MY review

I haven’t played yet but have looked at the board ('41).

I wouldn’t be so quick to change things around yet.  Allied strategy ALWAYS trails the Axis.  ALWAYS.  It was like this for 2nd Ed and for Revised.  I specifically remember in Revised in the early games people claiming Germany was too tough and now the Axis need 8-9 bid just to be competitive.

I think if anything this shows that KGF is back in play and the US should do its best to only spend minimally in the Pac and Ignore Japan.  I haven’t studied the seazone moves that close yet, but it take Japan like 6 turns just to get from Asia to Mos (up from 3-4 in Revised), But I failry certain the US can land in Afr 1 turn (from Eus, 2 if you go from Ecan) and can set up a similar (3x3 or 4x4) shuck as in Revised for the Europe landings depending on UK moves.  And from ecan that is still 2 moves which is much shorter than Japan to Mos.

Russia can pretty much retreat everything East and still hold in Kaz/Novo.

But it does look like they should pretty much abandon Kar or at the very lest try to deadzone.  You can pull your AA adn then use Allied bombers to reduced the IPC so at least Ger has to pay some ipc or they still only get to place in Ger.

If after several months the Axis are still winning with ease then just start with eliminating the NO’s and go from there.

Edit:

Lynxes snuck in a post.  But I basically agree with him.

I dunno, I’ve felt that the axis are too strong in AAR at times and that maybe Russia needed a boost there too.

I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians.  Maybe he had one too many nuclear attack preparedness drills as a child or something.

Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology.  So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income?  (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)

We don’t really need to screw around with NOs and bonus units etc.  All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls.  That one fix alone would give Russia a significant boost in defensive power. (And it would still take 5 rounds for Russia to walk some of those infantry up to Germany, so it isn’t like a magic wand that Russia gets a mass of troops.)

@Craig:

@Cmdr:

I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians.

Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology.  So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income?  (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)

The problem is that there is no way in which to represent these issues in a game of this level other than to give them less equipment.

Unlike other games in which you have different quality of units for the different powers, this game has generic units.  As such the only recourse is to reduce the set up to get the play out that one wants.

Craig

That, plus the fact that a strong Russia in A&A would = Axis NEVER wins.  I agree with Jen that, in reality, Russia’s army was by far the largest fielded in WWII.  But as IL said once (I believe it was IL), this is a game, not a simulation.  Who wants to play a game that one side always wins?  And that’s what you would have if you gave Russia an historically accurate army size.

I don’t have the game yet, but it does sound like this one accomplishes what you would hope it would – i.e., the problems and challenges of the game are different than previous editions.  This is no mere re-print of Revised.

How about nerfing America instead of Russia for once?  :P

Maybe USA should be forbidden to make any attacks or reinforce non-US held territories for two turns and during that time only collect 50% of their normal income.

Then we could rebuff Russia to a more realistic level. :)

How about nerfing America instead of Russia for once?

Slowing down America is bad for gameplay. It  makes the pacing drag really hard.
They are so slow on the uptake, and if you knocked them out of the fight for the first two rounds they would be even more boring to play than they already are.

We experimented with an idea like that using a couple of different house mods and design strategies at TripleA. Wandering Heads Big World 1942 was probably the most popular, but I think it really proves that a weak America makes for a rather drull, and highly Euro-centric gameplay dynamic. If anything we should be giving the USA more money, and more starting units. Maybe then they’d actually try to fight a two front War, instead of just throwing everything in one direction, because they’re so strapped for cash. I actually would have been happier in AA50 if China was just under full USA control like it was in Revised. I think Wandering Head made the same mistake when he changed BigWorld 1942 from the original set up, to the one that included China as a playable faction. It just makes the US less relevant, and takes another KJF option off the table.

Unfortunately, an accurate historical simulation can be just as mind-numbingly boring and irritating, as a wildly inaccurate one, so a compromise will probably always be necessary. I would like to see more effort designing factions that can fight a forward game though, instead of always designing them to defend/collapse. I would say that the current model is predicated on the consistant collapse of China/Russia, where the only real factor is time.

All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls.

For a long time I used to suggest a similar house rule in Revised, where No Jap troops could attack into a starting Red Territory, and no Soviets could attack into a starting Yellow Territory, until India and Sinkiang where under Jap control. Combined with the house rule of No Western ground units in Red Territories, it had a certain charm. Much of the basic JTDTM remained in place though, it was just delayed by 3-4 rounds. I don’t think we can fix the Russo-Japanese dynamic with NAP rules alone. What we need are some realistic targets for Japan, and a plan for Axis victory that doesn’t involve Moscow. Right now I don’t really see any

I think my image links went down when the site was switched over, but I think you can still read the discussion.

Triplelk’s House Rule for Revised
http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=8174&page=1#8174

Also, you can combine the house rule posted above with the Colonial Garrison NA and No Axis bid, for a different type of game than the standard 8-9 ipc Axis pre-placement bid.

Might be more doable to nerf America in AA50 if you double the IPC value of Chinese territories when under Chinese control and give China a couple of tanks, an AA Gun and an IC.

Since China is US controlled anyway.

Hmm, how about a little NO for Japan which states: “+5 IPC if no originally Russian territory is owned by Japan” This would make it a bit less favourable to attack Bry or Far, as Japan would loose IPC’s that way 8)

+5 is a lot not to attack.  It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas. 
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead.

Poor Review

@jeffdestroyer:

+5 is a lot not to attack.   It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas. 
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead.

Naah, loosing 5 income for conquering Russia is not a lot: after 3 territories you’re back on the plus side (-5 +3 for Japan, -3 for Russia == +1 for the Axis (or -1 for the Allies)). It’s not making Japan never going to attack Russia, it’s making Russia a bit less attractive for Japan to conquer. I think this would be best: Russia NO: “+5 IPC if at least one original Russian territory is controlled by Japan”.

You know, looking at it all, I’m seeing a Kill America First strategy that could be potent.

Also, Italy is not a nothing nation slave for Germany.  Italy should own Africa which would give it income on par with Germany almost (assuming Germany starts having issues with Russia/England)

What about having a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis? I don’t think Japan could be ignored then, and the Japs themselves needn’t go JTDTM when victory is closer by. To boost the Allies you could tweak the NOs in the Allied favour or giving the Chinese the '42 setup in '41 or both.

The Soviet factories are huge problematic points that prove a weakness in the Soviet position and make it much harder to “give up land for time” because frankly nothing can stop German tanks from taking Karelia factory, while the Soviets by even trying to defend Moscow or the factories face an unmitigated task of stopping the Panzers from multiple defensive points.

This is the one thing that I find most perplexing about the new set up.

Why, of all places, did they choose Karelia as the location for the only new starting Factory in AA50?
Doesn’t this part of the map receive enough attention already?

With the production hit on Moscow (down to 6 ipcs) and the oportunity for the Axis to triple team Russia, this decision only makes the game even more dependent on direct British involvement in Russia along the northern route. We had a number of alternative locations for a new starting factory that would have been much more promising.  India, Australia, or even Hawaii (if they’d given it a boost to 2 ipcs) would have all dramatically improved the gameplay, and certainly been more interesting than Karelia. I never expected to see a starting factory at a value of 2 anyway, but now that the precedent has been established, why wouldn’t you do it for a part of the map that might really benefit from a new starting factory? I feel like some of these things are just so obvious, it makes me wonder who dropped the ball during playtesting, that they couldn’t see the Karelia thing coming. Factories should be used like anchors for parts of the map that aren’t receiving enough action already. Karelia is like the total antithesis of that, since its arguably the most active territory on the board.

For the Russians the factory is a liability rather than a boon, and it doesn’t do much to change the basic dynamic out of Revised. If the rationale was that the Germans needed another factory to use, then they should have put it somewhere more compelling, like Poland or Romania. But forget about reworking the Eastern Front, we’ve been down that road twice now. Instead, we need to focus on the South Pacific and India. It doesn’t matter how many new territories or factories we put in Russia, if the Pacific remains inactive, we’re still going to see the same patterns all over again.

Suggestions:

Minor:
-Allow Factories to be destroyed by their current owner at the end of the Mobilize Units phase (“scorched earth”).
-Lower the cost of new Factories to 12 ipcs

Major:
-Increase the production value of each Capital by 2 ipcs, increase every other territory by 1 ipc.
-add 3 more Victory Cities in contested areas of the map!

I think if you did that the core game would be much improved. The first minor adjustment alone, would allow for a much more interesting endgame. :)

@Cmdr:

I dunno, I’ve felt that the axis are too strong in AAR at times and that maybe Russia needed a boost there too.

I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians.  Maybe he had one too many nuclear attack preparedness drills as a child or something.

Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology.  So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income?  (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)

We don’t really need to screw around with NOs and bonus units etc.  All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls.  That one fix alone would give Russia a significant boost in defensive power. (And it would still take 5 rounds for Russia to walk some of those infantry up to Germany, so it isn’t like a magic wand that Russia gets a mass of troops.)

Regarding the Soviet factories problem:

On my map the Trans-Urals territory is the 2nd Soviet IC, with the Leningrad & Stalingrad factories relatively minor, certainly not game-losing for the Russians.
This refelcts the movement of weapons production to this area, well beyond German bomber range. The majority of Soviet tanks were produced here, then railed to the front line.

Of course this cannot be reflected on the official map which, despite cosmetic suggestion otherwise, still makes the main Russia/Moscow territory too important and therefore makes a German K-O blow easier to achieve.  If instead we reduce the importance of Moscow by deleting the silly “capture-the-capitol” rules and place a powerful Trans-Ural territory further east it gives the Soviets a unit-producing territory to fall back on, thus removing the K-O and forcing the Germans to adopt a much broader strategy.

Of course they could build a factory further east, but the Soviet player can hardly afford this and in fact the Urals area was already established as an industrial centre before the war, probably even then more important than either Leningrad or Stalingrad.

Moreover, I don’t allow nations to use captured ICs, which is totally unhistorical.

Another big omission in my view is the pripet marsh territory, roughly equivalent to the “East Poland” area on the new map.  Make this a swamp and it should slow the Germans down a little.  My pripet marsh is accessible to infantry only, making it difficult to capture, and forcing tanks and artillery to drive round it (aircraft can fly over, but not attack or land there).

Looking at the map my guess is that the whole German attack pivots on “EP”, it being 2 spaces from the 3 key objectives.

I find it ironic how a thread deftly titled “MY Review” has quickly snowballed into EVERYONE’S thoughts and opinions of the game.  Good one.  :wink:

Really quickly though, the idea of having an IPC rich Complex in the Urals makes Russia a far more tempting target to Japan than ever before.  I’m NOT one those guys who ridicules the erroneous notion of Japan having more sway over Russia than Germany.  But it seems like the natural progression of the game if this rule ever got implemented.

Imperious Leader,

I enjoyed your review a lot.  Even though you mentioned all the flaws of the game, to me it made the game worth owning even more.  I dare say it felt “refreshing” to hear a much different take of A&A in general than what I was accustomed to before.

@TG:

I find it ironic how a thread deftly titled “MY Review” has quickly snowballed into EVERYONE’S thoughts and opinions of the game.  Good one.   :wink:

Really quickly though, the idea of having an IPC rich Complex in the Urals makes Russia a far more tempting target to Japan than ever before.  I’m NOT one those guys who ridicules the erroneous notion of Japan having more sway over Russia than Germany.  But it seems like the natural progression of the game if this rule ever got implemented.

I should have qualified the statement; I’m a little rusty on A&A at the moment.

To clarify:
(See my map for the alternative layout.)
This is fundamentally different because the official maps all telescope eastern Europe further east to make the territories physically larger.  For example on the new map “Western Poland” is where Eastern Poland should be.
This results in European Russia becoming squashed into the Urals, so the Russia/Moscow territory represents a much larger area than it should, meaning fewer Soviet territories which makes Russia easier to conquer.

USSR works very differently in my versions because:

1. I have the Soviet/Japanese non-aggro pact, which means the two are not at war until much later in the game (therefore “Tankograd” is not under threat from the east).

2. I allow nations to place infantry in any free “home” territory up to the IPC value of that territory, regardless of the presence of an IC, including those just liberated. I use “home” here in the strictest sense, i.e. Japan cannot place in Burma, Germany cannot place in Poland etc.
For obvious reasons the Soviets benefit most from this rule.
note: Ostland, Ukraine and West Russia are Soviet “home”.

3. I don’t allow the building of new ICs, nor the use of captured complexes.

4. The pripet marsh territory provides a natural breakwater to the eastern front, slowing down the movement so benefitting Russia under an early German onslaught.

5. By not telescoping the map there are many more Russian territories, making it more difficult for the Germans to “hold down Russia”.

6. I do not, of course, allow US/UK units on Russian soil (apart from refueling aircraft and shipping).

7. No capture the capitol/capital rule, therefore Russia fights on from the Urals even if Len/Mos/Sta all fall.

http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_18.html

Of course this raises the question as to wheather or not the Urals should start with a complex; I would say in the 1942 scenario yes; this represents industry moved from the west.  For 1941 perhaps it should be an option to move a factory here, with a starting comlex in… Ukraine?
But this would be captured by G1, so perhaps the Leningrad factory is a more likely candidate to shift east.

Flashman,

Yes.  After looking at your map, it’s more “complete” than A&A:50.  I’m just worried you might not be able to finish a game.  :wink:

@Imperious:

I don’t think we will see another game like this in our lifetime in terms of components and quality.

That seems like a very short-sided statement.  In the last 5 years how many renditions of Axis and Allies have we had, including a completely new version of the base game?

I’m still waiting for the pimped out version of Axis and Allies, including gold plated ICs, solid wood game mats, and hand painted pewter units.