How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?

Some of these have already been suggested…

1. India and Aussie should be worth more IPCS, and should have more starting units.  A factory on one or both would definitely help promote fighting in the Pacific.

2. China should be a lot stronger, and should take several turns to destroy.

3. IPCs for Wake, Iwo Jima, Solomons etc.

HOW TO PROMOTE A PACIFIC THEATER

1. Ships must cost less.

2. More VC’s in the Pacific

3. Convoy zones in the Pacific.

I think some of this will be in the new game. Ships might have the same costs as in AA50, but i dont think the zones will be on the map. I do think more VC will be in pacific.

I hope they have national victory conditions.

@captainjack:

1. A victory condition stipulating that Axis wins if they control all at-start European and Pacific VC plus Leningrad, Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu.

That doesn’t promote the Pacific theatre at all.  Allies play KGF, Europe falls, Russia holds, Japan is toast and the concedes.  Even if the only victory condition for the Allies is to occupy Japan, the Allies will still play KGF!  It’s the surest way to (eventually) winning the Pacific theatre.

I’d like more incentive for Japan in the Pacific.  Make the West coast harder to defend.  An extra space in Canada would help.

@captainjack:

2. A changed IPC allocation: take IPCs from Africa in UK’s case and Latin America in America’s and put them in the Pacific. For example: India & Australia at ‘4’, Burma at ‘3’, Phillippines at ‘4’, Hawaii at ‘3’ and Wake+Midway+Solomons at ‘1’ each should really change things. Africa could have fewer territories and Mexico, Panama and Brazil be reduced in value.

This is the right line of thinking - more income in the Pacific.  Money and factories in that area will encourage both sides to fight for it.

Also make it harder to KGF.  Maybe another space between USA and Africa.  Give Germany more U-boats to start, close to US waters.

@captainjack:

3. Nothing   (This will probably be my vote.)

I’m sure an attempt will be made.

1. Factory in Australia

2. China got a capital and more units

3. USA got more ships in Pacific, and they are set up in central Pacific so its not easy to move them to Europe

@Adlertag:

1. Factory in Australia

2. China got a capital and more units

3. USA got more ships in Pacific, and they are set up in central Pacific so its not easy to move them to Europe

I am in agreement, but I think it may be neccessary to have Japan be able to, at least in theory, be able to capture the Western US quickly if the US does nothing.  The WUS should have the potential to fall quicker than Russia, if played carelessly.

I agree with Zoooma - the game ends with either Germany or Russia falling.  I need to have an incentive to help me win the game to go after the islands in the pacific - VCs don’t cut it.

I also believe that even more spaces b/n Japan and Moscow are needed and a beefed up China to discourage Japan and look elswhere for a win.

Cheers

In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.

In the real WW2 Axis lost.

I think one possibility could be to give Germany and Japan separate victory conditions and allowing them to win separately. As a consequence even if Germany is defeated if Japan fulfill its Victory condition Allies lost (and vice versa, Germany may win even if Japan loses). This should “persuade” Allies to not neglet Pacific. After all Germany and Japan were in the same boat but they did not act according a common strategy.
This will play better in more than two players, I suppose.

In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.

This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical.  But I do want it to feel historical.  Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.

@jim010:

In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.

This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical.  But I do want it to feel historical.  Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.

You have to understand that at the initial outset of the game there is a historical setup (exact strength is not maybe to scale, but is simulated or maybe rather abstracted for gameplay), and once you start playing you are altering history.  Japan was fighting Russia before the official starting of WW2, and the two countries have never signed a formal peace treaty.  Japan did imperially kick the US’s butt for the first few months of the war in the Pacific, and very nearly could have won at Guadalcanal.  Perhaps had Admiral Yamamoto survived longer, they could have further prolonged.  Even still, at the end, they were within weeks of their own nuclear bomb when the US’ dropped.

There is a choice to look at the game from either: What did happen or What could happen.  What did happen will limit what is seen as historical or right to happen, but what could happen allows for many different realities that could very well have occurred if choices had been different.
  Japan could have sent fighters to help Germany, just as Germany DID send atomic bomb materials to Japan for use in it’s two nuclear bomb projects.

No point in arguing what ifs, I suppose … no one will convince the other.  I disagree with the idea that Japan could have sent planes to Germany or crush the Chinses or cross Siberia while you think it possible.  OK.

My point is that the best way (and only, I believe) is for the Axis to focus on Moscow.  I think that everything else is a waste of time (at least with the present victory conditions).

If I am missing something, I am eager to learn a new strategy!

Cheers

@jim010:

In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.

This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical.  But I do want it to feel historical.  Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.

So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.  If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?

@Lynxes:

Well, if AA42 is like AA50 in rough terms Germany should be able to hold off the Allies for something the three turns Japan needs to gobble up India, Aus and Hawaii. Then Allies would be forced to defend those places and we would have a more balanced game.

That sounds like the minor victory in Revised.  Germany could grab Leningrad, and hold off the Allies for a few turns.  This forced the Allies to hold India (at least until they could secure another city) which I thought made for a more balanced game.

Note though, that this works because the Axis could win (with Leningrad and Calcutta) in an unstable position.  That is to say if you kept playing after the minor victory was achieved, the Allies may well have gone on to win the global war.  The economic victory from MB was similar.  Usually an 84 total would mean certain world domination, but sometimes the Allies could lose by the economy when Germany’s demise was immanent (and the allies may have proceeded to conquer the world).

This is the only way a victory condition can affect play.  If you can’t accomplish your victory condition without a tight stranglehold on the world, then you simply play for that stranglehold.  The victory condition (whatever they may be) will surely follow.  In all versions to date, this means focusing on Europe and Moscow first.

So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?

So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.

I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’.  In a global war, they are a significant - but separate -  power.  I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres.  No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.

Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides.  What would you peg the number of turns needed?

If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?

:roll:

@jim010:

No point in arguing what ifs, I suppose … no one will convince the other.  I disagree with the idea that Japan could have sent planes to Germany or crush the Chinses or cross Siberia while you think it possible.  OK.

You seem to still be confusing possibilities with actualities and historical war decisions with the roads not taken, but planned for.  Convincing someone of anything can never be done, but what can be done is lay out the facts and someone can choose to believe them or not to.  They then live with the choice.
(edit)
What you don’t like is the part of the game that occurs that did not occur in history.  That’s fine.  Jap planes could have flown to Europe, it’s a fact, yes, they didn’t, that’s a fact too.  Jap troops could have used the same Siberian rail system that the Russian Siberian troops used to get to Moscow, it’s a fact, yes, it didn’t happen, also a fact.
  But to take a game based on historical situations and abstract out a scenario where one side wins based on something that would not have happened historically (separate theaters) is only furthering what you have stated as not liking.

@jim010:

This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical.  But I do want it to feel historical.  Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.

I disregard the ‘feel’ comments, because if you are just basing your attitudes towards game change on feelings, you would be better served to make your own house rules than to try for a complete change to the game for all.  Most of the changes at that level will be for historical or sheer gameplay issues.

I’ll wait for another post to get into thoughts on balancing the theaters, prefer having conversations that start where everyone has a common understanding of how the game is put together and not confuse strategy with game mechanics.  As what we are really doing is helping to shape the games that come after AA42, as it’s instructions and such are going through the printers as we speak no doubt.

@jim010:

So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?

So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.

I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’.  In a global war, they are a significant - but separate -  power.  I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres.  No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.

Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides.  What would you peg the number of turns needed?

If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?

:roll:

My opinion on victory conditions is fairly low.  I am not a fan of having them dictate the way I play my game.  I would rather look at the board and see what is the superior way to dominate it. Let me set my own victory conditions, so to speak.  Seperate and loosley linked theaters may be somewaht achievable though, as I think this thread has shown some other great ideas other than VC’s or gimmicky nation specific rules (things that I happen not to like).

“How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?”

It probably won’t, not if AA42 is largely based on Revised.

Another issue is that for achieving a great deal of historical realism, then we had design another game, not a boardgame.

When we play A&A, we’re not only putting ourselves in the position of Rommel and Eisenhower, but we play both as generals and presidents, we’re also in the position of FDR, so we’re both generals, admirals, presidents and fuhrers all at the same time. Some people seem to forget about this aspect when we’re discussing A&A.

If I play as Hirohito, I would make different decisions than he did, and if Hirohito could “unmake” some of his decisions during the real WW2, he would probably do something different then what he actually did.

As for wage abstractions in A&A related to the real WW2, as Japan could not gain anything (in the end) by waging war against the US b/c they would lose, they could probably win something by marching towards Moscow, and at least India and/or Australia.
The problem for Japan is that they are already at war with the US when the game starts.

If Japan and Germany teamed up against Russia, they could win, and then Germany would probably win against UK after Moscow falls, and/or UK joins Germany.
Then after Russia and UK is finished, Japan could have the British possessions in Asia, and/or UK is given the option of joining Japan and Germany against the US…
So the abstraction of reality in all this is that Japan could not win anything against the US b/c they would certainly lose, and while Siberia was not in high demand for the Japs, if Germany and Japan won against Russia, at least Japan would get something, and something is better than nothing, and then afterwards it would be much easier to get the British colonies after Russia had fallen.

While it is not historically correct that Japan marched towards Moscow, I see this option as what Hirohito should do instead of the war vs the US. Then Japan could come out as winner, but for any pacific strats which should be pretty much in according to history, this would be very boring b/c Japan would always lose.
Also, if Moscow fell to Germany with help of Japan, then Japan would be better of in any war against the US, b/c when Germany owns Russia, UK, Africa etc. Germany would be a very big threat to the US. It’s not sure that US would win a 2 front war against an Uber Germany, with help of Japan, and Japans owns all of mainland Asia.

As for resources and such, this could come later, with Japan and Germany vs Russia, Russia could lose this, so Japan could at least win something, but not a big reward as the British colonies in Asia, but they should finish Russia before any war against the US and/or UK. Germany should also win against UK before starting a war against Russia, but this isn’t possible in A&A, b/c we can’t change alliances, and/or keep US out of the war.

So while Russia is an easier target than UK, this is the only realistic option the axis powers had to win the real WW2, as AA50/AA42 starts after the failed German attempt at capturing UK.

I think Dick Cheney et.al believes in the Heartland Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_theory

I think it should be more of a concerne as to what Russia thinks of the Heartland theory than the US’ Cheney.  It’s Russia that doesn’t want a missile shield to protect it’s neighbors…from Russia’s missiles after all.

It’s the fact that you can correct the mistakes of the games’ powers or replay them and show they could have worked that makes a fun aspect of the game.  Aside from the fact that you really can’t fix the mistake of not finishing off Britain, which killed the Axis’ historical chances… but alas, we can change how the Italians surrendered after losing Sicily, among other things.

@ LuckyDay, we mostly agree, and for other players arguments that sending 9 Japanese ftrs to Berlin could not happen in WW2, and/or UK retreating/losing India, Australia, and Africa maybe, Churchill would not have to resign if UK at the same time took back France and Norway, Italy, and Berlin was soon to fall.

If I’m in the position of Hirohito, I could very well get away with a “stunt” like Japanese ftrs in Europe, if the war generally went well in other places on the map. But the real problem with such arguments, (i.e. unhistorical Japanese ftrs to Europe) is that A&A is not realistic!

A problem in AA50 is that the Chinese cannot leave China, and this is ridiculous b/c of all the other situations which can happen in a A&A game which is not realistic either.
So in the China example this actually makes it a worse game b/c realism, as in WW2 Chinese soldiers didn’t leave China, but this rule does not make AA50 a better game, it makes China look weird. This is not important enough to say that AA50 is broken, be it b/c of China or other reasons, still AA50 is way better than Revised, and AA42 will probably also be a better game then Revised.