While it would be nice to settle on a single unified community-based HR concept, which I’d certainly be happy to see materialize, I seriously doubt that such a thing is achievable.  Everyone here has strong opinions and individual preferences, so I think that realistically the best that you can hope for is to assemble a redesigned G40 game concept whose elements have attracted a certain degree of consensus from some of the participants in this discussion.  And I think that ultimately you’ll have to be the one to make a judgement call about which elements have attracted unanimous support, which ones have attracted a predominance of support and which ones have attracted no consensus.  There’s no agreed-upon mechanism to arbitrate these debates, so people will probably use this thread as a departure point to devise (if they so wish) their own particular G40 redesigns.  Which is fine in my opinion.  After all, consider the fact that Larry himself has never been able to devise an A&A game that everyone has been happy with (and I’m not sure that was ever one of his aims). Moreover, let’s just imagine for a moment that it was possible to devise a single definitive community reboot of G40 that everyone was happy with.  What would then happen?  People would play it for a while, would eventually “decode” the rebooted game and work out all the optimal playbooks, and eventually would start getting bored with it…at which point they’d once againt start looking for ways to refresh the game.  Which is normal and desirable, because otherwise the game would stagnate.  So while I’m all in favour of trying to achieve some sort of generally broad community consensus, I also think it’s wise to keep in mind the old expression “Avoid disappointment in life: lower your expectations.”

@Black_Elk:

But I agree, at some point players will develop a playbook and break the opening. The only way around that is to randomize the start conditions such that in each game, round 1 is essentially unpredictable. But I’m not sure how popular that would be. To a certain extent I think players rather like that the first round set up in A&A never really changes (or only changes in a very narrow way, like with a bid at some value etc.) My preference would be a randomized start like most other boardgames have. This would be an approach of “taking balance considerations out of the equation, by making the set up substantially different in each game.” But again, I don’t know how many others feel that way, so I wouldn’t push it too hard. Even using the normal A&A model, I think we can create a mod that has strong replay value, even with opening conditions that are always the same.

Randomized variables would certainly be one way to introduce variety into a game and prevent it from sinking into predictability, but of course the down side is that players who get a bad break from the randomized elements would curse them in the same way that bad dice rolls are cursed.  So here’s a possible alternative: variable elements that are under player control.  I’ll illustrate this concept in concrete terms by discussing special unit types (because it’s an idea that’s already been floated elsewhere), but the concept is probably applicable in other ways…so what follows isn’t really a proposal about special units but rather an example of what I mean by variable elements that are under player control.

Let’s assume that, in addition to the standard OOB unit types that all the players have access to, there are various supplementary unit types to which players have access under special conditions.  Just to invent some figures, let’s say there are a dozen or so of these special unit types.  They might include things like tank destroyers, self-propelled artillery, battlecruisers, night fighters or whatever.  Each of these units would have prices, combat values and abilities that distinguish them from standard units in a definite way (but not as radically as tech upgrades do).  Each player would be allowed to choose ONE of these unit types for his potential roster of units; he wouldn’t have to buy them, he’d simply have the option of doing so.  One way of handling this idea would be to allow every player to choose any one (but only one) of these special unit types.  Another way of handling this idea would be to allow Player 1 to choose one of these twelve unit types, to allow Player 2 to choose one of the remaining eleven unit types, and so forth, so that none of the players had the same kind of special unit.  This would introduce variability from game to game, but on a player-controlled rather than on a random basis.

Representing these units on the board could of course be done with actual sculpts (like HBG ones, or sculpts from A&A 1941), but it could also be done a lot more simply (if people prefer) by using markers of abstract design (like poker chips painted and/or marked in a suitable way, as a very cheap option).  Since each nation is only allowed one special unit, the markers only need to be nation-specific, not unit-specific; for example, the German special units could be (let’s say) represented by white poker chips marked with a “G”.  The actual unit types would be represented by cards.  So to continue with the same example, the German player during the set-up phase looks through the deck of available special unit types, picks the card for the Tank Destroyer type, places it face-up at his play station and announces his choice to the other players.  Everyone will know from that point onward that G-marked white poker chips (denoting Germany) placed on the game board represents tank destroyers.  The Japanese player’s J-marked white (or whatever colour) poker chips could represent midget submarines.  And so forth.  Real sculpts are cooler, of course, but they’re not vital to make the concept work.

I have to agree with CWO Marc’s (and others) post above. A randomized variable would certainly add a flavor of uncertainty to the game that could make each experience different.

To piggyback off of his example of special units, I have long thought of the same thing to add some different powers to each nation separately. Afrika Korps and/or SS units with special capabilities, Elite Guard for USSR, etc., each with a different capability.

While this wouldn’t pertain as much to a 1940 start date as proposed here, I posted an idea that I had for dealing with neutral powers under another HR rule thread that would (potentially) add a certain unknown to who would join what side in a conflict with an earlier start date. Point being, while this particular idea doesn’t necessarily work in a 1940 start date, other ideas might, where a widespread part of the gameplay is fluid.

I also agree with the above in that everyone is always going to have their own/new/unique ideas for HR’s and will HR anything that is thought up here. It seems like you all have a lot more experience than me in being able to play test these ideas and what not, but in my opinion you’d be best served stating ideas, rules, whatever, that you really want in the game (or as stated above, has a decent consensus of people liking the idea) and just making that the base of what you have and tweak from there.

Has anyone experimented with a draft pool or force limit for each power, representing available supplies of manpower and industrial capacity?

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think that adding new units to the base game is really justified unless you’re also changing either the map or the rules to a major degree. Right now, even the Cruiser and Tactical Bomber are superfluous.

I do think that quite a few territories are either “missing” from the base map or dramatically under-valued. Of course, the number and shape of territories depends on what kind of interaction the designer is seeking for each part of the map.

I think that it is necessary to avoid rigid scripting, but I am going to assume that A&A will never venture into the territory of pure historical fantasy. In other words, they might make a WW1 game in which Italy chose not to abandon the Triple Alliance, but they would not make a game incorporating the Confederate States of America as a playable power.

I do think that there is space for Argentina and Brazil to become minor powers that could be handed off to additional players, although the map would have to be quite sizable. The focus in that theater would be the ABC rivalry, or at least the A-B dyad.

The key to introducing variation may well be randomized national objectives, including ahistorical objectives. These objectives would probably interact with new political rules. For example, does the Italian player want to remain a German ally if they’ve successfully seized Egypt and occupied the Balkans? The appeal is great if Germany is critical to helping Italy hold ground, but much less if Germany is fully preoccupied in Russia or on the British Isles.

The bottom line is that I think the existing map really limits options. There are too few territories to do really interesting things. France would be much more playable, for example, if there were more ground between Paris and Germany. There would also be a much better, and bigger, fight in Southeast Asia if French Indochina and Siam were at least two territories apiece. I think those circular metropolitan regions on the HBG map are tops.

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.

@Black_Elk:

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.

@Chris_Henry:

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.)

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.

@Black_Elk:

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.)

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.