Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

@MarineIguana:

Hey guys. It’s been a long time since I’ve been on these board. A lot of work moving from San Francisco to Boston.

I love the Round 0 movement idea!

Here’s my valuation:

• 8 US china area: Anwei and yunan would be R1 losses. Pull back to Szechwan. expected loss is 4 inf with 1.33 japanese inf killed.
  +10 sz11: germany subs no longer hit sz11. Best alternative is hit sz10, which is 1 transport less profitable and remaining subs can be killed by sz11 dest on US 1
• 9 sz53: japan no longer has a profitable strafe of sz53. For those unfamiliar the strafe is 1 sub sz44, 1 cruiser sz50, 2 fig sz50 and japan, 1 bomber japan. take 1 fighter as a loss and the sz44 carrier doesn’t need to move to sz53 during non-combat. This strafe would be a +15 attack. US sz56 to sz53 prevents the strafe. I’m reducing it by 6 because the units have an opportunity cost and could move towards africa instead.

R0 US movement would be very close to balanced. *My best estimate of bidding to balance is ~18 IPC.

• for those curious, the best bidding choice would be all land units.** something like 3 art, 1 inf for russia to hit Belo, Ukr, and Wrus. 1 inf to egypt. An alternate solid option is +2 subs to hit sz37 with +1 egypt inf to ensure the fighter survives to participate. This has been extensively discussed in prior threads and agrees with my evaluation.

8+10+9=27 IPCs compared to 18 IPCs right?
You said closed to balanced because most of units changes are in SZ and only China is involved?
This have much less impact than your balanced bid put in the center, right?

The way I see it, the zero turn concept offers a nice way to scale the balance effect, depending on which phases you choose to incorporate.

If it is a full turn, with all phases as normal, then clearly the starting conditions of the map are inverted in favor of the Allies. Probably requires a large disparity in player skill, or an Axis bid.

If it is a restricted turn, then you have options based on which phases you choose to skip.
If only the combat phase is skipped, but purchase is still included, (like Russia in Classic) again I believe the map flips to Allied advantage, though somewhat less so than a full opening turn.

If you choose to skip both combat and purchase, and allow only an opening non combat movement, then it is possible that the map may still be Axis advantage or with a balance on par with typical Allied bids. Similarly if you skip all movement, and allow only a purchase/placement phase, the map might still be Axis advantage or nearly on par with a typical Allied bid. Assuming two players at equal skill of course.

Each of these options provide the Allies with a leg up, but are rather less distorting than a very large Allied bid used at the center, or for UK subs to destroy Axis naval TUV. And I think the zero turn offers a first round balance more in line with the 1942 start date. Meaning that the opening round will look more like the historical conflict, as opposed to an alternate 1942 timeline, where Axis are just kicking ass all over the place, which seems to be the case OOB.

One thing the zero turn does that I like, is to concentrate the extra Allied TUV at somewhat of a remove from the Russian capital, which preserves the Axis option for a rush on Moscow by Germany. Absent this option, I think Axis players would find the game change rather unsatisfying, since removing the center from play is basically handing the game to the Allies. With the zero turn, the Allies still face the logistical challenge of “saving Russia”, whether by moving Anglo American units into position for a defense of the center, or by providing a large enough distraction elsewhere such that the Axis must divert forces from that center attack. Either way, the aid to the Soviets is more indirect, which is probably better for both sides, at least from a gameplay enjoyment standpoint.

If it is a full turn, with all phases as normal, then clearly the starting conditions of the map are inverted in favor of the Allies. Probably requires a large disparity in player skill, or an Axis bid.

If it is a restricted turn, then you have options based on which phases you choose to skip.
If only the combat phase is skipped, but purchase is still included, (like Russia in Classic) again I believe the map flips to Allied advantage, though somewhat less so than a full opening turn.

If you choose to skip both combat and purchase, and allow only an opening non combat movement, then it is possible that the map may still be Axis advantage or with a balance on par with typical Allied bids. Similarly if you skip all movement, and allow only a purchase/placement phase, the map might still be Axis advantage or nearly on par with a typical Allied bid. Assuming two players at equal skill of course.

You can almost make it like an auction usually associated to bid:

1. Who wants to play Allied as it is?
2. Who wants to play Allied USA R0 with non combat Movement, only?
3. Who wants to play Allied USA R0 with purchase/placement phase, only?
4. Who wants to play Allied USA R0 restricted, with no combat phase?
5. Who wants to play Allied USA R0 full turn?

It would be interesting to see how balanced the map would be with the US getting only a non combat move. I still think you might need a 3 bid to get an infantry in Egypt, but who knows. Very interesting.

If you allow US to purchase/noncombat move the allies will have a huge advantage because Japan is going to be toast. As the US I’d just go 100% pacific, and Japan would have 0 chance, and then the game would come down to US/UK vs Germany, and US/UK should win that one.

Especially with no bid in Egypt, I would imagine that Germany could assist Japan against a 100% KJF opening by building a carrier and a second transport in the Mediterranean and then shipping troops to Trans-Jordan / Caucasus with the idea of weakening India. (I would leave the Turkish straits open in an A0 noncombat+purchase game.) Even if the Allies take north Africa, German tanks can hoover up the IPCs in Sub-Saharan Africa, and if the Japanese don’t have to pay anything for a mainland factory because they can gain early control of the British Indian factory, then I think the Japanese can hold out for a very long time, even with the A0 turn. If needed, Germany could fly a couple of fighters over to help hold Tokyo or to land on empty Japanese carriers in SZ 62.

I think that’s a little harsh, taamvan. Nobody’s proposing an entire game round (five turns) of non-combat for 1942.2; the idea is to have the Americans take one turn of non-combat setup. The Americans have relatively few units on the board at game start, so it will usually be a very short turn. You’ve got some 6 inf + 1 ftr in China to move, two small fleets to move in the Pacific, one small fleet to move in the Atlantic, and 3 planes to launch either eastward or westward off of the continental USA. There are enough decisions for the USA player to make on A0 that it’s more interesting to let the USA player make those decisions than to just enforce a single new starting setup, but not so many decisions that it’s likely to slow the game down. Besides, with no bid, the USA can think about their A0 turn while commuting to the game site, setting up the pieces, waiting for players to arrive, etc.

I think it’s fascinating and elegant the way one very small change to the rules (give the Americans a non-combat turn before the game starts) winds up solving so many of the problems and frustrations with the OOB 1942.2 setup, while also creating a series of interesting new puzzles and opportunities for Allied offensives.

Is there a risk that, after hundreds of hours of analysis and dozens of games using the A0 rules, the community will reach a new consensus about how and why the A0 setup is broken, and exactly what moves each player has to make to maximize their chances of victory? Sure, there’s some risk of that, but the worst case scenario is that we all have hundreds of hours of fun trying to figure out what the new optimal openings are, and then we make another small rule change. The best case scenario is that we’ve finally found the Holy Grail – a setup that is fair and balanced for all sides, allows multiple, meaningfully different opening strategies for all players, and rewards repeated play by generating a nearly endless series of interesting middlegame positions.

India won’t fall as easily as you think. With US going 100% pacific UK is going to build 2 fighters/3 inf a turn. All of which is going to go to India. 2 fighters place on UK then go to West Russia then to India. If Japan does some crazy buy like 3 transports R1 then the axis should auto loose because Japan won’t have any ability to protect them. India shouldn’t fall with US getting to purchase/non combat move before the game starts, unless Japan wants to throw the game… Normally when US goes 100% Japan first I’d agree with you that India is going to fall eventually because UK needs to pull back to save moscow, but US will be so much stronger having their pearl/east coast fleets survive that they can pressure Japan earlier and faster.

With 1940 the situation is more complicated. I think there are a number of ways one could tweak the Global start, some of which involve turn order, or new objective bonuses, or alterations to the production spread. It’s just a much more rules intensive game, so I think there’s a reasonable expectation that the rules used to balance it are probably more involved. But in 1942.2 it’s pretty straightforward.

Here we aren’t really introducing a new rule that needs to be explained/tracked beyond the opening turn. In that way it is more like a set up change, but it uses existing game mechanics for the purposes of moving or introducing more units onto the board. Provides a degree of variability, but within certain limits, which can be scaled up if desired while still keeping the same basic rules. It’s pretty quick to execute and easy to explain even with newer players. All the phases are otherwise by the book, so we don’t have to create a new sort of phase pull it off. That said though, if you do like the bid phase in A&A, I also think the full zero turn with Axis bid has potential. Because new bids can be very entertaining to explore, and this basically gives you a way to turn the OOB game on its head, with the opposite balance by sides. So you have that on option as well.

I agree that the early war can drag. Part of the reason why I like this opener is that it accelerates the US entry, from a 3 round build up before they can do anything of interest, to one which is much more immediate. Global has its own issues with delays already, like on the DoW, but those aren’t present here. I don’t think this tweak takes much time and if anything it probably speeds up the game by giving it a more intense start.

The theme of the US entering the global conflict only recently can still be approximated here if desired, on that first turn, if you choose to restrict it. But after that everything plays as normal.

Ya I love the idea of US doing Non combat/Purchase before anyone and then axis bid. In every board since revised US has felt weak to me. That is mainly due to the new transport rule that was introduced forcing US to buy way more fleet to protect its transport shuck, and this change helps with that a ton actually making US feel like a threat again! What do you guys think would be a fair bid for the axis with this set up?

Gosh, it’s hard to know where to start! Here’s a first stab at a wish list for Axis bids:

(1) Germany artillery in Libya
(2) Third German sub in North Atlantic
(3) Second German transport in Baltic or Med
(4) +1 German infantry in West Russia and Ukraine
(5) German artillery in Finland
(6) Japanese transport in East Indies or China Sea
(7) Japanese tank for French Indochina Vietnam
(8) Japanese DD for Solomon Islands (stop USA from stacking up there?)
(9) +1 Japanese sub for J1 attack on an Allied Pacific fleet
(10) Japanese artillery for Manchuria

Do you know if a Manchuria IC bid can be considered?
Or it should remain a set-up change?
A German Sub in Med can help on Egypt amphib or as fodder against UK Cruiser and against an early Operation Torch in North Africa.

Since USA R0 saves a lot of Navy, I would rule that Axis bid need to be naval units.

@taamvan:

There is a thread over in G40 that essentially proposes a very similar thing, which is to have an entire turn of noncomming modify the OOB setup.

In addition to using up an enormous amount of time  (in that case, an entire game turn for every power with a chance to move everything)  to accomplish very little that could not be accomplished by bidding or changing the setup completely and starting fresh.

First, why are we setting up any pieces any specific place if the next thing we are going to do is move them out of harms way?

Isn’t the entire point of a fixed setup is that we know what we can do, not what we can do after we move everything again?  Ikusa and Risk don’t have pre-determined setups, they are totally random setups with equal pieces, Fortress America doesn’t obligate you to put any piece in any certain square…and so they are very similar wargames that avoid this problem entirely…

Doesn’t this process simply lead to an analysis of how much more optimally the game can be broken (and in whos favor) by figuring out the optimal way to move everything before the game begins?

Most important;  how is it fun to play a pantomime round of war before the real war?  G40 is already a kind of 4 hour rehearsal to get to the part of the game where everyone is obligated to be at war…are we moving that to 6 hours?

I’m still trying to bear this post in mind, though I really think it is directed more at that proposed global HR in the other section, rather than the idea presented here.

I agree that a large part of the appeal of A&A is the fixed nature of the opening, but I think I could make the case that the zero turn is actually more fixed than a typically large Allied bid under the OOB turn sequence. Lets say for argument that we are talking about a zero turn that includes the purchase phase as well as non-com. In that situation there are only 4 tiles on the board where new units could enter play, W. US, sz 56, E. US, sz 11. Compare this with an open bid, where there are at least a dozen viable locations (and many more that would be technically “legal” for housing new bid units).

In the zero turn, only one of the three Allies (the US) will see a change to the distribution of their starting forces, whereas with an open bid it could be any/all of the Allies. The US is also the nation with the least capability to actually destroy Axis TUV in the opening round (this start is much more oriented towards preserving American TUV, rather than destroying Axis TUV), but compare that to a bid, where the new units are almost always dedicated to destroying Axis TUV in the opener.

In defense of the traditional bid process, I will say that it certainly has three things going for it… First bidding is common, and players will tend to gravitate towards whatever is popular among other players (people all like to be on the same page going into a game like this.) Second its relatively quick to implement. Third it provides the desired degree of balance by sides (when choosing who will play who), but with an element of variability that presents the opening from getting too stale.

One thing that the traditional bid process doesn’t necessarily accomplish though, which I think people also want, is to create a balanced gameplay situation that looks a bit more like the historical conflict. I don’t mean a full on straight-jacket (there are definite limits to what you can do with A&A, before it loses its charm), but just something that resembles WW2 in 1942 a little more closely, at least for the first couple rounds. With a large enough open bid OOB, you can certainly get to the point where the Allies can pull out a game winning start, but whether that game ends up looking or feeling anything like 1942 while you’re doing it is another issue.

Will an A0 start be enough to truly alter the “drive to Moscow” dynamic that’s been the hallmark/bane of the game since Classic? Probably not. I think that would require a much more substantive change, including the rules for victory or looting capitals, and the distribution of starting forces in Russia. But I think it gets you a lot closer to making a Pacific campaign viable, or even a dual front campaign, which is still no small thing for an A&A game. I don’t think you can really get as far with an open bid. You might be able to with a set bid (i.e. fixed set up change), but those are more laborious to craft and tend to be less popular, since they involve a degree of strong-arming and apologetics, as you try to defend specific changes vs the open bid alternative, or vs every other possible custom change that one might make.

It’s not so much the bid process that I take issue with, but rather, that I don’t think an open bid alone can create the sort of historical play-patterns for the opening round that many players seem to desire for 1942.2.  If however, you invert the map with the A0 start, and instead bid for Axis, maybe we end up with something a bit more satisfying in that regard?

I’d have a hard time at this point suggesting a particular bid amount for Axis under those conditions, because the Axis positional advantage is still quite strong, so its tough to say how much they really need to stay competitive. Going back to Classic (and in nearly every game since), people have often used bids to mess with the balance around the Med, Egypt and the Suez canal, to stack the Eastern Front, or alternatively for Japanese transports. I’m guessing you might see similar things here when introducing an Axis bid, if only because its familiar haha. But who knows, maybe it balances all by itself, without the need for a bid? If not, I can imagine some interesting options in the 6-10 range for Axis.

All good points, Black Elk.

I would add, as an other benefit, it allows US player to have a lot to think at the beginning of the game, since R0 and R1 may keep moving a lot of US units on board. You don’t get this with Centre bid.

This US restricted script in OOB 1942.2 is a weakness when playing 5 players.
If US is unlucky when his R1 begins, he has nothing left in China (at most 2 Inf and 1 Fg) and no unit in Hawaiian SZ (nothing to attack if IJN cruiser sunk, if IJN makes a light assault with no carrier) and nothing left on East Coast SZ (2 TPs and 1 DD sunk) making AntiSub mission on u-boats impossible US1. So, US can only move 3 Fgs and 1 bomber. And have to reinforced US West Coast BB, DD, TP with Panama Cruiser and purchase before moving in PTO.

All other players have fun the first 90 minutes of play, while US player sit and wait before doing something substantial later, turn 2 (is to early but many impatient US want to move something on board) better turn 3.

Turn Zero, even with no combat, helps US player think about real strategy and how he can balance purchase on 2 fronts war.
Actually, OOB scenario above leads to an unhistorical, boring but optimized all units stack on East Coast for a KGF.
OOB, US player may think to go KJF only if Japan naval combat went sour (or full Carrier on Hawaii) or never attack Pearl Harbour.

I agree with all of the above. Re: avoiding the drive to Moscow, it might be interesting to combine the A0 start (with or without an Axis bid) with the weighted victory cities someone recently proposed in the house rules section. They have capitals that are worth 3 VCs, secondary factories like Rome and Calcutta worth 2 VCS each, and symbolic population centers like Cairo, Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, etc. worth 1 VC each. The neat thing about this setup is that it can further encourage a historic “dual theater” focus because the Allies can lose if Japan takes, e.g., Honolulu, Sydney, Cairo, and Calcutta without any corresponding Allied gains, so you can afford to give up some ground while retreating before a superior assault, but if you just evacuate the Pacific and send everything through the canal, you might lose before your boats arrive off the coast of Paris!

I think this nicely captures the only “real” threat posed by the historical Axis once the USA joined the war: the risk that the Axis would rack up so many wins in one or another region of the world that smaller Allies (e.g. Australia, Brazil, etc.) would be intimidated into neutrality, and popular support for the war would crumble in the US/UK to the point where they were politically forced to agree to a separate peace.

@Baron:

Just a transcript of the file below (for those which don’t want to load the file). And make comments easier.

How to retrieve victory in A&A Spring 1942 2.nd Ed. - House Rules (rev1.0)
(Rules for additional victory cities to increase the strategic depth of A&A 42)

At the end of US turn, the victory conditions are checked. If one of the powers has at least 25 victory points, it is considered as the winner of the game. Victory points are provided by holding countries that contain a certain important victory city. Each of these cities provide 1, 2 or 3 victory points and the sum must be 25 or more to win the game.
As far as possible, the victory cities represent a certain kind of importance for the global political situation. Controlling them symbolizes an important part of winning the whole war. However, due to tactical and strategic issues, some of the victory cities (and their specific position on the map) were chosen simply due to the fact that it improves the experience of game play. They open up new interesting strategies and give action to some of the fewer busy areas of the map.

3 Victory Points
Russia Moscow
Germany Berlin
United Kingdom London
Japan Tokyo
Eastern United States Washington

2 Victory Points
Karelia S.S.R. Leningrad
France Paris
Italy Rome
India Calcutta
Kiangsu Shanghai
Philippine Islands Manila
Western United States San Francisco

1 Victory Point
Caucasus  Stalingrad
Norway  Oslo
Ukraine  Kiev
Eastern Canada  Ottawa
Egypt  Cairo
Union of South Africa  Cape Town
Eastern Australia  Sydney
Manchuria  Beijing
East Indies  Jakarta
Brazil  Rio de Janeiro
Hawaiian Islands  Honolulu

Starting Victory Points:
Axis Power: 18 VP
Germany: 9 VP
Japan: 9 VP

Allies Power: 22 VP
Russia: 6 VP
United Kingdom: 9 VP
United States: 7 VP

The Allies Power has a beginning advantage of 4 VP and only need 3 more VP to win. This opens up some new strategic possibilities to overwhelm unwary Axis players and end the game rather quickly. However, the capital cities like Berlin or Tokyo should be rather impossible to conquer (getting one of them would be sufficient) but some others are quite exposed and easy to get, like Kiev or Jakarta.

The Axis Power needs additional 7 VP (4 more than the Allies), which might look really imbalanced, but some of the Allies’ Victory Cities are really simple to get (eg. Cairo, Honolulu). In this version the Allies players do not only have to defend Moscow and London, but also the rest of the world, which is totally different to normal games. Instead of the ordinary great battle in Europe, now the Axis also can strike at new areas. For example getting India, Karelia, Egypt, Australia and Hawaii is enough to win.

The national setup charts were changed significantly. With these changes, the setup is less historically but more motivated by providing a larger variety of strategic possibilities, bringing the war to regions where normally nothing happens and last but not least by improving balance.

Changes to the Rules

Minor Industrial Complex
Cost: 10 IPC
Placement: Any territory with at least 1 IPC and that was under your control at the beginning of your turn.
Unit Production: Up to 2 units with maximum of 10 IPC worth each
Upgrade: Can be upgraded to Major Industrial Complex for 15 IPC

Major Industrial Complex
Cost: +15 IPC (only upgradeable from Minor Complex)
Placement: Any territory with at least 3 IPC production, already containing a Minor Complex, and was under your control at the beginning of your turn.
Unit Production: Up to 5 units with no IPC worth limit

Cruiser
Price reduction to 10 IPC

Battleship
Price reduction to 18 IPC

Aircraft Carrier
Price increase to 15 IPC

I sympathize. If you guys were hoping for a match more like Revised or AA50, 1942.2 will probably be a disappointment. Even with a large bid, you are not looking at a breakout situation for Allies. Even a large bid isn’t going to put you reliably on the offensive, it’s more there to keep you from dying too quickly.

Unfortunately its a lot harder to provide detailed feedback for face to face games. With a gamesave I can usually point to a specific turn when things came unhinged for Allies, but here we’d need more info. Germany really shouldn’t be in a position to take Moscow in 4 rounds. My guess is this is W. Russia we’re talking about? Or else something must be going a bit off with the deadzones on the Eastern front. The Russian stack seems a little thin for the 4th round, but they still have the advantage.

With the forces you described…

Germany 9 inf, 17 tanks, 5 fighters and 1 bomber (?) vs
Russia 21 inf, 2 tanks, 3 artillery, 6 fighters, 2 aaaguns

25% odds for the German attacker with a single tank and the aircraft surviving. About 35% if they brought 6 fighters instead of 5.

Add 2 more fighters to that Allied defense, and Germany’s odds drop to just 5% (with 5 fighters) or 10% (with 6 fighters). The Russian defender survives with 12/10 units (ie. all soviet fighters and tanks) on average.

Even a single defensive Allied bomber can put this one out of reach for Germany.

So I’d say the main issue here is probably an overly confident Axis player. When your opponent isn’t crunching the numbers you need more fighter cover to deter them. One assumes that what’s going on is perhaps an overcommitment of aircraft to India, or perhaps on carriers? Another possibility is that Russia did not purchase sufficient artillery early on. Even a couple more artillery pieces in the second round, can be the difference between deadzoning the Germans (and buying yourself one more round for the Brits to fly in fighter support) or allowing the Germans to advance with Japanese air support, making them next to impossible to dislodge.

Whatever the case, your general frustration with the Allied balance, would seem to align with the experience of other players. If the bid is the only option for your playgroup, then going high is probably the best you can get. I’d try it at 24+ if that’s the case.

Ps. Just a brief minute to grumble…
:-)

I still wish they had reissued AA50 instead of creating these 1942 “revisions” of the Revised map, using a vaguely AA50 ruleset but without the same charm and dynamism of AA50. When the AA50 game came out I was able to buy it for less than 80 dollars. Now it’s going for like a grand on ebay.

The chances of newer players getting their hands on a copy now are pretty slim, but it really was the best A&A map to come out since classic. I think it is superior to global, or any of the boards currently in print, refined to a level that you could really appreciate. Even for all my bagging on NOs and China rules on the Larry forums, when it first came out, it was a great map.

Unfortunately someone made the calculation that a re-issue would be unfair or upsetting to “collectors.” I never understood this. I’m a collector, and I would have been perfectly happy to see it reissued. They could easily have altered the packaging, or the sculpts, or the colors of various game materials to distinguish the “collectors” edition, from the re-issue. But this didn’t happen. Instead we got a reissue of Revised with new rules, and then a tweak to that put out as a second edition, and they just don’t have anywhere near the same degree of polish. I think AA50 was highly adaptive and capable of standing the test of time. All my favorite core House Rules, were rules developed for use on that map. It had some kinks sure, but those were easy enough to address. Using a China first turn order for example in the 1941 scenario of AA50, remains one of my favorite A&A games ever. The 1942 scenario there was also solid, albeit less popular. Both were easy to tweak with HRs.

But the print run was too limited for AA50 to serve as the backbone of A&A going forward, (even global has a price point that makes it pretty inaccessible for casual players) so we are left with 1942.2.  Its not a bad game, don’t get me wrong, but it cries out for an official addendum or some new tournament conventions, to shore up the issues present in the boxed game. I think this is possible, but requires some willingness on the part of the players to go beyond the printed manual and errata.

I think a simple fix is more likely to be accepted than one which is overly involved, which is why I hesitate to suggest too much at once. I don’t think you need more VCs to make the A0 concept work. Would it be better with more VCs? Sure! But I know how players are, and I think it will be a tough sell.

I mostly agree with you, Black Elk. The AA50 is perhaps a little too complicated to serve as the “mainstream” edition of A&A – between the national advantages and the China rules and the larger number of territories, there’s just a little too much going on for a “medium-weight game.” It’s a heavyweight game. It’s a great heavyweight game, and it’s well worth the time and effort, but ideally you’d want something a little shorter/smaller/simpler for the flagship product.

That said, the bungling series of blunders that WotC/Avalon Hill actually engaged in – releasing AA50 as collectors-only, and then releasing a Spring 1942 edition that was barely changed from Revised, and then a 1942.2 edition that was barely changed from Spring 1942, and then releasing the Europe & Pacific 1940 editions in two separate $80 boxes that were so inadequately playtested that they needed three sets of semi-official rules patches just to be playable, all within 5 years of each other…well, it’s no wonder that the Axis & Allies brand is now mostly dead as an ongoing commercial concern. You only get so many second chances.

On a practical note, I wonder what it would take to get some house rules for 1942.2 together that would be accepted as official enough to be used in tournaments. What are the major A&A tournaments, besides GenCon and the TripleA ladder? Who runs them? Is Larry Harris available for comment on 1942.2 changes? If not, is there anyone at WotC who serves as the de facto Axis & Allies czar? Is there any combination of players from this forum whose word, collectively, could be taken as official? E.g. if MarineIguana and Baron Munchhausen and BlackElk and HerrRommel and DarthMaximus and CWO Marc and Private Panic and innohub and Young Grasshopper all unanimously agreed on a set of 1942.2 house rules, is there any chance of convincing the GenCon tournament organizers to use them? Or will the GenCon people stubbornly wait for word from Larry Harris even if Mr. Harris were frozen in carbonite?

Oh, and re: taamvan’s point about changing the opening setup and the middlegame strategies and the endgame winning conditions all at once…I see that as less of a sign that the game is horribly broken, and more of a sign that the game’s phases are appropriately interdependent. If you could change the win conditions without having any effect on what opening strategies people use, or if you could change the opening setup and still have people gun for exactly the same kind of endgame wins, then to me that would be a sign that you have a very rigidly scripted game that doesn’t allow its players enough free will. To me it’s only natural to want to make changes to multiple parts of the game at once, because a change in one part will cause a change to a second part, and so it’s likely that you’ll need to make at least some changes to the second part to help balance out the effects of the first change. That said, I appreciate Black Elk’s point that the fewer changes we can make, the better our odds of getting the changes accepted, and I also appreciate that the A0 start manages to have some good effects at all stages of the game despite being a relatively small and simple change.