I’m new to the game and the forum, and it seems like a lot of people are upset over how unbalanced the game is (I haven’t played it enough to be too bothered by it), but I was just wondering what you guys would think of moving the point value of some of Germany’s territories over to West Russia? Axis and Allies is supposed to be a somewhat asymmetrical game where the Axis try to take as much as they can as fast as they can whereas the Allies are trying to last long enough to where their greater total IPC income can overcome the larger force that the axis start the game with. By moving the points to West Russia (a territory that they usually lose turn one). The IPC gap between the axis and the allies gets even bigger after turn one so the allies can start taking control sooner.
The way I see it, by lowering the value of some of Germany’s less important regions you can boost the value of West Russia to 8 points. An easy start to doing this would be merging Morocco and Algeria to a 1-point territory and making Norway worth 1 point instead of two. You can also lower the value of other territories like Poland, Ukraine S.S.R., Bulgaria Romania, and Southern Europe. That change in 8 points after the first round both raises the Allies’ income and lowers the Axis’, so it is like a 16-point shift in the Allies’ favor. I believe that this is greater than most starting bids (I don’t know I haven’t played enough yet), but it shouldn’t make the game Allies’ advantage now because the beginning of the game looks the same as before. At any rate, this should make Germany either weaker in the late game if they don’t take it back quickly or thinner in the short game if they do. Either position is good for the Allies.
Now this may not be very historically accurate as there’s no way West Russia was worth this much, and it has the odd quirk of making Russia have more income than both Britain and Japan, but again, you guys probably know more than me, and could figure out if a 6 or 7 point swing would be more balanced/realistic.
This would probably have to be for LHTR because OOB might be way too unbalanced. Let me know if you guys think that this would be a good idea.
Interesting way to get a better balance.
Maybe this + 8 IPCs shift can be made without using the map and average.
We still have to invent a way to provide
@willdan5 1942 SE with the tournament setup is pretty balanced. Germany will defeat Russia 1v1, but it isn’t a 1v1 game.
@willdan5 The Axis have a very slight advantage in 1942 2nd and original to the point where I believe in both games your change would be a vast over correction. In most competitive games the standard bid is 4-6 and I believe it was 7 in the old version of 1942. Most beginners think the Axis are stronger than they actually are due to the low skill required to play as the Axis vs as the Allies. I would encourage you to watch a helpful youtuber such as Board Game Nation if you are struggling to win as the Axis.
@Faramir said in [1942 SE] Balancing the game suggestion:
@willdan5 1942 SE with the tournament setup is pretty balanced. Germany will defeat Russia 1v1, but it isn’t a 1v1 game.
However, Russia1 is pretty scripted on Ukraine S.S.R.
@baron-Münchhausen i think the game is balanced ( NO BID NEEDED IN 3.0)
But im about player options and alternate ways to win.
Russia needs a bomber and like 2 more units
Germany needs to have the 2 planes in UKR out of reach and 1 infantry in Afrika and 1 ship plus 1 more infantry UKR
UK needs to be out of reach of Japanese AP ad DD but one more ship or 1-2 more units in India
Japan needs 1 CA more and 1 more in Manchukuo, possibly 1 inf more on money island ( Borneo)
USA I know this is spring 42 but it would be nice if we replace the USA CV in Hawaii with BB, the carrier and fighter are gone…
Add a few land units in USA, 1-2 infantry in china more. China is a road apple and too easy for Japan.
The far east Russian group needs to be at least 1 art and possibly 1 tank, or plane ( possibly move 1 of her 3 planes over)
Their is no action from Russia to Manchukuo
Player options are the best way to make the game more fun. I learned this from Axis Roll BTW. Not as much Historical, but player options.
Chess has more way to win then grains of sand on every beach on Earth. If we can be more flexible like Chess, AA will succeed
@Imperious-Leader I think a handful of play tested alternate setups/scenario’s could be a very positive thing for the game. It pains me that Russia is pretty much locked into 1 opening move.
@8d88 yep 9/12…boring
@Imperious-Leader They cant really trade or have real options… even those UKR tanks are getting lost most of the time.
@Imperious-Leader The last time I introduced new players I heard myself talking saying “yeah, Russia, you really have to do this 9/12 to start … also hope it goes well … if it goes really badly we might just want to reset the board rather than wasting a handful of hours.”
They were new to the game but very knowledgeable gamers, so this led to a series of questions and discussions. We then talked about just taking a statistical average of the 9/12 and writing a new setup reference, then next game starting with a Russian rule of non-combat only first round, so we don’t have this problem.
@Imperious-Leader If your argument is purely that a meta exists then your argument is illogical. If you roll 6 d20s and get 4,8,9,11,15,17 then 17 is the highest. If 17 wasn’t the highest a different number would be because that’s how numbers work. If your argument is that the gap between 1st and 2nd is too big then that’s at least debatable (although probably wrong).
@8d88 I made a post for this here…
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40631/1942-2nd-ed-aa42-skip-the-9-12-setup
I think my home games are going to use this modded setup for the time being.
I’m still curious about giving Russia some more latitude too.
@Imperious-Leader Seeing as how Russia has the coolest bomber sculpts, I’d like to see russia start with one.
@lilkdrizzle My interpretation of the argument is that Russia is just too handcuffed
@8d88 if you think that the USSR is too weak, just give them a Bomber in Russia. It opens up a few more options for them.
@Faramir yea but Germany get compensation too . moving planes in UKR out of the way helps them too no? Now Germany attacking 7 is more predictable and egypt gets more so thats out G1. UK also gets like 1 DD, and the CA off Trafalgar is moved to 12 but can still help, not kill German Medd BB, but fight subs. It just makes sense.
@Faramir It’s not that I think Russia is too weak necessarily, I’m not sure, but I would like to see them have some more strategic options in general. So far I think playing Russia is more interesting in this version than in classic and revised but it would be nice if playing Russia was a bit more fun and flexible. I’m not an historical accuracy fanatic but I’m curious to know if Russia was really this vulnerable in real life, my guess is they probably weren’t. I like the suggestions from Imperious Leader here. Giving Russia a bomber and Letting Germany keep their bomber safe was something I was considering.
@8d88 but also change up the far east group. it wasn’t only infantry, it was mechanized, 1 tank, 1 art and 2-3 infantry.
The Manchukuo force should have similar composition. and the Americans in China should have 1-2 more infantry, and 1 artillery at least. China had 500 divisions of admittedly poor quality, but that’s reduced to Japanese army road apples.
Assuming LHTR 3.0 but moving German Bomber out of Ukraine and giving USSR a bomber while letting the Fighter in Ukraine can it be enough to keep balance in same zone as LHTR?
@baron-Münchhausen Definitely makes the initial sea battles or taking Egypt easier for Germany. But would give Russia more options.
