Another Review – 1941 Scenario

Gamer,

Thanks for the fleet rules.  I do like the fact that transports cannot be used as fodder, which is unrealistic and heavily favors the Allies.  Also, buying subs for the Allies in the Atlantic shouldn’t be practical anyways; they were used as primarily offensive units.

I hate suggesting ways to “balance” the game when we haven’t had a large enough sample set or time to devise alternate strategies.  But if these problems persist, we’re either going to have to give:

1.  A bid for the Allies.

2.  Remove Japan’s NOs (only) or at least nerf them.

3.  Rearrange the turn order.

Out of these, I like #3 the most because it requires the least amount of change to the game.  Do you think a turn order of Russia, Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, USA would balance the game?

Also, have you tried playing without NOs at all for 1941?  Does that make a significant enough difference?

1.  Even though they are cheaper at 20 IPCs, BBs are not as good a deal in this game.  They nerfed the BB by only allowing you 1 shore bombardment per attacking amhip unit.  So you no longer have the option of dropping one guy in France and getting 6 bombards.  The rules prohibit that, which makes the expensive BB much less attractive as a purchase when you can buy a cruiser for 12 IPCs and get almost the same benefit (attacks, defends and bombards at 3).

I still like BBs because they take two hits to sink.  Though, you’re right, the build costs should have been lowered to 18 IPCs.  I never liked the unlimited bombardment rule.  1 infantry should not be able walk aboard a continent because of naval bombardment, they just didn’t happen.

2.  The quality of the plastic pieces in this set was VERY disappointing.  It was almost of the quality of the old Xeno Games W@W set – piss poor.  For $100, I would have expected something more on the order of the quality pieces that came with A&A: Europe, which cost HALF as much as this game.  In fact, IF I buy this game, I would be tempted to throw out the pieces that came with it and buy up odd sets of A&A: Europe pieces on e-bay or whatever to replace them.  The map and counters are too nice to be played with with such crappy plastic pieces, IMO.

Urgh.  I do not want to replace my fresh pieces before I’ve played with them.  Yeah, Wizards bungled this department.

Flying Tiger

American NO……
-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.

Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint.  It bogs the game down.  The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific.  The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.

@TG:

Flying Tiger

American NO……
-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands, WUSA and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.

Typically I think rules that require you to Count the Number of Pieces on the Board are not desirable from a playability standpoint.  It bogs the game down.  The Americans already get NOs for being in the Pacific.  The problem is they can’t go after them because Japan is too strong and building up to 90 IPCs requires over 2 full turns of commitment.

I disagree, counting the value of units will be less than 30 seconds, unless your math skills are bad.

All this will do is evaluate your commitment to the Pacific theatre which if high will boost morale in the states and give you your bonus.

Sure there are NOs in the pacific for USA but the Phillipines are far away and protected by large japanese fleet. The NO for Midway, Wake, Solomans should be easy for the Japs to squash for at least 2 turns. The Allies are not getting France for awhile so the Americans are not represented correctly IPC wise when Japan starts with a huge navy and the ability to expand their economy larger than the USA by turn 2. Quite frankly, it’s bullshiat. They designed a game where Japan is more powerful than America. Give it time, in 2 months everyone will come to the same conclusion.

In the real war America fought in the Pacific, and Africa while building up in England for DDay. You can’t fight in 2 theatres with the income given. The bonus will make America fight in the Pacific and give them just enough to send something to the Atlantic which is ideal.

and one tank one artillery…. they even lost the sub

Any bid would probably go to a KGF campaign. Never would have thought a global game like this would turn to giving allies a bid. It feels like that episode of Star Trek when they visit that planet where the guy from earth brings the Nazi ideology with him. He proceeds to conquer the planet. I wonder if that planet’s USA equivalent had a weak economy too……maybe they based this game on that planet’s war and not ours?

I’d bid at least 9 IPCs to China, 12 to being sure. All to Yunnan to let the last and lone chinese fighter survive. And to let more than zero chinese units survive by the way  :-P

China is the greatest flaw in this setup (and in the whole game)

But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?

4 inf to Yunnan lets survive them plus the starting 1 inf, 1 fig plus probably another inf (Japan cannot reduce you to a 1 inf popping status, so it’s better take only 2 territories) plus 2 inf from reinforcements. That’s a total of 7 or 8 inf and a fig, opposite to usual 1 inf. You have a China that can survive 3 or 4 rounds at very least, probably even 5 or 6, opposite to a China killed J1. That buys time for USA navy arrives or a possible India IC (that buggy no-out-of China rule damaged Asian fight for allies but still China can attack Manchuria  :-P ). If Japan’s attacks take less than 2 territories, there is no chance Japan can beat the chineses in a long time with that bid, and remember the fig survives and now China can afford make small attacks (as she should). If Japan attacks Yunnan there is a big chance of Japan not killing the fighter and even maybe losing some fig if they get careless, and the resources needed are excessive and maybe they cannot attack rest of China (or Pacific) very well. Just for sure, I would even bid 5 inf to Yunnan (that’s 7 vs 7) or 3 inf, 1 armor (yummy chinese armor  :-D)

Of course, It only works well with a Pacific navy, but I anyway think that KGF is hara-kiri for allies in this scenario (65-70 IPCs Japan)

I don’t like the soviet fig by the way. More guys to Egypt or India would work better than that (specially the egyptians)

To all,

But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?

I agree with this statement as much as possible.  If we’re going to bid, it might as well reflect the changes in A&A:50 as a NEW game.  I’m sorry but extra infantry/tanks in the Caucuses or in Egypt screams a retread of A&A over and over again.  It may help the Allies win easiest, which is what they’ve always been doing with KGF.

Lets put those extra IPCs in China (or the Pacific) so that those 32243 extra rules about China are worth memorizing.