Game Balance & Capturing Capitols

@zooooma:

Hello.  I’m looking forward to trying this version, but have some questions:

1 - Is the “Optional Shorter Game” balanced (1 captured capitol to win).

I figure this version is probably balanced if it is nearly impossible for either side to recover from the loss of any capitol.

2 - Is Operation Sea Lion viable in this version?

That is, can it be done at all (given reasonable Allied play)?  Also, if so, can the Axis still win the war if Germany does take England?

Cheers!

1. You’re probably looking at giving this option as a quicker win for the Axis than the Allies… what this really spells out is “The Axis wins when Moscow falls”… for the Allies to take either Berlin or Tokyo will be more of a chore than for Germany to take Moscow.

2. I’d say no. At least not as a Kill Britain First strategy. Operation Sea Lion pretty much means you need Germany to purchase a fleet… the problem is the key-word “purchase”, which is pretty-much a non-existent thing in 1941. Money is very hard to come by in 1941, its probably the #1 factor that makes this game’s playtime much shorter than other versions because you can’t replace losses like you can in other games, and you can’t fundamentally change the nature of your nation’s setup with purchases (like turn Germany into a naval power).

I agree with Nowhere Man.

And bear in mind that the Axis already have the advantage even before you allow the 1 capital to win option.

@Nowhere:

@zooooma:

Hello.  I’m looking forward to trying this version, but have some questions:

1 - Is the “Optional Shorter Game” balanced (1 captured capitol to win).

I figure this version is probably balanced if it is nearly impossible for either side to recover from the loss of any capitol.

2 - Is Operation Sea Lion viable in this version?

That is, can it be done at all (given reasonable Allied play)?  Also, if so, can the Axis still win the war if Germany does take England?

Cheers!

1. You’re probably looking at giving this option as a quicker win for the Axis than the Allies… what this really spells out is “The Axis wins when Moscow falls”… for the Allies to take either Berlin or Tokyo will be more of a chore than for Germany to take Moscow.

2. I’d say no. At least not as a Kill Britain First strategy. Operation Sea Lion pretty much means you need Germany to purchase a fleet… the problem is the key-word “purchase”, which is pretty-much a non-existent thing in 1941. Money is very hard to come by in 1941, its probably the #1 factor that makes this game’s playtime much shorter than other versions because you can’t replace losses like you can in other games, and you can’t fundamentally change the nature of your nation’s setup with purchases (like turn Germany into a naval power).

One thing to note about the “take one capital to win” shorter game is that there’s a wrinkle - taking Moscow doesn’t count. The full quote from page 6 of the rule book is:

Optional Shorter Game
Capture One Enemy Capital: If the Allies control either Berlin or Tokyo at the end of the Japanese player’s turn, they win the war. If the Axis controls either Washington or London at the end of the end of the United States player’s turn, they win the war.

(emphasis added)

I figured I would point that out. I think it makes a difference in how you approach winning if taking Moscow does not net you the game, just some cash and territory value.

This also ties into the viability of doing Sealion as Germany - as I don’t think Japan is going to take Washington for the win…

-Midnight_Reaper

P.S. Edit to remove unsightly diamonds.

Good catch Midnight_Reaper I was about to point out the same thing

@Midnight_Reaper:

I figured I would point that out. I think it makes a difference in how you approach winning if taking Moscow does not net you the game, just some cash and territory value.

This also ties into the viability of doing Sealion as Germany - as I don’t think Japan is going to take Washington for the win…

It’s a good catch, my-bad I didn’t see that, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that short of the UK player just leaving England open for invasion, this is STILL 1941 we’re talking about, and my point of income problems of just magically making a fleet appear out of thin air for Germany is very, VERY hard to do with the income levels of this game.

It’s a LOT easier for the UK player on a fixed income to defend England than it is for the German player on a fixed income to build a fleet in-being from nothing and have the forces to invade England without first securing income from territories Germany doesn’t already start with.

Sealion in-and-of-itself is not the problem here, the main problem with 1941 is, and always will be, the complete lack of a reasonable income to build expensive things you don’t start the game with.

@Nowhere:

@Midnight_Reaper:

I figured I would point that out. I think it makes a difference in how you approach winning if taking Moscow does not net you the game, just some cash and territory value.

This also ties into the viability of doing Sealion as Germany - as I don’t think Japan is going to take Washington for the win…

It’s a good catch, my-bad I didn’t see that, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that short of the UK player just leaving England open for invasion, this is STILL 1941 we’re talking about, and my point of income problems of just magically making a fleet appear out of thin air for Germany is very, VERY hard to do with the income levels of this game.

It’s a LOT easier for the UK player on a fixed income to defend England than it is for the German player on a fixed income to build a fleet in-being from nothing and have the forces to invade England without first securing income from territories Germany doesn’t already start with.

Sealion in-and-of-itself is not the problem here, the main problem with 1941 is, and always will be, the complete lack of a reasonable income to build expensive things you don’t start the game with.

Lack of cash hurts both ways, though - it takes a while to build a navy at 12 IPCs, whether it’s the UK or Germany rebuilding their fleet from the first turn battles. I think I need to spend some time on AAA working this out.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Midnight_Reaper:

Lack of cash hurts both ways, though - it takes a while to build a navy at 12 IPCs, whether it’s the UK or Germany rebuilding their fleet from the first turn battles.

Lack of cash hurts both ways, but what I was getting at, building a fleet from nothing (for Germany) is very expensive and easy to spot coming, while defending England from a Sea Lion doesn’t require a fleet, it only requires far cheaper ground units (a bunch of English soldiers is a lot cheaper than trying to build a big German fleet)… it’s far easier for England to build infantry than for Germany to build a fleet with capital ships transports AND the ground troops to fill the transports, when all England has to do is build ground troops to defend against Sea Lion… yes, Britain will need to rebuild their fleet at some point from initial losses, but if Germany is trying to go Sea Lion before Moscow in 1941 (which was the initial question I believe), the money situation far favors the UK over Germany… unless the UK player is just daft and doesn’t defend England while Germany builds a fleet. As zooma pointed out, the more realistic method for the Axis to win would be to eliminate Russia first, then, using the funds from a dead Russia, build a fleet to attack the western allies.

@Nowhere-Man said in Game Balance & Capturing Capitols:

@Midnight_Reaper:

Lack of cash hurts both ways, though - it takes a while to build a navy at 12 IPCs, whether it’s the UK or Germany rebuilding their fleet from the first turn battles.

Lack of cash hurts both ways, but what I was getting at, building a fleet from nothing (for Germany) is very expensive and easy to spot coming, while defending England from a Sea Lion doesn’t require a fleet, it only requires far cheaper ground units (a bunch of English soldiers is a lot cheaper than trying to build a big German fleet)… it’s far easier for England to build infantry than for Germany to build a fleet with capital ships transports AND the ground troops to fill the transports, when all England has to do is build ground troops to defend against Sea Lion… yes, Britain will need to rebuild their fleet at some point from initial losses, but if Germany is trying to go Sea Lion before Moscow in 1941 (which was the initial question I believe), the money situation far favors the UK over Germany… unless the UK player is just daft and doesn’t defend England while Germany builds a fleet. As zooma pointed out, the more realistic method for the Axis to win would be to eliminate Russia first, then, using the funds from a dead Russia, build a fleet to attack the western allies.

I’ve played this game a few more times and I’ve come to the conclusion that - contrary to what I expected - the Axis player’s best bet to win the short game is to invade North America, starting in Alaska, and march to Washington. Japan needs to grab some cash and some factories, either from Asia (India and Siberia) and / or the Pacific (Australia, et al) and then start up the invasion fleet. If the US has focused on Germany for the first part of the game, they may have their hands full beating back “Dai Nippon Teikoku”…

-Midnight_Reaper