G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Black_Elk:

Invasion USA, it’s always the Axis players dream hehe.

That’s why HBG made Amerika!  :-D

@Black_Elk:

To do that Japan needs 2 things… Income from the island territories that are along the route into N. America, and a credible threat against W. US Production (ie. A way to get Japanese production closer to the continental US.)

In 1942.2 this would I think require that the factory be given +2 bonus, and built anywhere, including valueless islands. Conceived as an abstract land base. Maybe just +2 for the purposes of spawning infantry, but they need something to match the US in hitpoints.

In G40 it probably requires that the minor factory (or some extra land base outpost type unit) provide a similar option to expand production anywhere on the map. Again, so that Japan has at least some way to spawn hitpoints closer to North American target territories.

Or you go M3 with transports.
Or all these ideas at the same time.

Then Japan would have a real alternative to the Center crush, a strategy that would have the same kind of impact as taking Moscow and putting Russia out of play.

@Black_Elk:

So we are basically in agreement then, that a viable Invasion USA should be the goal?

This is the main point where these Pacific tweaks tend to break down, because one half of the players seem to prefer a situation where only the US has a real incentive to attack beyond the islands, and Japan just kind of gets screwed.
:-D

I think Invasion USA is an unlikely outcome given the history, but no more so than the Center Crush.

If the game allows/encourages the one, it should at least allow for the other.

It seems like you are inventing this problem to introduce a new path in gameplay, rather than trying to fix an existing fault. This would be the opposite of what my impression of San Francisco Rules has been up to this point. Because the game promotes one path for Japan but not another is not reasoned justification that another past should also be opened up. Again, that path already exists, it just isn’t optimal. This reasoning is equivalent to saying that Germany taking Africa and Britain, while ignoring USSR, should be just as economically and strategically viable as focusing on the Eastern Front exclusively. That doesn’t make any sense, why do both routes need to be equivalent? IMO they aren’t because they physically cannot be. The map of the A&A world reflects reality in that different territories have different values and not all strategic considerations are the same in every area of the world. This creates well-worn paths of least resistance; it is inevitable. Unless you re-engineered the board to make all directions equally viable, there is still going to be a ‘best way’ that is found out under the scheme you are proposing.

The Axis know their objectives and have the initiative. They can do basically anything within the mechanics of the game to achieve their objectives (defeat the Allies). It is due to the immutable geography of the world that a KRF (Kill Russia First) strategy is the safest and easiest strategy for the Axis. I don’t think that is something you can change without distorting the land on the globe, the location of its resources or cherry picking the abilities of certain units.

@Black_Elk:

If you want to make it possible for Japan to actually invade North America, as I do, then I think it becomes a lot clearer what sort of rules need to be changed/included to make that work on either map, whether 1942.2 or Global.

Japan needs a way to expand income and production vs North America, in the same way that they can vs the Center.

The Allies need a way to counter this threat, that doesn’t just devolve into a complete KJF as the only option.

It needs to be balanced such that Japan’s choice of target can pivot. For example if Invasion USA becomes too daunting, then perhaps they redirect from the southern hemisphere Australia, to S. Africa, India (or even South America in G40). Similarly they might redirect from the Northern Hemisphere Alaska/Canada, to the front with Russia.

On the European side, Germany should have a similar choice to make, and one that can also pivot. Either vs UK/North America or Russia.

Then you have an alternative to the Center crush, but one which still allows for the center crush too. It just makes this a choice for the Axis team, but it should be a choice that allows for feints, and redirects. Not a total lock down.

Right now the game is framed in terms of Allied strategy, KGF vs KJF.

I’m suggesting that it should basically be the same type of thing but on the Axis side instead.
Invasion USA vs Center Crush.

Then the Allied response would develop more organically in reaction to the Axis players decision. This would I think be more interesting than the current situation, where there is basically 1 play pattern on the Axis side and 2 play patterns on the Allied side.

Here you have 2 viable play patterns for the Axis side, so the Axis could shape the game strategically, instead of just tactically along a single expected trajectory that is pretty much always the same.

You are talking about changing the fundamental dynamics of the game and taking it farther away from its historical basis. It becomes less about WWII and more like a world conquering game set in the 1940s.

However, building on a point I made above about Japan taking Hawaii… If you really wanted to make the Pacific more of a battle ground (forget Japan invading the US), the best bet would probably be to alter victory conditions as they relate to Hawaii. Make Hawaii far more important politically. Such that if Japan takes Hawaii and holds it for a turn, the US automatically quits the war against Japan. Or something similar to that.

This would reflect history in a much more realistic fashion and brings a Pacific battleground into consideration every single game. US public and political opinion during the war would have seriously reconsidered war against Japan if Japan was to have taken such a close and important territory as Hawaii. Japan initially hoped that the attack on Pearl Harbor would be enough to dissuade the US, but that didn’t work. Physically taking Hawaii may have pushed that over the top and caused the US to sign a treaty. We will never know and I would research it more to see if that is plausible, but from what I do know that may be a darn good compromise. It makes holding Hawaii critically important to the United States and to the Allies overall. Japan could still ignore Hawaii and continue on as usual, but why wouldn’t they want to at least threaten it if it can knock a major player out of the war against them? It could even be made that if Japan takes Hawaii, they suffer an economic penalty such that they cannot spend all 80 IPCs against Germany either. Hawaii probably should probably be made harder for Japan to take in this case, or at least prevent them from doing so on their first attack.

@LHoffman:

This would reflect history in a much more realistic fashion and brings a Pacific battleground into consideration every single game. US public and political opinion during the war would have seriously reconsidered war against Japan if Japan was to have taken such a close and important territory as Hawaii. Japan initially hoped that the attack on Pearl Harbor would be enough to dissuade the US, but that didn’t work. Physically taking Hawaii may have pushed that over the top and caused the US to sign a treaty. We will never know and I would research it more to see if that is plausible, but from what I do know that may be a darn good compromise. It makes holding Hawaii critically important to the United States and to the Allies overall. Japan could still ignore Hawaii and continue on as usual, but why wouldn’t they want to at least threaten it if it can knock a major player out of the war against them? It could even be made that if Japan takes Hawaii, they suffer an economic penalty such that they cannot spend all 80 IPCs against Germany either. Hawaii probably should probably be made harder for Japan to take in this case, or at least prevent them from doing so on their first attack.

Here are a couple of thoughts about the Hawaii thing (in terms of the historical context, not in terms of the potential game angle).

A Japanese invasion and conquest of Midway was theoretically quite achievable (though in practice the Japanese operation aiming to do so failed disastrously) because the Midway island group is small and because in 1942 was essentially uninhabited except for the US military garrison there.  A Japanese invasion and conquest of Hawaii would have been in an entirely different league, in view of the fact that the Hawaiian Islands are a much larger island group (both in terms of square footage and in terms of the number of islands), had a large population, and had a considerable military infrastructure.

Conquering and occupying Hawaii, would only have been half the problem because Japan – assuming it conquered and occupied the Hawaiian Islands, something that would have required large invasion and occupation forces – would then have had to hold Hawaii over the medium to long term in order for the invasion to have been worthwhile in the first place.  In practice, this would have meant three things: keeping the occupation forces supplied, fortifying the islands in anticipation of an American counter-invasion, and fighting off the counter-invasion when it occured.  This would have been, to put it mildly, awkward.  For starters, Hawaii is roughly twice as far from Japan as it is from the continental United States, which gives the US the same advantage on the eastern side of the Pacific that Japan had when it invaded the territories (like the Philippines) that are on the western side of the Pacific.  Japan, moreover, was (relative to the United States) less industrialized, oil-poor, and superficial in its attitude towards (and its capacity for) naval logistics.  Just look at how much trouble Japan had hauling home the oil it took from the Dutch East Indies, or how badly it kept some of its island garrisons supplied during WWII, even when they were much closer to home than Hawaii.

As for the notion that losing Hawaii would have caused the US to hoist a white flag and sit down at the table with Japan to negotiate a peace treaty, I tend to think that the opposite would have happened.  The US was collectively outraged when Pearl Harbor was attacked and responded by throwing itself and all of its national resources into WWII; losing the Hawaiian Islands – assuming Japan could pull off such a feat – would probably have outraged the US a lot more, and increased the American resolve to fight rather than deflating it.  The biggest factor playing in favour of the US was time: the US mainland was never at risk of conquest, so the US could take whatever time it needed to build up its forces in order to defeat Japan.  And given the magnitude of America’s industrial resources, it was able in just a few short years to out-build and “out-logistic” Japan on a colossal scale.  (There’s a scene in the movie Midway in which one of Yamamoto’s officers says that if Japan can destroy the American carrier fleet at Midway, the US will be “compelled to sue for peace.”  The critical question that should have been asked by another officer at that meeting should have been: “Compelled by what?”)

@CWO:

Here are a couple of thoughts about the Hawaii thing (in terms of the historical context, not in terms of the potential game angle).

A Japanese invasion and conquest of Midway was theoretically quite achievable (though in practice the Japanese operation aiming to do so failed disastrously) because the Midway island group is small and because in 1942 was essentially uninhabited except for the US military garrison there.  A Japanese invasion and conquest of Hawaii would have been in an entirely different league, in view of the fact that the Hawaiian Islands are a much larger island group (both in terms of square footage and in terms of the number of islands), had a large population, and had a considerable military infrastructure.

Conquering and occupying Hawaii, would only have been half the problem because Japan – assuming it conquered and occupied the Hawaiian Islands, something that would have required large invasion and occupation forces – would then have had to hold Hawaii over the medium to long term in order for the invasion to have been worthwhile in the first place.  In practice, this would have meant three things: keeping the occupation forces supplied, fortifying the islands in anticipation of an American counter-invasion, and fighting off the counter-invasion when it occured.  This would have been, to put it mildly, awkward.  For starters, Hawaii is roughly twice as far from Japan as it is from the continental United States, which gives the US the same advantage on the eastern side of the Pacific that Japan had when it invaded the territories (like the Philippines) that are on the western side of the Pacific.  Japan, moreover, was (relative to the United States) less industrialized, oil-poor, and superficial in its attitude towards (and its capacity for) naval logistics.  Just look at how much trouble Japan had hauling home the oil it took from the Dutch East Indies, or how badly it kept some of its island garrisons supplied during WWII, even when they were much closer to home than Hawaii.

As for the notion that losing Hawaii would have caused the US to hoist a white flag and sit down at the table with Japan to negotiate a peace treaty, I tend to think that the opposite would have happened.  The US was collectively outraged when Pearl Harbor was attacked and responded by throwing itself and all of its national resources into WWII; losing the Hawaiian Islands – assuming Japan could pull off such a feat – would probably have outraged the US a lot more, and increased the American resolve to fight rather than deflating it.  The biggest factor playing in favour of the US was time: the US mainland was never at risk of conquest, so the US could take whatever time it needed to build up its forces in order to defeat Japan.  And given the magnitude of America’s industrial resources, it was able in just a few short years to out-build and “out-logistic” Japan on a colossal scale.  (There’s a scene in the movie Midway in which one of Yamamoto’s officers says that if Japan can destroy the American carrier fleet at Midway, the US will be “compelled to sue for peace.”  The critical question that should have been asked by another officer at that meeting should have been: “Compelled by what?”)

I actually agree with this, but I have read in multiple accounts that had Japan taken Hawaii either very early in the war or after a protracted conflict, then US public opinion could have swayed a decision to stop fighting Japan and focus on Germany. I can’t support that right now, but it is nagging in the back of my mind.

It is worth noting that both the US military and the American public significantly overestimated Japanese ability to actually conduct such an operation, at least at the start of the war. I think in large part that could just be attributed to paranoia stimulated by fear and shock, but there were multiple contingencies  brought up about Japanese invasion of Hawaii or even attacks on the West Coast. You mentioned Midway… in it there is a scene where Nimitz is debating with his staff about where to deploy the carriers for the battle: either aggressively to counter-attack the believed assault or conservatively in between Hawaii and California in case the Japanese didn’t do what was expected (it was stated by James Coburn’s character that Washington advised this as the “smart play”). I am not entirely sure how much of that was ginned up for dramatic effect, but I do think it is representative of the concerns at the time, when Japan was still powerful. In hindsight, it is easy to see that the threat to both Hawaii and the US was overblown, but at the time there were many unknowns and the threat was perceived as very real. I think that should factor into a house rule of this nature.

@LHoffman:

I am not entirely sure how much of that was ginned up for dramatic effect, but I do think it is representative of the concerns at the time, when Japan was still powerful. In hindsight, it is easy to see that the threat to both Hawaii and the US was overblown, but at the time there were many unknowns and the threat was perceived as very real. I think that should factor into a house rule of this nature.

Fair enough.  But on a lighter (though related note), I thought about this subject when I saw the scene in the Star Trek TNG episode Reunification in which Sela explains the Romulan Empire’s master plan to conquer the planet Vulcan.  Three disguised ships will approach Vulcan and beam down Romulan troops, who will take the Vulcans by surprise and put the planet under new management.  Sela says that any attempted Federation counterattack will be futile because by the time it occurs the Romulans will be “well entrenched” (or words to that effect), and the Federation will have no choice but to consent to the reunification of Vulcan with the Romulan Empire.  I remember thinking: a Hollywood scriptwriter would have been laughed out of town if he’d proposed a WWII non-comedy scenario in which Japan sends three disguised ships to San Francisco, lands troops, takes over the city, entrenches them, and then tells Washington that it has no choice but to allow Japan to declare San Francisco a colony of the Japanese Empire.

Ha! Love the Star Trek analogy, CWO Marc. I’m sympathetic to all of the opinions on this page. I agree with Black Elk that it’s artificial and ultimately ineffective to try to “bribe” Japan away from the center crush with cash incentives or non-aggression pacts, and I absolutely agree that the Axis should have (at least) two major strategic options. But like CWO March and LHoffman say, a Japanese invasion of the US mainland in the 1940s would have been not just unlikely, but absurd. Kill America First doesn’t really work as the #2 Axis game plan.

I think the solution is to make the #2 Axis game plan be “Kill Britain First.” In the OOB setup, kill Britain First is a wild gambit. Germany might manage to capture London early in the game, but there aren’t any serious strategies that involve the Axis holding London against a competent opponent. That’s probably as it should be, since if the Axis could take and hold London right off the bat, the game would be broken. But for variety’s sake, there still needs to be some way that the Axis can defeat the British Empire without taking Moscow! It is not at all absurd to think that Germany, Italy, and Japan, working together, might have been able to break the economy of the British Empire and force it out of the war.

So the trick is to meaningfully distinguish “Kill Britain First” from a general “Center Crush.” Part of the problem is that India and Egypt are hanging out right in the center of the board, and those are two of Britain’s most important territories, so Japan will wind up attacking India and Egypt regardless of whether it’s trying to crush Britain or crush Moscow. So, fully conquering India needs to be a detour that takes Japan off the fastest route to the center, rather than part of the fastest route to the center. This could be done by creating a territory of “South India” with a factory and the victory city of Bombay – if you’re just blitzing to the center, you want to go Burma -> East India -> West India -> Persia -> Iraq -> Trans-Jordan -> Egypt. If instead you’re actually trying to cripple the British Empire, you want to go Burma -> East India -> South India, and then you might pivot to South Africa and/or ANZAC. Other measures you could take along these lines include:

1. Don’t put a victory city in Cairo – it’s worth 2 IPCs, and it’s strategically placed; that’s enough to keep it adequately contested.
2. Do put a victory city in Capetown and in Sydney. Make South Africa and Sydney worth at least 4 IPCs each.
3. Don’t put a victory city or factory in West India or East India.
4. Add another sea zone to the Arabian Sea, so that India isn’t right next door to Egypt by sea.
5. Remove sea zones from the southern Indian Ocean, so that India, sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Australia are all within one move of each other.
6. Give Britain and Japan big national objectives that hinge on whether Britain can keep the commonwealth together, e.g., 10 IPCs for Britain if Britain controls at least 4 of Vancouver, Bombay, Capetown, Sydney, and Auckland; 10 IPCs for Japan if Japan controls at least 3 of Vancouver, Bombay, Capetown, Sydney, and Auckland.
7. Don’t give Italy national objectives that heavily rely on Egypt – it’s fine to reward the Axis for gaining access to oil reserves, but they need to have the option of getting their oil from Baku or Persia or Sudan, instead of being forced to take Cairo.

As a side note, I think you can and should make it somewhat harder for the US to defend its Pacific coast, e.g., by breaking the coastline up into two or even three separate territories – I would like to see separate territories of Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Oregon, California, and Mexico all within one turn’s movement of an appropriate Japanese naval base, e.g., the Caroline Islands. But that doesn’t mean that Japan is supposed to be able to take and hold any of those territories; it just means that if the US loses control of the eastern Pacific sea zones, then the Allies have to spend non-trivial bucks to buy infantry to defend several different territories, or else risk a Japanese commando raid that could potentially turn a profit for Japan.

@Black_Elk:

But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.

The kind of thing shown in the two pictures below from the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films.  The accompanying narration said, “There you have it, gents: all they left us was Shangri-La.  And they’d claim that too if they knew where it was.”

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.

The kind of thing shown in the two pictures below from the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films.  The accompanying narration said, “There you have it, gents: all they left us was Shangri-La.  And they’d claim that too if they knew where it was.”

Some Yamamoto’s adversaries within IJN had make believe he said this one:

Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. We would have to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=Yamamoto+

I also read a long time ago about the 30 IPCs US War-time boost from Pacific, it was necessary because some japan’s player found a way to make a gambit raid over San Francisco on J2 or J3.
In fact, it was a kind of an incredible Japanese Sea-Lion.
It was allowed to Germany on UK, but a game broken for Japan.

Is there any way to make it possible.
@Argothair, if Transport and Cruiser are allowed M3-4 from Naval Base, you totally increase troop mobility in game.
And maybe make this San Francisco invasion more feasible.
I cannot talk about KAF because it seems totally bad playing as USA to loose Washington to Japan.
And historically not very acceptable objective.

But, a USA conditional surrender might occurs if Japan grabs San Francisco 2 complete rounds in a row.

The best Japan could hope in WWII was a peace treaty leaving Japan doing as he wishes in Asia.
If San Francisco is firmly held, you can see it as USA is making peace treaty in exchange of recovering Western US.
Because half the country being traumatized by japanese invasion, the people of USA making pressure to find an agreement with Japan.
And Japan then get what he wanted.

That would make a plausible scenario IMO.

So this one below can be tried out someway then:

Japan needs a way to get into North America. I think this would benefit the gameplay, and be more satisfying  historically (or at least as satisfying for an alternate history as the Center Crush is.) Invasion USA, it’s always the Axis players dream hehe. To do that Japan needs 2 things… Income from the island territories that are along the route into N. America, and a credible threat against W. US Production (ie. A way to get Japanese production closer to the continental US.)

In 1942.2 this would I think require that the factory be given +2 bonus, and built anywhere, including valueless islands. Conceived as an abstract land base. Maybe just +2 for the purposes of spawning infantry, but they need something to match the US in hitpoints.

In G40 it probably requires that the minor factory (or some extra land base outpost type unit) provide a similar option to expand production anywhere on the map. Again, so that Japan has at least some way to spawn hitpoints closer to North American target territories.

Or you go M3 with transports.
Or all these ideas at the same time.

Then Japan would have a real alternative to the Center crush, a strategy that would have the same kind of impact as taking Moscow and putting Russia out of play.

@Black_Elk:

Well at least it got the band back together.
:-D

Haha, yes it did! I love the chance to argue about something intelligently with other smart people.

@Black_Elk:

To be sure, I knew there would not be agreement about this.

You are talking about changing the fundamental dynamics of the game and taking it farther away from its historical basis. It becomes less about WWII and more like a world conquering game set in the 1940s.

Basically, sure.
:evil:

But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.

The promise of the game is that you can take control and reshape world history. It’s pretty brazen in that regard, and relies heavily on a suspension of disbelief, whether we’re talking about a 1940 or 1942 start date.

We’ve discussed at length the improbablity or outright impossibility of Japan doing several things in reality, which occur as a matter of course in the OOB game. My thought there is that, if Japan can sack Moscow in game and people just shrug, then its at least as reasonable to allow them a North American campaign isn’t it? Of course I’m not unhinged enough to suggest that this was a likely outcome in WW2, I’m just trying to be equitable. If the game allows for one historical delusion, and is basically built around it, why not the other?

Agreed. A&A is just a boardgame with the premise of creating your own history, so we need to acknowledge that. I didn’t mean for my comments to imply that I was against Japan ever being able to invade the US or do anything that would have been historically implausible. If I am playing Japan and have the opportunity to take the Western US or Moscow or whatever else, I am definitely going to do it. It’s part of the game and that is completely fine.

What I was trying to emphasize is that taking the Western US/Washington DC is very difficult for Japan to do for some very natural reasons. To reduce that difficulty arbitrarily, just because we want to see some new strategies, is probably not helpful to the game and certainly doesn’t reflect the subtext of reality that the game is built on. It ceases to be about WWII (and the objectives for the nations involved) and more about some made up scenario with disproportionately exaggerated territory values and fictitious production centers/bases being part of the starting setup.

@Black_Elk:

Probably my invasion USA push was a stretch here, the argument in its favor is maybe too hyperbolic, since it assumes the acceptance of some historical curves that are already pretty crazy in the OOB game.
:-D

Perhaps as Argothair suggests, KBF is an easier way to go for a secondary alternative to the Center crush. But I still think we’re missing out a bit on some fun potential gameplay, by putting invasion USA totally off the table for Japan.

KBF is something I considered very briefly as an alternative. Yes, it does still involve Japan moving into Asia or maybe swinging around to Africa, but this is something that could actually be done given the current motivations in the OOB game. It wouldn’t require altering territory values, production centers or offering other incentives to make it work, like you would need for a KAF strategy. Again, it’s not that an Axis KAF strategy is wrong to have period, because you can engineer one OOB. It’s when you feel the need to manipulate elements of the game to allow for it that it is an indication maybe KAF just doesn’t work well for a reason, and that is okay. Not every path can or should be equally plausible to victory. Unfortunately, that does limit Japan’s viable options, but you can’t help that if you want to stay true to the basis of the game.

@Black_Elk:

I suppose as a thought experiment, we could imagine how WW2 might have looked, if the American response to initial Japanese aggression played out as it often does in the actual game… Like “Screw Hawaii! Lets recall the Pacific fleet and send it through the Panama canal. Close all the shipyards on the west coast, we’re going to go 100% Atlantic and make no effort to deal with Japan at all until Berlin is ours!”

It’s laughable, but this is how things go in most A&A games. If the IJN was totally uncontested in the Pacific, either by the USN or the Royal Navy, then they probably would have had a lot more options.

True. Certainly this course of action would never have gone over in reality. Japan attacked the US, so fighting them back was a far more important emotional matter for the American public than fighting Germany was. The game does not model historical politics well at all. The level of cooperation among the Axis and the Allies to achieve their side’s in game objectives is ridiculous. It is after all a boardgame played among friends, often sitting across the table from one another. There are no unknowns, no ulterior political machinations, ideological motivations and no moral concerns (or morale concerns). Abandoning soldiers on the board or sending them on missions of certain annihilation are not even given a second thought. So this isn’t a computer model for the plausible outcomes of World War II.

If we really want a more representative function of how the war was fought, I think the first thing that must be done is to somehow separate the Allies. Their level of cooperation in-game is nothing like it was in reality. Even though the UK, USA and USSR were political allies, their operating relationship was often strained or confused. This was due a little to distance, but more so to Communism vs Capitalism. Axis & Allies and the Second World War should truly be framed as a tri-sided conflict:  Capitalist Powers (USA, UK, ANZAC) vs Communist Powers (USSR, China) vs Fascist Powers (GER, ITA, JPN). The Capitalists and Communists would team up to fight the Fascists, but their scope of interaction would be curtailed and they would have competing objectives. You could break this out further to the point where Japan is on its own leg of the ‘Fascists’ and GER/ITA would be the other. But since they don’t often interact in G40 as-is, leaving them all together may work out alright and would be simpler.

@Black_Elk:

I take all L. Hoffmans points to heart. I know this invasion USA suggestion is kind of ridiculous, but then again, it’s kind of a ridiculous game. I love it, but I still know what I’m in for when I play.

If I say Japan needs a way into North America, I’m mainly talking about under these sort of all-or-nothing KGF conditions. It doesn’t need to be a shoe-in every game, just possible. Essentially as a deterrent against the kind of magnified KGF play by the US that we often see, and as an enticement to the dual theater war. Something similar should be possible if the US totally ignores Germany in favor of a KJF. In such situations Germany should have a more realistic option on London, or even North America itself. If Japan goes after America full force, and the Allies respond in kind, the Pacific should stalemate, but then Russia should be stronger to do something in Europe. If Russia throws in on the Pacific too, for a full KJF, then Germany should be stronger to do something vs UK.

Right now the seesaw of pacific power is weighted in such a way, that one kid can jump off and run to the other side of the playground while the other just stays aloft, defying gravity and whatnot.
:-D

Perhaps I’m conflating the G40 experience a bit too much with 1942.2, and the other previous editions, but it does seem to come up quite a bit in A&A. I agree that the G40 play pattern is somewhat more satisfying than what we see on the smaller board, but it still feels rather one dimensional on Japan’s part.

You are getting into the balance aspect here, which seems to be one of your overall goals in making modifications. That is admirable and on the whole I think it is what we should strive for: a fairness in the mechanics which gives players of similar skill level a roughly equal shot at winning the game. However, I don’t think that level of fairness should extend to everyone having equal (viable) options with the same implied results. Just because the USA can go either Pacific or Atlantic doesn’t mean that Japan should also be able to go Asia or Pacific and have the same effect that the USA has in their choice.

I can see that what you are getting at is: Japan’s strategic decision should impact the game as much as the USA’s strategic decision, thus making one have to react to the other. Currently, if Japan goes Pacific, it is the USA’s choice to either fight them or ignore them for the most part. That is simply a function of a geographic advantage that the US has. I personally think it is wrong to change that, just because we want Japan to have more influence over the game.

Much of what you point out above about responding in kind and one side going all in on another and the resultant balancing effect already happens in the game, IMO. If Germany goes all KBF, let alone if they went KAF, Russia will get bigger and threaten them. This already happens. (EDIT: Similar if US were to go all KJF and ignore Germany. It depends on the individual game, but generally Germany/Italy can fight and win against just UK/USSR, so the US already has that compelling them to balance their efforts.) However there are multiple exceptions to this effect, all due to geography. UK can’t really do either KJF or KGF because they have a split economy and are all over the world rather than in just one spot. The USSR can, and usually does, go all KGF and can ignore Japan completely. In both cases, geography of the world is what dictates these ‘strategies’. There is either a tremendous amount of buffer space and an undeveloped threat (Russia vs Japan) or your production is split up around the world in hot spots of combat, forcing you to spread out and fight everywhere (UK vs JPN/GER/ITA).

The one you are concerned about is Japan, because they appear to have very little power against the USA and only one option for strategy (JCC). If the USA goes all Europe, Japan can run wild in the Pacific and gobble up everything. Yet Japan is still mostly unable to threaten the continental US; there is no balancing factor. Your assertion is that (to keep the USA honest), the game needs to be altered to allow Japan to have more power and thus force the USA into playing along. Fair enough, but I submit that we should try to alter the US player’s incentives to fight Japan, rather than beef up Japan’s ability to fight the US. I think the Hawaii rule I presented earlier will achieve this more simply and accurately than artificially providing Japan more money to bust down the door to the USA with brute force.

The USA is a unique Power in that its significant geographic isolation and large production capacity make it something of a Kingmaker in this game. They can control the flow and focus of the game more than any other Power because they have options in their time, space and money. No other Powers have that luxury. Just because the US does have it, doesn’t mean it is wrong or that Japan or anyone else should also have that influence.

FWIW. Although it has been a group effort, I consider the G40 revision thread and SF Rules to be a Black_Elk property of sorts. Thanks for the great conversation though!  8-)

@Black_Elk:

Perhaps what is needed is more movement away from the separate Pacific game effect? Like providing a clearer connection between the UK economy, and that of India/Anzac?

Right now the way the objectives are worded, UK only gets a bonus for things that happen in the ATO, and India/Anzac only get bonuses for things that happen in the PTO.

What if this was reversed?

UK gets bonuses for things that happen in the Pacific, and India/Anzac get bonuses for things that happen in Europe? Or what if all the objectives were reworded, so that the bonuses apply to the team as a whole (or the other members of the team), rather than the individual nation? Instead of accomplishing the goals for yourself, you accomplish them for your teammates.  Maybe that would create a more integrated global dynamic, and tie the two theaters together in a more satisfying way, with more variety for the gameplay?

Couldn’t agree more! Either unite the UK economy and limit gamey “I spend my entire UK income in Singapore” builds with more intelligent production caps that are baked into the definition of how a factory works, or reverse the NOs so that Anzac / Indian goals feed money to London and vice versa.

@Argothair:

@Black_Elk:

Perhaps what is needed is more movement away from the separate Pacific game effect? Like providing a clearer connection between the UK economy, and that of India/Anzac?

Right now the way the objectives are worded, UK only gets a bonus for things that happen in the ATO, and India/Anzac only get bonuses for things that happen in the PTO.

What if this was reversed?

UK gets bonuses for things that happen in the Pacific, and India/Anzac get bonuses for things that happen in Europe? Or what if all the objectives were reworded, so that the bonuses apply to the team as a whole (or the other members of the team), rather than the individual nation? Instead of accomplishing the goals for yourself, you accomplish them for your teammates.  Maybe that would create a more integrated global dynamic, and tie the two theaters together in a more satisfying way, with more variety for the gameplay?

Couldn’t agree more! Either unite the UK economy and limit gamey “I spend my entire UK income in Singapore” builds with more intelligent production caps that are baked into the definition of how a factory works, or reverse the NOs so that Anzac / Indian goals feed money to London and vice versa.

I find both KEF and “KAF” quite interesting options to discuss.

For my part, a plausible “what if” scenario would apply differently to USA case than others.

I can imagine Japan holding India and Australia while Germany launching Sea-Lion. So it is a real KEF.

However, USA captured capitol and San Francisco VC is mere fantasy and usually bad rolls and bad plays.

I know Barney increased action for all Pacific Islands with at least 1 IPC each.
Assuming more an Industrial and Progress Credit than Industrial Production Certificate.

Assuming there can be more challenge via NOs and increase values in PTO, what do you think of this special San Francisco conquest rule:

If Japan can conquered San Francisco two times or hold it for 2 game rounds in a row, then USA is considered broken morale and signed up a peace treaty with Japan.
Washington can no longer produce units to go forward but act in war against other Axis belligerents as Washington was taken and can no longer collect income. US Citizens riots and anti-war party arises so no new conscript to fight in WWII. (Think of it as similar to Viet Nam War.) North Viet Nam didn’t win the war against US. US citizen simply convinced the US government to cut dry army resources for this far away foreign war. Then Chinese supported North Viet Nam overwhelmed South Viet Nam.

Let’s suppose something similar would have happen and Isolationism begun to take precedence in local politic once Japan kill USWestern Coasters and Emperor demand for peace.

What do you think?
After all, politics was part of G40.

That’s extremely interesting, Black Elk. I agree with you that the turns need some kind of “capstone” that gives you a sense that you’ve reached the end of the chapter, as well as a ritual opportunity for the team as a whole to check in with its members and discuss overall strategy goals.

There’s an opportunity for elegance in tying the national objectives to the lend-lease mechanic: let each team distribute its national objectives to any/all members as it sees fit, and that’s the only lend/lease you can do. The more you achieve your objectives, the more you can engage in lend-lease; each nation is guaranteed to collect and required to spend whatever income it generates by virtue of occupying territory, but each nation may share (or receive) the additional income generated by fulfilling national objectives.

The lingering question is whether players will really be incentivized to distribute their cash in ways that strike us as historically plausible and/or dramatically compelling. Like, let’s say ANZAC chalks up a few solid victories in the opening, and so Britain is now achieving the ANZAC-related objectives. Meanwhile, Germany is kicking butt in the North Atlantic, so the Axis are now achieving the Scandinavia-based national objectives. Where will each team invest the resulting cash? Is there any force tending to prevent 100% of that cash from going directly toward a center crush in every single game? E.g., can’t the Allies just decide to give the cash earned by ANZAC to Russia so it can drop more infantry in the Caucasus? And can’t the Axis just decide to give the cash earned by northern Germany to Italy, so that Italy can ferry more tanks to Trans-Jordan?

How does letting players freely determine where to assign cash from National Objectives lead to the interesting strategic “fork” where the Axis can choose between KBF and KRF while the Allies choose between KGF and KJF?

Is KJF ever a winning strategy?

It definitely worth to explore.
I wonder about how you would pay for NOs.
Taking notes a certain situation occurs during round of specific owner or just the last picture of
Last power to play.