I am a fan of taking smaller balancing steps when I find out that the original game balance might be a problem. This goes for any game including this one.
At first I have to say that I don´t think the odds are in such heavy favor for the Axis side as many have written. Of course the odds are hard to quantify, because dice luck and mistakes can have a huge impact. My impression is that the Axis side may be favoured in sth. like 60:40.
What we did to keep it in a close-to-50/50 balance:
The “Closing Dardanelles” rule is a must have.
Beyond that changes on the technology chart are useful. We use different tech trees for each nation (including new technologies). Next to balancing purposes this also serves to add more historical accuracy.
In addition we invented a rule that differenciates between old tanks and modern tanks (you will need to add a model type for those old German and Soviet tanks). Japan, Italy and GB will be restricted to old tanks (attack value of “2” instead of “3”) for the whole game. Germany and the CCCP will start with a mixture of old and new tanks, but both can produce modern ones. This takes some of the “gas” out of the Axis offensive power. E.g. it might slow down Japan´s progress in Asia just a little. Same with the Axis in North Africa. And it adds historical accuracy.
Another tiny modification: We give Italy the territory of Italian East Africa as a “home territory” (because it was officially still their colony when the game starts in the summer of 1941). This gives Italy one additional IPC at the start of the game, but we also move one British infantry unit from South Africa to
Rhodesia in the starting setup. Thus Italian East Africa will fall within the first British turn and their infantry can reach Egypt more quickly.
Small modifications, but the result is a close-to-50/50 balancing. Our last game took sth. like 12 hours over two days.
It works.
@Marcsson makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing your idea with us. Totally agree on Japanese and a Italian tank deficiencies. Perhaps, I would leave the British on a 3 attack, however. Its commanders, tactics and doctrine of attack were aggressive (Operation Compass and the later desert battles) and the tanks were heavier than both the Italian and Japanese ones, although some were painfully slow.
I perfectly understand what you‘re saying and I agree that the British tanks in 1941 (Matildas, Cruisers, Stuarts, Crusaders - we‘re talking about the 41 scenario) were better than the Italian or Japanese ones. On the other hand they were probably inferior to German or Soviet tanks of that time. I guess the truth lies in between, but I had to chose between „2“ and „3“ as the attack value while „2.5“ might be correct.
The game comes with Matilda models for the Empire and Panthers (a bit early) for the Reich. So I went for the lower attack value.
British tanks improved with the USA supporting the UK with Shermans. So I have thought about a rule / tech development that installs the production of British Sherman’s, but yet I have decided against it, because the balance seems to be perfect after my adjustments.
@Marcsson I totally understand. Just wondered if it made it easier if all the Allied Tanks were at 3 , as they need the help in this game.
Thank you for your comment. I guess we think the same way.
Lowering the tanks‘ attack value for two Axis powers and one of the Allies has already changed a lot, because especially Japan has to rely heavily on tanks when marching though Asia. Attacking with „2“ instead of „3“ takes 33% of their power away. The UK usually is less aggressive and needs less tanks. The US can provide that element while establishing in North Africa, Norway or France.
But the idea is still in my mind to enhance UK’s firepower for the later stages.
