@Panther thank you
Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]
-
All I’m gonna say is pretty much all of the games mostly have Japan becoming a monster if ignored by the US. It doesn’t help when Japan just builds mostly tanks and runs every body over. To me that is just wrong. Not to hack this thread or go off topic to far.
You need to restrict Japan on tanks and movement in Asia and Siberia and get most of the Islands involved in the Pacific so Japan has to focus more on protecting them more and making the US go 60 -40 most of the game. I’m in the process of testing this in my game now. Other wise not interested in what i’m saying, OK then just disreguard this comment. Good Luck. By the way I do like your idea about M Tank C5 A2 D2 and H Tank C6 A3 D3. -
@SS-GEN That’s very relevant commentary, and I’m interested, so, thank you, SS Gen.
I agree that many A&A games have an issue where Japan becomes a monster if ignored by the US – some might see that as a problem, and some might see that as a feature – maybe the USA should have to pay at least some attention to Japan to keep them contained.
What bugs me about Anniversary 1941 is that, at least in my experience, even if the USA focuses 100% on containing Japan, sometimes Japan still grows big enough to be a huge problem for the Allies. For the most part I like Anniversary better than Global, but one thing I think Global gets right is that the USA, at war, is cranking out 80+ IPCs a turn even before they have any major conquests, whereas Japan, even after grabbing the valuable territories in their immediate neighborhood, is still only making 50 IPCs per turn – so if the USA focuses entirely on Japan early in the game, then the USA will still have the stronger economy and will be able to reliably beat Japan down – the only question is whether that beatdown will happen fast enough for Moscow and/or Cairo to hold against Germany and Italy. By contrast, in Anniversary, Japan can singlehandedly outearn the entire American economy, even when America is spending 100% on the Pacific…and because (with no bid) there aren’t any suitable territories for an Allied factory in the Pacific, America is the only Ally that will be spending any money in the Pacific, so Japan can still dominate even when all the Allies go 100% KJF. That’s crazy. I didn’t believe it at first, but @axis_roll pounded me into the dirt repeatedly in the process of showing me how and why it’s true, and now I’m a convert. So that’s the problem I’m trying to solve; I’d like to see an Allied Pacific force that’s capable of meaningful resistance to the Japanese expansion.
I completely agree with your criticism about Japanese tanks in, say, Axis & Allies 1942 Second Edition, or Axis & Allies Revised, or, even, to a lesser extent, in Axis & Allies Global 1940. Japanese tanks blitzing through the Gobi Desert, the Himalayas, or the frozen swamps of Siberia should not really be a major theme of this game. Japan did not have and could not have built a logistical infrastructure capable of delivering spare parts, fuel, and ammo for tanks over 2,000+ miles of hostile, snowy, mountainous terrain.
That said, I’ve never noticed Japanese tanks in Anniversary to be a major problem; my Japanese opponents typically use transports to conquer coastal Allied territories, as well they should. If you or anyone else is having trouble with Japanese tanks in Anniversary, I suppose it’s perfectly reasonable to nerf the Japanese tanks down to A2 D2 M2 C5 – they were, after all, mostly light tanks and somewhat outdated relative to other superpowers’ models. You could also just have a house rule that there’s no blitzing (for anyone) in western China or central Siberia.
-
Well I do have a house rule where all motorized units in game can only move 1 in Asia and Siberia. Japan never got deep into Asia or Siberia plus they only had 700 tanks in war.
As for anniversary and tanks for Japan I don’t know about in that game. You would think 5 icp tanks would be a problem.
Ya I agree what your saying if US goes 100% in pacific and Japan still is a small monster.
May need a setup tweak.
Maybe Axis Roll has a better answer.As far as my game with my tweaks to Japan and other stuff is going great and Japan can get the money inland but it takes them at least a bit longer in time and need the money islands and also has to protect there island NO and from keeping US from getting them too.
Japan now has a ton of decisions to make and no more maps. Anyway sorry I got carried away. -
@Argothair The game’s unbalance is not terrible. With NOs, it merely requires about 10 IPCs worth of units added as bid to the Allies (you would buy something like 1 artillery and 2 infantry for Russians with) (you would need a bigger bid if you play with LL, as LL favours the Axis’ openings, but this is a houserule, albeit popular, so I’m not considering it). Since it’s the Axis that opens the game virtually everywhere, there is no way the bid is going to immediately produce some big advantage on round 1. So, yes, that is about the same advantage as getting consistently about +5 IPCs per each turn after a couple initial rounds. The NOs mildly but quite surely give a small advantage to the Axis, also in reducing bombing effectiveness, and this is what unbalances the game. Without NOs (and without LL), the game is balanced (as long as Americans capitalize on bombers’ effectiveness, hurrying to get a stack to bomb Germany to 20 damage or almost so).
-
@Cernel Really, you can balance the game by just removing the easiest +5 NOs for Japan (Manchuria etc.), from the original rules, all rest the same.
(in case Germans get their normal NOs, bombers spam with Americans is still an option, but not a mandatory or even prevailing one, as the added income from NOs goes a fairly long way in making Germany too hard to crack with bombing)
-
@Argothair
Hi Argo,
my idea on Tank was to nerfed down both Germany (7 Tanks, loosing 14 A/D points), and 1 Japan Tank loosing 2 points, and much more to get India or Russia if purchasing A2 C5 Tank) giving more time to Allies for building units.Thanks for additional explanations on the issue in PTO.
From what I see, it mostly rely on USA NOs.
You suggested:
3 IPCs if Allies control Western US, Central US, and Eastern US
3 IPCs if Allies control Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil, Hawaii, and Alaska
3 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW Europe
5 IPCs if Allies control 4+ of: Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa
5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines or Formosa
For easier calculation, I would group Europeans NOs together and rise US bonus to 5 IPCs:
5 IPCs if Allies control Western USA, Central US, Eastern US.
5 IPCs Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil and Greenland.
(All US peripheric TTs in ETO.
Including Greenland is a way to provide for Germany amphib target which might help Japan against USA.)5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, Alaska and Western USA.
(Western USA capture is meant to cut down 2 NOs.)
5 IPCs if Allies control Midway, Wake, Solomons and Australia
5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese TTs: Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa
5 IPCs if Allies control PhilippinesThis increase the stakes for Japan to help Germany by lowering down US income.
But, it will slowdown TTs expansion in Asia to cutdown USA income.
5 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW EuropeThat way, USA get stronger and stronger by turn two, unless Japan cut down a few NOs.
JAPAN
- 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Alaska, Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa
- 5 IPCs if Axis control Western USA
-
@Cernel That’s a clear explanation, thank you. I agree that the unbalance is not terrible, although my playgroup usually has a bid closer to 15 IPCs, even without low luck and with the Turkish straits closed. I think I disagree with you about the bid not producing huge swings: a factory bid in India, for example, can totally change the balance of power in the Pacific; instead of Japan winding up with control of India, which gives Japan its 3rd NO, solidifies control of Burma and Indochina, and gives Japan a plausible factory site from which to threaten the Caucasus and Egypt, the UK has control of India, which usually denies Japan its 3rd NO, threatens control of Burma and Indochina, and can stretch Japan to the point where the US and/or UK are likely to start picking up some NOs in the Pacific islands. Likewise, a couple of artillery in eastern Europe can force the Germans to either give up on the eastern European NO on turn 1 or subject its tanks to a devastating counter-attack that’s likely to cost it the eastern European NO on turn 2, which in turn means that Germany usually won’t have enough cash to both defend France and take Leningrad on turn 3. There are chain reactions, is what I’m trying to say. A few bucks before the start of the game can be much, much more important than the same amount of money on turn 3.
That said, I have no reason to disagree with your assessment that a horde of US bombers can balance the game by devastating Germany when Germany is deprived of its NO income. That sounds reasonable. It just doesn’t sound like the sort of game that I’d really enjoy. I prefer wars of maneuver and surprise to a straightforward slug-fest fought with AAA gun dice.
@baron-Münchhausen Very interesting, thank you. I like the idea of adding Greenland to the “Monroe Doctrine” national objective with Mexico and Cuba, and I am editing the original post to make that change.
I also think there’s something interesting going on with your idea of having two separate Pacific island NOs, one for Australia and the southern Pacific, and one for the central Pacific and/or Japanese-owned islands. US trade with Australia through the Solomon Islands was valuable for both countries; the US needed Australia’s aluminum almost as much as Australia needed the Western Hemisphere’s rubber and oil. That said, Midway and Wake Island really have nothing to do with trade with Australia, and by the time you get to Formosa you’re not necessarily talking about the Central Pacific anymore; that’s a West Pacific island. So this idea is promising, but it needs a little more work, and I’m not entirely sure how to fix it.
As far as bumping the European NOs back up to 5 IPCs each, I can’t please both you and @axis_roll! He wanted them lower to encourage more action in the Pacific. I certainly understand the urge to make calculation easier, and I support that goal, but I can’t have it both ways.
-
I included Formosa to allow more participation from UK.
So, this NOs might figure the South-Pacific campaign from Australia toward Philipines and Japan.I don’t like having 7 or 8 NOs.
Less is easier to remember but means more TTs in the bag.I mostly look at USA NOs from Japanese POV (and ww2 history) so to motivate IJN to cut down in different ways these US income.
Wake, Midway were real amphib landing objectives.
So, Australia, Solomon, Wake and Midway were different ways to shutdown US income from PTO without scripting too much the game.You can see all these islands as airbase from which IJN bombers can destroyed US merchant shipping across PTO.
-
@baron-Münchhausen Fair enough! That makes perfect sense, and I would cheerfully play a game based on that idea, but it’s not the design philosophy I’m aiming for. I like to have NOs based on what each country was historically trying to achieve, not NOs based on what enemies might have been able to do to disrupt a country’s achievements. That helps make the NOs easier for me to remember.
It’s just a matter of personal taste, though – I bet a lot of people would really enjoy having things go the other way around.
-
Maybe this might better suit your taste?
Northern Pacific air and sea ways control (Lend-Lease toward USSR):
5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, Midway, Alaska and Western USA.
(Western USA capture is still meant to cut down 2 NOs.)Southern Pacific sea ways control (Lend-lease toward UK-ANZAC allies):
5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, New Guinea, Solomons and Australia
(Hawaii capture is meant to cut down 2 NOs.)Major Pacific Japanese land bases:
5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese TTs: Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, FormosaUS Pacific command centre:
5 IPCs if Allies control PhilippinesJAPAN
Outer defense perimeter:- 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Alaska, Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima
- 5 IPCs if Axis control Western USA
-
@baron-Münchhausen Yes, I like that much better. Thank you! :)
-
This post is deleted! -
@Argothair
I got rid of Wake in USA NO while keeping it into Japan NOs.
Hawaii is major for 2 USA NOs but not necessary to block these NOs by Japan.
However, invading Hawaii is killing 2 birds with one stone for IJN. -
@Argothair said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:
As far as bumping the European NOs back up to 5 IPCs each, I can’t please both you and @axis_roll! He wanted them lower to encourage more action in the Pacific. I certainly understand the urge to make calculation easier, and I support that goal, but I can’t have it both ways.
To make NOs simpler, I would get ride of the WUSA, CUSA and EUSA NOs.
Just keeping Greenland, Mexico, Panama, Cuba and Brazil at 5 IPCs and Morocco at 5 IPCs too. If you have both, you get 10 IPCs instead of 9 previously.
All Pacifics NOs at 5 IPCs make protecting them more incentive.UNITED STATES
Arsenal of Democracy:
Northern Pacific air and sea ways control (Lend-lease toward USSR):
5 IPCs if Allies control Midway, Hawaii, Alaska and Western USA.Southern Pacific sea ways control (Lend-lease toward UK-ANZAC allies):
5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, Solomons, Hawaii, Western USA
(Hawaii and Western USA capture by Japan is meant to cut down 2 NOs.
I replaced New Guinea with Western USA, so Japan capture of New Guinea will not cut down 2 NOs: 1 US and 1 UK.)Capture of Major Pacific Imperial Japanese Navy bases and airfields:
5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese Islands: Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, CarolinesUSA Pacific Command Center:
5 IPCs if Allies control PhilippinesMonroe Doctrine, no European interference in Americas countries and territories:
5 IPCs if Allies control Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil and Greenland.USA Military Support of European Allies:
5 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW EuropeJAPAN
Japan Outer Defense Perimeter:
5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Iwo Jima, Carolines, Alaska, Midway, Hawaiian Islands, Wake Island, Solomons
5 IPCs if Axis Powers control at least one of the following territories: India, Australia, New Zealand and/or Western USA.“The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”:
- 5 IPCs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, Fukien, Kwantung, and French Indochina/Thailand
5 IPCs if Axis control Borneo and/or East Indies, and no Allied subs anywhere in SZ 49, 50, 60, 61, or 62
UNITED KINGDOM (South-East Command NOs)
ANZAC Coordination Centers:
5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand.
UK-Pacific major Bases to oppose IJA advance in Asia:
5 IPCs if Allies control India, French Indochina, and Kwangtung. - 5 IPCs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, Fukien, Kwantung, and French Indochina/Thailand
-
I’m curious in what is the normal mostly bid of 15 ? Pieces ?
Have you tried to remove 2 Japan transports from setup ?
Have you tried to give US 2 NO’s at start of game where Japan has to divert some navy to take away from US in early Turns ?
-
@SS-GEN
Good questions.
Cutting down starting IJN TPs seems a working way to delay Japan expansion. IMO, it is detrimental to the funny aspects of J1 turn however. For my part, I would not go in this direction. -
Then give the US more money.
-
@SS-GEN
That is what I was trying by giving easy 10 IPCs from 2 NOs and moderately easy 10 IPCs additional from 2 NOs compared to OOB USA NOs:5 for control all of the following territories: Western United States, Central United States, and Eastern United States.
5 Control at least three of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, and/or Solomon Islands.
5 Control the Philippine Islands.
5 Control France. -
Right. But with 15 bid for Allies and 2 NO 10 Icps for US why not try to remove the 15 bid with another change.
-
I like the NO where both US and Japan get if either one controls. Now you can have more islands involved but probably not the way Agra wants to go.
Suggested Topics
