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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
there should be incentive for pacific battles, there was historicaly and it is just dumb for the naval peices to be unimportant and for the eastern front to be the only front that matters at all
There is already an incentive for pacific battles. There is money to be won and lost in the pacific, when using NOs. W/o NOs, there’s no reason to not go KGF, as this is probably the most effective strat with this setting.
If they eliminate the VC and just make the game where each axis wins differently:
Japan must capture: Hawaii, Australia, India, China, Alaska. etc plus get to X IPC level for one complete turn
Germany must take : X, Y, and Z, plus get to X IPC level
This is the only way to allow for really dynamic strategy because axis are not dependant necessarily (or they can be) to win.
Allies can just go against one or the other because one axis will win and the other may lose. Allies must prevent both from winning.
This way also Japan does not need top get to Moscow and can just focus on Pacific to win. Japanese in Moscow is fantasyland. AA can do better than this.
You can probably have the Soviets on a special VC as well so they can win alone and compete to a lessor degree with the western allies. That would be consistent with reality and post war politics.
A&A is fantasyland b/c when the game starts, either in 41 or 42, the war was lost for axis, unless allies threw in the towel.
Germany needed extreme and unlikely luck to win this, and Japan would lose with 99,999% certainty against the US.
So why is it a big problem with Japan in Moscow, b/c this can win the game for axis, and Japan in Africa is not a fantasy problem, b/c if allies take and hold both Germany and Italy, then allies will win even against a 70 ipc Japan. Japan taking and holding both India and Australia is also fantasy, b/c the game starts in 41. Or dusins of other fantasy happenings in A&A, like Italy in India, Italy in Brazil, Germany in Brazil etc.etc.etc.
In a game that starts earlier, then many thing could happen, but axis chance of winning the real WW2 from 41 is pure fantasy. Also US should have twice the production it has, US @ 40-50 is also fantasy, reality was more like 80-90?
If you want realism don’t play A&A, for me it’s still fun, rather b/c of the lack of realism then the wage abstractions of semi-realism in A&A.
not enough in my expierence
A&A is fantasyland b/c when the game starts, either in 41 or 42, the war was lost for axis, unless allies threw in the towel.
Regardless it should be as little fantasyland as possible. Fantasyland means the game winning concepts are totally not consistent with the programs of regimes of Japan or Germany.
Germany does not need to take Ottawa to win her war
Japan has no claims against rolling tanks 10,000 miles to attack Moscow from the east. For her she just needed her greater prosperity sphere and this did not involve helping Germany directly or attacking the Russians.
In the real war if USA didn’t do lend lease and just had her war with Japan, its possible that Germany could win by crushing Russia.
Just because it was a slim chance, does not mean the game has to become full of ridiculous objectives that have no meaning. For me if something is not realistic, its best to try to mitigate as much as possible to make it more reasonable, than to allow candyland scenario to exist.
A thing I don’t understand is why Larry made that bunch of totally flawed chinese rules and didn’t do the simpler special rule many of us are asking for: Japan-USSR non-agression pact
Larry made a difficult one instead the easy one. It’s not a surprise it was a mess
/Imperious leader
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
The speculation about possible scenarios in the actual war need to be tempered by the fact that the Allied condition of “unconditional surrender” could have been forgone by the Russians if they got pressured enough. I’m sure Stalin would have agreed to a peace if Moscow was taken and Caucasus oil wells cut off. And Hitler didn’t have the idea of conquering all of Russia, the goal was Arkhangelsk to the Volga. The war could have temporarily ended there, to be sure only to be taken up again when France would revolt and Russia been bolstered for a new war, but Axis being able to win a peace isn’t a fantasy scenario. Had the Germans armed for a three year campaign in Russia with cautious advances and a strategy of not alienating the Soviet satellites they invaded and instead got Estonian, Ukrainian etc troops to support them, they could have won. Soviet manpower reserves were not endless and were getting exhausted towards the end of the war, and Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until 1944.
The Classic MB 2 ed had individual victory option, and this was the best winning condition of all A&A games. The nation with the highest increase in IPC income was the winner. Since you already keep track of your IPC income, an economic victory is better than to count Victory Cities. IMHO.
An individual economic victory condition will look like “Diplomacy”, wich is my favourite game. The allies must cooperate to bring the enemy down, and then they can start backstabbing each other in order to win individually, just like in “Diplomacy”. And this is just what actually happened in the real war too. UK and USSR was not friends, but they shared some kind of “Community of interrests” in a given time. After Germany was down, they startet the cold war againsts each other.
So bottom line is, the winner is the first nation to reach x IPC income.
It can not be easyer. Also I belive this will promote a Pacific Theater, since the Allies can not let Japan win. They must go after both Germany and Japan, and when one Allies gets to strong, the other two must backstabb him so he dont win the game. Like in Risk, where everybody attack the strongest player to bring him down. Now I must e-mail Larry this new ideas.
@Imperious:
If they eliminate the VC and just make the game where each axis wins differently:
Japan must capture: Hawaii, Australia, India, China, Alaska. etc plus get to X IPC level for one complete turn
Germany must take : X, Y, and Z, plus get to X IPC level
I dont agree that Japan MUST capture Hawaii, India etc. The rule should say, Japan must get to X IPC level for one complete turn. Then it is Japan’s decision if he want to collect his IPC’s in Russia, China or the Pacific.
Also Germany did not neccesarily have to capture Russia. It should be Germany’s decision if he wants to collect his IPC’s in Russia, Africa or somewhere else. I dont like scriptet games.
individual victory conditions are a great idea
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
Well i look at it like this:
Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.
Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.
Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.
