Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

I’ll try it, Black Elk – come to San Francisco! :-)

I am not sure even a 10 point Axis bid would make any German naval strategies viable. In the OOB game, there is no viable path for the Germans to win the battle of the Atlantic unless the US goes 100% KJF and the British roll poorly, but the Germans can buy a destroyer, a carrier, a sub, or sometimes one of each and then be glad they did so. You yourself have written about how the occasional German naval purchases can seriously disrupt the Allies supply chain, Black Elk! I think with an A0 turn we would lose all that rich variety, and no German naval purchase whatsoever would ever be advisable. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong! I’ll offer an 11 point Axis bid and take the A0 noncombat advantage as Allies to any Axis player(s) in the SF Bay (or via e-mail) if you promise to build at least one German boat (any kind) on G1 or G2.

Although I guess the Baron’so idea to add a third sub in SZ 9 with the bid could work – you can sink the Canadian DD + transport with excellent odds. The question is, can you follow that up? Or is that still the kriegsmarine’s last hurrah, and you never build any boats ever again? My concern is that with an American CV + DD heading to North Atlantic on A1, it is trivially easy for British to build a viable fleet on B2 – whatever the British drop on B2 gets reinforced by CV, DD, 2 ftr on A2.

And, Baron, I think 2 or 3 Axis DDs and SSs to balance the extra Russian fleets would be just fine. I like your suggested locations. The huge IPC value of the Russian bid is very misleading, since nobody would ever waste money on a factory in the Soviet Far East or a cruiser in the Black Sea. 1-IPC factories and cruisers are the two most overpriced units in the game. I could go either way on the Karelia factory, and I like the idea of combining the Russian fleets with the A0 turn, although I worry that even with extra axis boats, it is way too strong for the allies.

I think you have to give the Russians a transport in all three fleets, or you lose variety. The Pacific transport lets you ferry Russian troops to Yunnan! That option makes me very happy. Perhaps others don’t quite share my joy…

@Argothair:

I’ll try it, Black Elk – come to San Francisco! :-)

I am not sure even a 10 point Axis bid would make any German naval strategies viable. In the OOB game, there is no viable path for the Germans to win the battle of the Atlantic unless the US goes 100% KJF and the British roll poorly, but the Germans can buy a destroyer, a carrier, a sub, or sometimes one of each and then be glad they did so. You yourself have written about how the occasional German naval purchases can seriously disrupt the Allies supply chain, Black Elk! I think with an A0 turn we would lose all that rich variety, and no German naval purchase whatsoever would ever be advisable. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong! I’ll offer an 11 point Axis bid and take the A0 noncombat advantage as Allies to any Axis player(s) in the SF Bay (or via e-mail) if you promise to build at least one German boat (any kind) on G1 or G2.

Although I guess the Baron’so idea to add a third sub in SZ 9 with the bid could work – you can sink the Canadian DD + transport with excellent odds. The question is, can you follow that up? Or is that still the kriegsmarine’s last hurrah, and you never build any boats ever again?

And, Baron, I think 2 or 3 Axis DDs and SSs to balance the extra Russian fleets would be just fine. I like your suggested locations. The huge IPC value of the Russian bid is very misleading, since nobody would ever waste money on a factory in the Soviet Far East or a cruiser in the Black Sea. 1-IPC factories and cruisers are the two most overpriced units in the game. I could go either way on the Karelia factory, and I like the idea of combining the Russian fleets with the A0 turn, although I worry that even with extra axis boats, it is way too strong for the allies.

I think you have to give the Russians a transport in all three fleets, or you lose variety. The Pacific transport lets you ferry Russian troops to Yunnan! That option makes me very happy. Perhaps others don’t quite share my joy…

IMO, a German’s Naval built requires more incentive.
Incentive which I only find when I tried to put many US, UK and USSR Convoy SZs with 3 IPCs values. And a lower cost for Subs at 5 IPCs.
That way, sacrificing a few ground units (10 IPCs worth usually, 2 Subs), makes sense to prevent UK from building naval units or being under attack next Germany’s turn. And, if no Allies fleet in North Atlantic, a few SZs remained available to plague onto UK, USSR and US (last to plague).

In this kind of HouseRuled game, it remains a thin line between enough naval to keep initiative but not enough to invade and hold russian TTys.

I agree for the sake of more opening opportunities, it worth the effort to put one USSR TP in three SZs.

Haha I live in Mountain View these days, but I wouldn’t rule out a mission up the Peninsula to give it a try. I miss the Outer Sunset sometimes, and my old fortress, but down here I got a garage for the folding tables.
:-D

So let’s just say that eventually the US start game is acknowledged to wind up Allied advantage, and the Axis player is looking for a bid. Say something like 10 for simplicity. How might it be used to the best effect?

My guess is that I still wouldn’t be trying to purchase surface ships with G with the starting cash, save maybe the blocker DD for the med, or spoiler DD for the Baltic, just to try and keep a transport alive into the second turn.

But an Axis bid for G, is something I haven’t considered much on this map. A transport on the bid could potentially make things interesting around the canal vs the British. 7 ipcs for a transport in sz 15, and 3 ipcs for 1 infantry unit in Libya?

That would give you nearly 70% odds on Egypt (even if the Allies sent the Flying Tiger and 1 Russian Yak for defense.)

Without the additional bid infantry unit, just the bid transport, the German shot on the canal is almost exactly 50/50.

If you get 11 ipcs on the bid, then changing the Libyan inf unit to an artillery piece gives you just shy of 80% vs the canal.

That’s actually not a bad swing for a narrow bid. For an equivilent cost you could have the old favorite 1 tank in Algeria, and 1 artillery in Libya, which gets you close to 60%, but the transport + inf is slightly better. (Again vs both the Tiger and the Yak, the bid situation might determine whether America or Russia brings these to the British defense.)

So I guess if the Axis calculated the canal was worth it, and bid a second med transport, there would be some incentive for a Med fleet. Who knows?

The German battleship is likely exposed to a US2 air hit, if nothing is done to protect it, and you know you’d want a fighter in the G1 attack on sz17 (if you bid vs the canal) so that might also be an incentive for a carrier buy in the Med. Another option is going after Caucasus with a second bid transport, in another narrow fight if 16 is open, which might factor into things for the Russian opener.

Hehe

Or other options might be similarly interesting, once you open the Pandora’s box of an Axis bid on this board. At any rate it feels like it might be fun for the Axis side too, even if the US start is Allied advantage, just as a change of pace. Let Axis play the bid for a change.
:-D

Shucks, I didn’t know you were so close! I’ll come down to Mountain View…let me know what weekends you have free in February! My email is jasongreenlowe@gmail.com.

Interesting suggestions re: a second Med transport. Opening the straits might be just the trick to keep German naval dreams alive in an A0 game! If Germany bids a second Med transport with an open sz16, it pretty much forces an R1 Ukraine attack, and Russia will have to carefully reinforce the Caucasus. Even so, a G1 attack on Ukraine boosted by two loaded transports, followed up with a G2 attack on Caucasus boosted by two more loaded transports (protected by a G1 carrier buy) might force Russia to choose between Caucasus and West Russia on R2, although Egypt would be pretty safe in that opening. I like the possibilities!

Baron, how are you working your convoy zones? Same rules as G40, or something else? I worry that if we add Russian boats, add Axis boats, add an A0 turn, and add convoy zone rules, that now we have an entirely different game. I would want convoy rules to be as simple as possible, e.g. -2 IPCs per SZ adjacent to a factory with at least one sub in it.

@Argothair:

Shucks, I didn’t know you were so close! I’ll come down to Mountain View…let me know what weekends you have free in February! My email is jasongreenlowe@gmail.com.

Interesting suggestions re: a second Med transport. Opening the straits might be just the trick to keep German naval dreams alive in an A0 game! If Germany bids a second Med transport with an open sz16, it pretty much forces an R1 Ukraine attack, and Russia will have to carefully reinforce the Caucasus. Even so, a G1 attack on Ukraine boosted by two loaded transports, followed up with a G2 attack on Caucasus boosted by two more loaded transports (protected by a G1 carrier buy) might force Russia to choose between Caucasus and West Russia on R2, although Egypt would be pretty safe in that opening. I like the possibilities!

Baron, how are you working your convoy zones? Same rules as G40, or something else? I worry that if we add Russian boats, add Axis boats, add an A0 turn, and add convoy zone rules, that now we have an entirely different game. I would want convoy rules to be as simple as possible, e.g. -2 IPCs per SZ adjacent to a factory with at least one sub in it.

Here is a revised version of my Convoy Disruption which is different and simpler than Global.
All damage are done on attacker’s turn within SBR phase instead of the defender’s collect income phase.

Baron’s Convoy Disruption House Rule 1942.2 OOB cost structure
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39163.msg1618926#msg1618926
HTH
Baron

My work schedule has me locked down most Saturdays, but every now and again I catch a Sunday off. I’ll keep you posted. But back to the bid alternative for 1942.2…

Again the proposal is the following turn order:

Round 0: USA
Round 1: Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, USA

If desired the USA “zero turn” skips the combat phase.
If desired, players bid for Axis.

I haven’t played enough US start games to make a definitive call on it, but my impression is that it likely shaves an hour or two off the total game time, since the American starting position now looks more like US3 in a normal game. That assumes that the Allies concede after Moscow collapse, although it could potentially add an hour or two to the deep endgame, if Allies elect to play on post Moscow, since they are probably in a stronger position by that point. Could go either way I guess.

I think the Axis game is fairly one dimensional on this map regardless, it always hinges on the center, but if you give the Allies the initiative with the A0 start, there is at least more variety in how they can respond to the inevitable center crush.

Probably the only way they could have avoided this is by giving Japan another viable target for the win. Like if Australia had a VC, or if the production spread for the Japanese vs W. US was actually workable, to bring the San Francisco VC into contention. Short of something like that, the Axis game will probably always turn on Moscow. I think it’s almost baked in to the A&A experience, since we’ve seen the same thing going on 3 decades now.

Part of the issue is that the US never has enough cash or starting units to seriously entertain a dual front war. Typically you are much better off pulling everything out of the Pacific to support the war against Germany. But the UK does have a stronger Pacific starting position in 1942.2 than they usually do in A&A, and if the US fleet at Pearl survives intact, and less resources are required to recover the Atlantic (with the transports still afloat and that extra 42 ipcs at purchase), I think a partial commitment to the Pacific starts to look more attractive. A second carrier only costs 14 ipcs, and with that, you can do a fair bit to keep the Japanese pre-occupied. Part of it is psychological, if you are used to being totally cash deprived and stuck behind the 8 ball, and then suddenly find yourself working with Pacific units that you’ve only seen killed off before US1, perhaps players are more likely to put them to work on that side of the map?

Part of the reason why I like this turn order concept, is that it gives the Allies more total starting TUV (approaching the amount that you’d actually need to support the desired dual front war for Allies) but concentrated in a way that is much less distorting than if they were entering play via a large bid. You don’t have to draft a new set up card, or memorize a new rule, it even avoids the issue of learning a new turn sequence. For example, using an A0 turn for 1942.2 is less complicated than going from the AA50-1941 turn sequence, to the AA50-1942 turn sequence (on that AA50 map the German and Japanese turns flipped when you moved from one scenario to the other, and it was not uncommon for players to sometimes get confused mid-game.) Here everything is the same as normal after the first turn.

What to do on the American Zero turn? How do the Allies open? Here are some ideas.
Let’s say for now, that if there is a disparity in skill, the more experienced player still takes Axis.
If the disparity is very large, the American zero turn plays as normal (full combat). If the opponents are more evenly matched, the American Zero turn plays with the same sort of restricted opening that we used for Russia in Classic (no combat, but all other phases in full.)
I think any of those would prove interesting, and should be tried first. Then if the Axis player still questions their chances, you go to the Axis bid. But for now with the restricted opening…

Pacific focus:
The US Pacific fleet goes to Solomon Islands, with the transport fully loaded floating off Guadalcanal. The Chinese units all stack in Szech. The British Australian fleet joins the USN, also with a fully loaded floating transport (presumably the Japanese sub dives.) Now you have a pretty interesting cat and mouse set up for the Pacific, which puts together a credible threat on the IJN but without requiring a high risk hit on sz35. The British India fleet is free to do other things, the carrier can pull away for canal coverage, or sail around Africa for example. The Atlantic fleet, with support from the Panama cruiser is likely safe against a G1 hit, but you could buy a second atlantic destroyer to make certain, if you want to develop an Atlantic threat. Or concentrate on the build out of W.US and send the atlantic transports to support the south Pacific campaign.

Dual theater focus: instead of pressing forward in the Pacific, all units withdraw to safety, with the aircraft peeling away towards Europe. Americans drop a carrier in the Atlantic and position for Torch the following round. Even in this case the Pearl carrier + Fighter has nice flexibility. A game which focuses primarily against Europe, might still see a lot of ships in reach of the Pacific at the end of the zero turn. So Allies still have some options to hold their cards while they wait to see how Germany and Japan open.

Full KJF: trying to press the advantage on all fronts vs Japan. There are some interesting options here if the Americans open. Stacking bury  still seems too high risk. 5 inf and 5 fighters to Russia vs 4 inf 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 bomber and the battleship bombardment. But the Allies can still do other things. The US sz53 fighter to W. Australia gives some nice cover. If sz61 can be blocked by the British, a Burma stack might be interesting. 6 inf 2-3 fighters and the aagun, vs Japan’s 2 inf 1 art, 4 fighters and 1 bomber. Might be a lot for Japan to deal with? 4 Americans pull back to Sinkiang. Or you stack Szech for defense. Different options here,  4 US inf 1 Russian and the British fighter is pretty solid. 7 infantry and 1 British Fighter also strong, if you want to keep the Szech guys in place, and just move the Flying Tiger. Brits come heavy with a round 1 attack, or just stack India as heavily as possible, buying tanks for India, and bombers out of UK to come mess with the IJN.

Full KGF: everything through Panama and around south America per usual. USN starts the game ahead with the two more transports. The Pacific carrier can be off the coast of Africa by the 3rd turn, so an early Med press might be a lot more feasible under these conditions. Or just going immediately north in a big way as one might expect in KGF. In either case the Allies will have a presence near Europe much sooner, making the German game more challenging.

So what sort of openings do you play as Axis under those conditions? It’s clearly a tighter game, I think as Axis you have to make a more deliberate defense, rather than throwing every single starting IPC at the center. At least a first round build up before making a major move, since you are dealing with more hitpoints on Moscow by the time you arrive, depending on how the Americans use their starting forces.

@Black_Elk:

My work schedule has me locked down most Saturdays, but every now and again I catch a Sunday off. I’ll keep you posted. Back back to the bid alternative for 1942.2…

**Again the proposal is the following turn order:

Round 0: USA
Round 1: Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, USA

If desired the USA “zero turn” skips the combat phase.
If desired, players bid for Axis.

I haven’t played enough US start games to make a definitive call on it, but my impression is that it likely shaves an hour or two off the total game time, since the American starting position now looks more like US3 in a normal game. That assumes that the Allies concede after Moscow collapse, although it could potentially add an hour or two to the deep endgame, if Allies elect to play on post Moscow, since they are probably in a stronger position by that point. Could go either way I guess.

I think the Axis game is fairly one dimensional on this map regardless, it always hinges on the center, but if you give the Allies the initiative with the A0 start, there is at least more variety in how they can respond to the inevitable center crush.

Probably the only way they could have avoided this is by giving Japan another viable target for the win. Like if Australia had a VC, or if the production spread for the Japanese vs W. US was actually workable, to bring the San Francisco VC into contention. Short of something like that, the Axis game will probably always turn on Moscow. I think it’s almost baked in to the A&A experience, since we’ve seen the same thing going on 3 decades now.**

Part of the issue is that the US never has enough cash or starting units to seriously entertain a dual front war. Typically you are much better off pulling everything out of the Pacific to support the war against Germany. But the UK does have a stronger Pacific starting position in 1942.2 than they usually do in A&A, and if the US fleet at Pearl survives intact, and less resources are required to recover the Atlantic (with the transports still afloat and that extra 42 ipcs at purchase), I think a partial commitment to the Pacific starts to look more attractive. A second carrier only costs 14 ipcs, and with that, you can do a fair bit to keep the Japanese pre-occupied. Part of it is psychological, if you are used to being totally cash deprived and stuck behind the 8 ball, and then suddenly find yourself working with Pacific units that you’ve only seen killed off before US1, perhaps players are more likely to put them to work on that side of the map?

Part of the reason why I like this turn order concept, is that it gives the Allies more total starting TUV (approaching the amount that you’d actually need to support the desired dual front war for Allies) but concentrated in a way that is much less distorting than if they were entering play via a large bid. You don’t have to draft a new set up card, or memorize a new rule, it even avoids the issue of learning a new turn sequence. For example, using an A0 turn for 1942.2 is less complicated than going from the AA50-1941 turn sequence, to the AA50-1942 turn sequence (on that AA50 map the German and Japanese turns flipped when you moved from one scenario to the other, and it was not uncommon for players to sometimes get confused mid-game.) Here everything is the same as normal after the first turn.

With a USA R0 (more Allies bias), maybe it can workable to add 2 Victory Cities, so Germany and Japan can almost win the war on each of its side. But Allies could’t let go VC:

Page 6 - How the War Is Won: The listed victory conditions and Victory Cities (VC) are now this ones.
Honolulu is still a Victory City. But Stalingrad and Sydney are now Victory Cities.

Paragraph two should change to this “On the map are fifteen victory cities crucial to the war effort. As the game begins, the Axis controls six of these cities and the Allies control nine of them. The Allies begin the game controlling Washington, London, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Calcutta, Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco. The Axis powers begin the game controlling Berlin, Paris, Rome, Shanghai, Manila, and Tokyo. The standard victory condition is if your side controls three more total victory cities than it started with (9 for the Axis or 12 for the Allies) at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the U.S. turn), you win the war.”

Assuming more US warships in PTO, Sydney as VC can be defended and can attract more attention without being a total defeat if Axis wins over it.

Well if your group is willing to accept things like additional VCs, then sure, going with the 15 Victory City spread from AA50 would be ideal. But again, I think it comes down to ease of use, and the more changes from OOB the less likely it is to be widely adopted. My editorial comment about Sydney and production for Australia was more a lament than a suggestion for a change. Probably only the designers could made a change like that stick.

For the map as drawn, if you want a quick victory, then the simplest is:

8 VCs for the Axis win.
9 VCs for the Allied win.

As the Axis that basically takes the game down to 2 out of 3: India, Karelia or Hawaii (plus their starting VCs). As the Allies, taking 3 out of 4: Kiangsu, Philippines, France or Italy (plus their starting VCs.)

Although I suspect most people would still just play till concession, unless it was a competitive game with time restraints. This is the “quick victory” listed in tripleA for v5.

The printed rulebook calls for Standard victory at 9 VCs for either side. Total victory at 12 for either side.

This was later corrected in the errata to read “Standard Victory: 9 for the Axis or 10 for Allies” and “Total Victory 13.”

I think 9 for both sides as a win is probably still workable, though not as intense as an 8/9 split. The 9/10 split suggested in the errata doesn’t technically require a capital for the win, but the map being what it is, its often easier to just go for the capital kill under those conditions, (which is what most will do for a more decisive resolution.) Total Victory is pretty unrealistic, and you might as well just play till unconditional surrender at that point.

My view is that most players will simply ignore VCs, regardless of how many there are, and play until one side or the other concedes defeat. I don’t think anything short of an income bonus (or some clear relationship to the actual game mechanics) attached to the VCs, can make these cities relevant. Either that or very strict tournament rules, with a moderator. For most players they are just window dressing, and the only rule that matters for the win is capital capture.

l think the Axis game is fairly one dimensional on this map regardless, it always hinges on the center, but if you give the Allies the initiative with the A0 start, there is at least more variety in how they can respond to the inevitable center crush.

By adding 2 VCs, one more on each theatre, my intent was to make the center crush an alternate strategy instead of the main one. On PTO, if Allies are doing KGF, Axis victory is possible if Germany manage to hold its starting VCs while Japan conquer India, Sydney and Hawaii. And, if Germany lose either Paris or Rome, Japan can still win for Axis if it gains also San Francisco. That way a pure Pacific domination by Japan would means a win, that way USA and UK would not be able to concentrate only against Germany. This leading to a two front war. Which can be manageable if USA keeps its set-up fleet with an R0 non-combat and placement.

This can be mirrored in ATO, on a KJF strategy, if Germany wins Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow (or London) while Japan not losing any VCs to the Allies. This keeps things within historical boundary of Third Reich objectives. Germany still need to conquer a Capital City but KJF will deplete Great Britain Island and gives less Fgs to protect Moscow against a massive german ground army.

IDK if it is possible to not play without an European Capital conquered oriented Germany. Adding Cairo as VC but keeping 9 VCs objective for Axis probably makes for a too easy victory for Germany assuming Japan not loosing any VC : Leningrad, Stalingrad and Cairo. In addition, such technical KO would let a bitter taste on Allies because keeping all Capitals still give hope to come back later in game to push back Axis powers.

I was just trying to find a way which allows Axis to lock a victory without requiring Moscow being taken. Sydney and Stalingrad seems to incente US and UK to not solely focus on Germany in a KGF, while letting Japan growing monster in PTO, unopposed.

Do you believe that such a minor change can counter center crush  without making a too easy Axis win?

@Black_Elk:

Well if your group is willing to accept things like additional VCs, then sure, going with the 15 Victory City spread from AA50 would be ideal. But again, I think it comes down to ease of use, and the more changes from OOB the less likely it is to be widely adopted. My editorial comment about Sydney and production for Australia was more a lament than a suggestion for a change. Probably only the designers could made a change like that stick.

**For the map as drawn, if you want a quick victory, then the simplest is:

8 VCs for the Axis win.
9 VCs for the Allied win.

As the Axis that basically takes the game down to 2 out of 3: India, Karelia or Hawaii (plus their starting VCs)**. As the Allies, taking 3 out of 4: Kiangsu, Philippines, France or Italy (plus their starting VCs.)

Maybe this would provide a quicker 1942.2 game under a USA R0 full combat turn. Actually, OOB, it is too easy for Axis to grab and hold Hawaii and Leningrad early game, thus securing a technical 8 VCs victory.
Do you believe an 8 VCs Axis victory conditions becomes balanced assuming a USA full fledged R0?

I’m just replying to Baron’s reply pertaining to Axis winning the game without taking Moscow. In my 40 game we have Oslo as a German victory city at game start and have to hold Oslo without taking Moscow and Japan holding all there victory city’s plus Philliphines.

Germany still needs to take Leningrad and Stalingrad and hold. They just have to split there pieces (fronts) 3 ways or make a major push to Moscow and lose Oslo.

Not trying to throw this off topic.

@SS:

I’m just replying to Baron’s reply pertaining to Axis winning the game without taking Moscow. In my 40 game we have Oslo as a German victory city at game start and have to hold Oslo without taking Moscow and Japan holding all there victory city’s plus Philliphines.

Germany still needs to take Leningrad and Stalingrad and hold. They just have to split there pieces (fronts) 3 ways or make a major push to Moscow and lose Oslo.

Not trying to throw this off topic.

Does it make for an easier Axis win? Or is it just for shorter game sake?
It seems to me that Germany can better be able to hold these three VCs while Japan hold Manilla than holding Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow, with Japan still holding Manilla.

Yes we are trying to make game shorter. Right now after first 2 turns in game UK Us can land 20 ground next 2 turns in Oslo. So I don’t think it’s easier for Germany.
This is being tested now. I will discuss in global war thread and this is with your reduced costs and values.
We want game victory condition be if Axis holds 15 VC at end of turn 10 they win.

@SS:

Yes we are trying to make game shorter. Right now after first 2 turns in game UK Us can land 20 ground next 2 turns in Oslo. So I don’t think it’s easier for Germany.
This is being tested now. I will discuss in global war thread and this is with your reduced costs and values.
We want game victory condition be if Axis holds 15 VC at end of turn 10 they win.

Interesting. Please, give us a link, once you open your feedback thread.  :-)

@Baron:

Maybe this would provide a quicker 1942.2 game under a USA R0 full combat turn. Actually, OOB, it is too easy for Axis to grab and hold Hawaii and Leningrad early game, thus securing a technical 8 VCs victory.
Do you believe an 8 VCs Axis victory conditions becomes balanced assuming a USA full fledged R0?

Well I think with the Pearl fleet surviving, and the option to make a support build out of W. US on the zero turn, it’s possible for the US to put up pretty strong defense at Holonulu. You also get a warning one round in advance, if the Japanese are positioning transports against Hawaii, so there’s some time to do damage control. The Chinese units are not very far from Moscow, since Szech is only two spaces from the Russian capital, this should help keep that VC out of contention for at least a little while. So such a game likely hinges on India, or more accurately, whether the Allies can trade Calcutta for Paris or Rome in time to prevent the early Axis win. This is more realistic now given that it’s possible to save the Atlantic transports.

Of course denying the Axis 8 VCs, is rather different than holding 9 of your own as Allies. Still, if the idea is to force a Pacific showdown the 8/9 split can be interesting. It would be foolhardy of the US player to abandon Hawaii under those conditions, and if they’re already committing to the defense of Honolulu, its a lot more likely that they make a play against the South Pacific in the process, take a crack at the IJN and try for the Manila/Shanghai VCs.

From a redesign standpoint I’d definitely support a more robust VC spread, if the play group is willing. Like if you have physical VC markers for example. But I was mainly trying to find a balance adjustment that would be very practical and simple to incorporate. I think people like you and I are a bit more amenable to the more radical HR tweaks than most players. But for those who already have a hard time persuading their regular opponents to try new things, there is something to be said for keeping it nice and clean.

The printed manual says 9 VCs for both sides (if one ignores the errata, since the manual fails to mention Honolulu.) Perhaps 9 is optimal, since it gives the Allies a more realistic chance to actually win in a reasonable amount of time, instead of just preventing the Axis win? If 8 for Axis is too narrow, 9 at least still gives them a path to Victory without Moscow. They’d have to make a much more stalwart defense, but if the goal is simply to contain the Russians at Moscow, rather than actually taking Moscow, that defense becomes a bit less daunting.

I do think the 8/9 split has potential with a US zero turn. It might make Honolulu too “do or die” for some people’s tastes, but then again, when was the last time we saw a real showdown over Hawaii. Maybe some might enjoy that kind of game, for a quickie.
:-D

Very interesting, as always. Black_Elk, I enjoyed your discussion of A0-related openings, although I don’t have anything intelligent to say about them until I see at least one A0 game played out!

I just finished a couple of games of A&A Anniversary Edition, 1941 Scenario, and while I don’t want to take the thread off topic, I do want to say that that map does an excellent job of persuading players to fight in both the Atlantic and the Pacific without any heavy-handed rules, so it can be done.

I think that if you have a group that balks at the idea of custom victory cities, then the whole “balance” discussion becomes a bit pointless …victory cities are a pretty minor change; if you’re not willing to move some victory cities around, then what are you going to do? If your play group is that attached to having an official ruleset, then I’d suggest either (a) getting a copy of Anniversary Edition, (b) resigning yourself to an endless mad rush to the center, or © switching franchises altogether and playing something like Churchill or Quartermaster General or Memoir '44 or Europe Engulfed. It’s not worth trying to come up with alternate rule sets to please people who are so conservative and nervous about house rules that they’ll just dismiss whatever you come up with as “too weird.”

Assuming you do have a playgroup that will tolerate new victory cities, I think the problem with making Stalingrad a “European” victory city is that it’s too close to the routes Japan would take in a standard center-crush game. Japan is headed for India and Szechuan anyway as early as turn 2, and then Stalingrad is two spaces from either India or Szechuan. If Japan takes Calcutta, Sydney, and Stalingrad, that just means Japan’s having an ordinary good day – it doesn’t mean the Axis have made any inroads at all on the European front, and it doesn’t mean Japan has launched a successful attack on the periphery of the board. Another problem with Stalingrad as one of three VCs needed for victory is that if Germany takes both Leningrad and Moscow, then Stalingrad falling into Axis hands as well is really a foregone conclusion – you’re never going to be able to save Stalingrad out of, e.g., a British Indian factory pumping out three tanks a turn, some of which are surely needed to resist Japanese pressure from east Asia, against a German Moscow factory pumping out eight tanks a turn. So if the Axis can win by taking Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, then, again, that encourages the standard center crush. Stalingrad is part of the center. You don’t want to encourage people to go there; they do that enough already as it is.

My instinct is to flood the board with victory cities and then require a team to capture a net of four victory cities in order to win a quick game, five net victory cities for a standard full game, and six net victory cities for an epic game. The goal would be to choose a selection of victory cities such that (a) you can’t reach your goal by winning in only one small region of the board, and (b) if you have reached your goal, then it means you have a strong, dominant lead, and it’s extremely unlikely (<5%) that you could stage a successful comeback. I would also want to © balance the VCs so each side has the same number of starting VCs, so it’s easy and unambiguous to see who’s winning. For example, you could use a setup like this:

| | Allied VCs | Axis VCs |
| Atlantic | | |
| | New York | Berlin |
| | Ottawa | Paris |
| | London | Rome |
| | Rio de Janeiro | Oslo |
| | Leningrad | Algiers |
| | Moscow | Kiev |
| Pacific | | |
| | Calcutta | Singapore |
| | Chongqing | Hong Kong |
| | Capetown | Beijing |
| | Honolulu | Manila |
| | San Francisco | Tokyo |

If your group finds the victory cities hard to remember, you could buy some gold stars from any CVS or Walgreens or Target for $1.50 and stick 'em on the board – they ought to peel off again without too much trouble. If you’re paranoid about protecting your board, you can take a standard post-it note and cut it into 1-cm-square strips, or use glass pebbles, or print out the victory city list and put it next to the map, or really just about any technique you like. If you have the mental fortitude to play Axis & Allies often enough that you start to notice the imbalances in the standard setup, then in my opinion you really ought to be able to handle the challenge of marking some alternate victory cities.

Point well taken  :-D

Again I’m all in favor of pushing things pretty far at my house. I’m not opposed to using a number of different HRs to make the 42.2 map more interesting, including additional VCs. But from a practical standpoint, I’m looking at it like this…

For a simple A0 concept, otherwise keeping all the same rules and set up, then you can play the scenario in tripleA quite easily. The zero round can be accomplished with a quick edit, or loading a gamesave. The victory conditions already available in the map options offer three choices for the VC win:

“projection of power” = 8/9
“honorable surrender” = 9/10
“total victory” = 13/13 ie plays until concession.

Doing other things, such as introducing more VCs, likely requires an xml edit or downloading a custom map.

Similarly, in a face to face game, if you’re on the away team (visiting someone else’s house playing on their board), it might be challenging trying to convince the rest of the gang to make map changes on the fly. Even if its relatively simple to do with markers or stickers, its still new information they have to get their heads around and keep track of.

I’m also thinking here about viability for competitive play, or as something that might have broad appeal under tournament or con conditions. If the A0 concept can work and still be engaging without requiring additional tweaks, I’d be inclined to start there and keep it small, just to see whether people warm to it.

There’s a fair amount of novelty to a US start in A&A (even a restricted opening) since it’s never been done before.  All we’ve had thus far are games where Russia opens, or Germany/Japan in the case of AA50 or 1940, but an American opener for a 1942 timeline has definite potential. As the Nation with the most starting cash, there is some real flexibility in setting the tone for the game with their purchase. This doesn’t diminish the tough choices that the Russians and Brits still have to make during their openings, but it does give you a way to develop a strategy based on purchasing rather than just adapting to whatever the dice throw your way.

In the OOB game bringing a grand strategy to the table as Allies is a bit of a stretch. This usually just amounts to deciding how you will use the bid, hoping for a round one battle breaker, and then trying your best not to get hosed from there. But the A0 option opens things up considerably. The ability to move your starting units and make a purchase at 42 ipcs with the Americans provides a fair amount of variety, and the chance to set up an actual plan for the game. A plan that is a bit more active (or a bit less reactive) than their role in the traditional start.

But yeah, I agree, the boxed game could doubtless be improved by things like new VCs and victory conditions. I guess I was just trying to keep my ambitions for the A0 idea somewhat more modest at this point, since it’s a pretty significant tweak.

Just one final thought…
If Axis can still return wins under these conditions, it makes a pretty interesting statement about the OOB balance and production spread. The suggested proposal for an A0 turn saves just shy of 70 TUV for the Allies in the opening round. But that’s not exactly a complete picture either, since the Axis will typically put up about 50 TUV in order to kill those American units, in attacks which would no longer be relevant. So it’s not quite as lopsided as it might seem initially. I think this start will show how the map plays on balance, when a huge TUV swing in the first round doesn’t necessarily determine the whole game.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love your A0 idea, not least because as you say, it is a very simple, direct, lightweight change that has big consequences on the board. I would be thrilled to playtest the A0 start (probably non-combat at first) even without any change in the victory cities. Most of my playgroups have historically been pretty reasonable about deciding when to call a game, so the VC issue is more about tournament play than it is about ‘fixing’ the game’s balance problems.

In a straight A0 non-combat game with no bid, one additional KJF strategy that I’d like to toss into the ring is to build a large British Indian fleet. Here’s how I’d do it: first, stack the entire American Pacific Fleet in the Solomon Islands on A0 (you don’t have to fight the Japanese submarine, so you should be able to do it in noncombat). Also on A0, move the Flying Tigers to land on the British carrier off India. Then, on R1, the Russians send a fighter to reinforce Egypt on R1 so that the Egyptian fighter survives.

On B1, the British buy 1 CV, 1 ftr, 1 sub (30 IPCs), and send just the fighter from the Indian carrier against the Japanese DD + transport near China. If the fighter sinks the Japanese DD without dying, then the British fleet purchase can be placed in the Indian sea zone, and the fighter can return to land in the same sea zone it came from; the Egyptian fighter and the newly built fighter land on the newly built carrier, leaving the British with a total fleet of 2 CV, 4 ftr, 1 CA, 1 SS, 1 transport in the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, the British Australian fleet stacks up with the Americans in the Solomon Islands for safety and reinforcement.

If the Japanese attack the British Indian fleet with everything that can reach, their average casualties are 6 fighters (six!). The Japanese wind up losing $60 of TUV to sink $93 worth of Allied boats and planes, which sounds like a good deal for the Japanese, but they’re going to be very hard pressed to make that attack and also come up with a fleet that can deter an A1 (!) attack on any of the three money islands. If the Americans can take and hold a money island starting on A1, with the Australian fleet and A0 build as follow-up forces, then that’s an American factory on A2 followed by 4 capital ships dropped in the south Pacific on A3 – Japan could really get steamrolled. Japan even has as 20% chance of losing against the British fleet, throwing their entire airforce (6 ftr, 1 bomber) and two capital ships against the British Indian fleet and coming away with zero surviving assets. Some Japanese players won’t be willing to take that risk, and some players who do take that risk will get burned hard.

On the other hand, if the Japanese don’t attack the British Indian fleet, then the two Allied fleets can meet up on A1 / B2 in either the Philippines or Borneo, and then they will definitely be able to take and hold a money island – once those fleets get together, Japan’s got no way to match them in firepower.