Is it idiotic for UK not to attack France?

@Argothair:

I’m looking at UK strategy on the 1941 scenario for A&A: 50th Anniversary edition, and the more I look at the map, the more I’m convinced that a UK attack on France is basically mandatory. That would be kind of boring, so I’d love for someone to prove me wrong! Let me know what you think.

–-------------------------------
So why fight for the colonies? Why go toe-to-toe with an absurdly overpowered Japanese navy to defend a dozen IPCs’ worth of UK colonies that are doomed to fall anyway when you can abandon the colonies, concentrate in the Channel / North Sea, and get rich by conquering France?

You are 100% correct.  This is why a KGF is the most employed Allied strategy and a massive German infantry buy G1 (and afterwards…) is mostly employed by the Axis.

When there are too many Axis units in France, UK/USA should go to Africa (Algeria) as a plan B.  That would be the only other logical move versus D-Day landings.

@Argothair:

That seems kind of boring, axis_roll. I mean, I love the look and feel of Anniversary Edition, but what’s the point of the extra territories and extra rules if the game still winds up as a traditional tug-of-war where the whole game boils down to whether Germany can dump infantry into France (or Italy) faster than the USA and UK can stockpile infantry in London (or Algeria)? Why not just play Revised?

Agreed with the ‘boring’ aspect, especially since the opening rounds are pretty standard, and only mid/late game are there new moves/strategies that can be employed.

There are several ways to try to balance this game.  It is a great base with much potential.

With a few modifications the game can be much more than it currently is.  We’ve done so with our own set of house rules (“Chicago Rules”).  If you shoot me your email (PM or here), I can send you our base rules, our tech system (I loath the current unbalanced/random tech in the OOB rules) and our National Advantages.  I would say that we have over 100 games played as we’ve fined tuned ou rules for AA50. You can see in the revision history of each document what the changes were as we went along.

Some more simple ways to make the game better are:
An Allied bid of pre-game units or cash, or a mix of both
No island complexes (slows Japan somewhat)
Close the dardenelles straight (really helps Russia)
Beef up China in some fashion (more infantry to start?)

@Argothair:

I got so mad about this that I drafted an alternate set of National Objectives for the 1941 scenario – I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.

When I have more time I will offer some feedback on your NOs.  Want to give them proper consideration instead of a quick response after a single read thru.  HAve you game play tested any of these?  In our book, that is the best way to see how good/bad house rules are….
yes it’s a little more work, but in the end, the end result (better playability) is worth the extra effort.

@Argothair:

What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.

yes, avoiding the ‘boring’ is the goal, as there is presently no real way for there to be a viable pacific campaign in the OOB rules, IMHO.  Actually, our play group found that the axis should win the game 80% of the time (OOB).  Basically the axis has to roll poorly round 1 or the allies get favorable weapons (ASAP) to make it a game.  If I wanted a dice game, I’d play Yahtzee, the set up time is much shorter!

In order to enable more strategic outcomes, the allies need to be able to not focus on ‘staying’ alive in the game (forced early defensive moves), so they need to be stronger.  In our rules, these additions are ‘phased in/delayed’ by the mechanism in which they can be deployed.  In essence, stronger weapons/National Advantages are more costly/take longer to get in the game.  It is all not one sided, the axis have new options as well, encouraging them to play outside the same old game plans.

Regarding allied OOB rules options, I can post some thoughts when I have more time.  Perhaps tonight.  In the Summer, my A&A time is reduced cause I love the outdoors.

@Argothair:

I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.

SOVIET UNION

Murmansk Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Norway, Finland, Karelia, and Archangel if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 3 and 4.
@axis_roll:

Relatively easy to achieve and maintain.  No penalty for allied units in russia.

Persian Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 34.
@axis_roll:

Like that the axis can stop a very easy to achieve NA for Russia

Vladivostok Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Buryatia SSR, Stanovoj Chebet, and Soviet Far East if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 63.
@axis_roll:

Like that there is some goals to holding the line against Japan.

@axis_roll:

Russian NA’s a good, a bit more attainable

UNITED KINGDOM

Defense of the Commonwealth: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of W. Canada, E. Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
@axis_roll:

Substituted New Zealand for Egypt, good swap

Mediterranean Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Gibraltar, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.
@axis_roll:

Very difficult to attain, not a good swap for the UK Pacific theatre OOB NA.  I like that USA can help UK via the pacific

China-Burma-India Campaign: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of India, Burma, French Indo-China Thailand, Kwangtung, and the East Indies.
@axis_roll:

Hard to achieve except for round 1

@axis_roll:

why remove the NA for France / Balkans?  Mixed overall on these

UNITED STATES

Monroe Doctrine: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Alaska, Hawaii, W. Canada, E. Canada, Mexico, Western US, Central US, Eastern US, West Indies, Panama, and Brazil.
@axis_roll:

Encourages Axis attacks on the Americas, I like it

Pacific Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of Philippines or Manchuria
@axis_roll:

Adding Manchuria is fine, why not Kiangsu as well?

European Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of France, Italy, or Balkans
@axis_roll:

Does USA need to have an extra bonus for taking Italy

South Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Hawaii, Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Caroline Islands.
@axis_roll:

original is still good

@axis_roll:

USA NO’s are ok

GERMANY

Atlantik Wall: 5 IPCs if Germany has at least one land unit in each of Norway, Northwestern Europe, and France.
@axis_roll:

Hard to achieve except for round 1 & 2.  Norway should fall after that

Lebensraum: 5 IPCs if Germany controls three or more of Poland, East Poland, Ukraine, and East Ukraine.
@axis_roll:

neither like nor dislike

Mideast Oil: 5 IPCs if Germany controls two or more of Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR.
@axis_roll:

So if Italy controls Trans-Jordan, that does not count for Germany? Should be axis powers… Like otherwise

@axis_roll:

Removed northernly pressure on Russia (Karelia no longer a target, neither is Baltic States or Belorussia), overall hard to like or dislike all changes

ITALY

New Roman Empire: 5 IPCs for Italian control of three or more of Balkans, Libya, Egypt, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Italian East Africa, and Rhodesia
@axis_roll:

too restrictive to only Italian Control

Mare Nostrum: 5 IPCs if Axis control Gibraltar and France, and there are no Allied ships in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.
@axis_roll:

swapped Gibraltar for Algeria, not needed to be swapped

@axis_roll:

Prefer original Italian NOs, These are too hard for Italy to achieve

JAPAN

Barrier Islands: 5 IPCs for Axis control of three or more of Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, and Okinawa.
@axis_roll:

Encourage Japanese Pacific battles, I like

Strategic Resources: 5 IPCs for Axis control of Borneo and Kiangsu if there are no Allied ships in sea zones 49, 50, 61, and 62.
@axis_roll:

The sea zone addition is intriguing, but not very likely to keep Japan from achieving this easily

East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 5 IPCs for Japanese control of India, Australia, or Hawaii
@axis_roll:

Not too often will India fall to anyone other than Japan, insignificant change to OOB

@axis_roll:

overall hard to like or dislike all changes

CHINA

Over the Hump: If the Allies have at least one fighter or bomber in India, then you may place one Chinese artillery unit in Chinghai or Sikang or Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. You cannot place the artillery in a territory China does not control.
@axis_roll:

OK

Burma Road: If the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, you may place one additional Chinese infantry in Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements.

@axis_roll:

Seems good.

@axis_roll:

Seem like nice additions.  Hard for me to judge these too well since Chicago Rules treat China very differently

Not sure these changes are going to drastically alter the game play.  I know when I play, I will forgo some extra IPCs to maintain a better position on the board, as it is a better long term affect than having an additional $5 IPCs (IMHO).

@Argothair:

We typically use a flat bid of IPCs to balance the game, like you would in a game on the TripleA server. I have no complaints about how that bid works; with a reasonable bid (10 to 20 IPCs) for the Allies, I think the 1941 scenario is very nicely balanced. I’m just disappointed with the lack of variety / replayability.

What are those bid rules?  we use these

Bids under Chicago Rules

Add units before game play begins.  Only one additional unit per territory/sea zone.  The territory/sea zone must already contain at least one unit to permit a bid unit to be added.  No Bombers, Battleships, or Aircraft Carriers can be placed as part of any bid.

Russia may not place more than $10 worth of units (no tanks may be bid) in the following combination of territories:
Karelia, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Archangelsk, Urals, Russia, Caucasus, Kazakh, Novosibirsk or Evenki National Okrug.

Chinese inf may be also be bid units, at a cost of $2.  Other Chinese bid units are regular cost. 
Bidding Rules:
1.  Allies may bid $28, with a maximum of $25 being placed as instant units, remaining $3 can be split amongst the allies, being added to their first round IPC bank.  Dardanelles straight is closed.
2.  The allies can bid to Open the Dardanelles straight, with the resulting bid increasing to $30.  Same restrictions apply.
3.  If the allies have not opened the Dardanelles straight (bid option #2), the axis can ‘force open’ the Dardanelles Straight, but the bid level is now $36 (as a penalty for forcing open the canal).  $4 of that bid must be an artillery for Russia in the Caucasus.  The Caucasus artillery must be included in the $10 limit of Russian bid units.  The $25 unit limitation is still in effect.  In other words, the bid is $25 in units, $4 (Russian artillery in Caucasus), and $7 in cash to be split amongst the allied countries as the allies deem fit.

@Argothair:

What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.

If you have thoughts on some of the interesting choices (or even just a list of some of those choices) that the Allies have in the mid-game / end-game under OOB Anniversary '41 rules or Chicago Anniversary '41 rules, I’d be very curious to hear them.

The pregame bid helps to give the allies more strategic options.

Other things than can be done strategically in OOB rules are:

1. Gang up on Italy.  Move into the Med ASAP with a combined UK and USA navy. More doable with an allied bid of $ to UK (think forst round naval build in SZ8.  Once set up in sz14, can trade for Balkans to get some NO IPCs, keep Italy from getting their NOs and/or reinforcing africa.

2)  Russian advances against Germany covered by allied air support.  A stack of Russian infantry and art can be hard to kill if 3,4,5 etc UK/USA fighters are adding to their defense.

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

what is the bid level that you usually see used?  For example, what do the allies usually get?

@Argothair:

Briefly commenting on your ideas for OOB strategies, I think the idea of going after Italy immediately is interesting. I could see how it would be hard/impossible for Italy to simultaneously defend the Balkans and North Africa, and once you’ve liberated one of those, you’ve got a solid economic advantage that lets you overwhelm Italy in a few turns unless Germany pulls out of eastern europe altogether to babysit Rome. I’ve always wanted to invade the Balkans, but I’ve never been able to until the game is basically decided anyway. Maybe I’ll try it next game.

I dunno that a Russian stack supported by US/UK fighters is really going to be able to “advance” on German troops. I’ve seen fighters help a Russian stack stand its ground, and maybe even deadzone the adjacent territory to the west, but I’ve never seen fighters turn the territory to the west into a safe territory for the Russian infantry to move into. How would that work, exactly?

with enough ftrs, the russians (as you point out) can dead zone some key territories on the eastern front.  Once you have taken out the German threat to break out into Russia, then you have contained them (i.e. their growth is then limited), and things become easier for the allies in the sense that more resources can be used elsewhere (weapons, africa recapture, Italy pressure, D-Day)

@Argothair:

Also, more importantly, I’m still not seeing a viable KJF strategy, let alone off-the-wall strategies like focusing on the Middle East or China or the Southern Hemisphere, but I’ll talk with you more about that in our e-mail chain.

I never said that there was a viable KJF in OOB rules.  There is not, unfortunately, even with a moderate bid.  The only way might be to give UK an IC in India in conjunction with a bid.

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

Thinking about this comment, imagining how this would go:

“I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 12.”
“No way, I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 14.”
“Chump change, I’ll play Axis against an Allied bid of 15.”
“All right, I’ll take the Allies with a 15 bid.”

-Midnight_Reaper