How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?

@Subotai:

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.

@Funcioneta:

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

i don’t think the non-aggression pact will help the historical argument because as mentioned, Russia/Japan were at war at different times during WW2.  On the other hand it was the Pact that allowed Stalin to move the Siberian troops that saved Moscow from Germans.

I think at the basic level, countries should be able to be open–If italy wants to send it’s fleet to take Australia, great, if China wants to leave China, sweet, if Japan wants to attack Moscow, ok.  But to indiscriminately toss in this historical condition as ok, this one is not; is frustrating.  Why can’t we attack Spain any longer since 2nd Edition, why can’t China leave?  The goals of the powers needs to be along a historical line, and VCs do really help to steer things that way, except Ottawa perhaps, but I think often, probably very often games are looked at in terms of taking capitals and opponents surrendering rather than VCs.  
 Steering the goals to history, then untying powers hands to achieve this seems like a great goal, at least to me.  I’m sure that AA42 will move things along a decent path, as previous entries have also… we’ll see.

varied goals, where both Japan and Russia could win in IL’s terms are way better than the AAR rule about whichever power came up with the most IPCs being the overall winner

Dont need non aggression pact.

Make all the Soviet territories in the east worthless. They are except perhaps Vladivostok as a warm water port. ( perhaps 1 IPC)

Make blitzing impossible in specific territories.

Give the Soviets X forces that remain in some of these territories and make them large enough to make any attack a ridiculous waste of time for japan ( as it should be). Make the Japanese neutral to the Soviets but allow them to attack and make the Soviets unable to move these eastern forces or attack Japanese until Berlin falls.

perhaps a new VC for each axis: over a period of three turns they must accumulate X total IPC. So in Germany’s case lets say they need to accumulate a total of 150 IPC over three turns. It would be possible but not likely to get this in two turns if they took Moscow ( claimed the Soviets IPC) and had a really good turn after that…then they win. Japan could have a total of 175 IPC total over three turns… you see it would be different and balanced depending on how easy it is to get it, which for japan is easier. Then you fix the IPC to reflect and deny areas not part of historical victory for each axis.

In terms of allies, say you can do something similar allowing a player to win on his own and not even help his allies. This would be how it was in the war. The only thing is you need to tie the UK USA player as having the same goals. That would present a dynamic in the game for players who love having an ally that works together, while you also afford the option of not doing this for axis and Soviets. Under this way Japan would be helping Germany anymore or flying its entire air force to Berlin on turn 6 or whatnot. You just cut all that rubbish out.

@ IL,

you’re more wright than wrong (in theory), as usual, but I don’t think I’m the only one who also played Classic (boardgame) 1vs1 although most games was multiplayer.

Your ideas are good, but hard to implement within a necessity of simplicity within the A&A concept.

Europe is more historical yes, but it’s not uncommon that Italy can take India, but it’s better to let Japan build an IC in India, if the Japs didn’t take India first, Germans/Italians in Brazil is not common, but it happens. Sometimes Italy can take Caucasus, this could not happen in WW2, but Italy could reinforce Caucasus if Germany won this WW2 battle. Italy can take most of Africa, and it’s not uncommon, could this happen in WW2?

And even if I can win as a single player in a multiplayer game, imo it’s not wise to reduce the option of 1vs1 games.
If the feeling of victory will be as strong in your A&A multiplayer games (system) even when playing on the losing team, then perhaps, but I doubt it.
And I don’t think that for f2f (board)games the multiplayer aspect is gone, not in AAR or AA50. The multiplayer problem is mostly for those of us who only play online games, but if we “know” our teammates multi can work also over the Internet.
It’s not the game design (imo) that is the main problem in the multi vs 2 player games issue, it’s the droppers and quitters, and people who can’t behave properly.
This shouldn’t be a problem even with the beer and pretzels games?

@Imperious:

The game has turned away from its original intent which was multi player, and the solution is individual victory conditions because they don’t depend on your ally. AA will do much better if it becomes more of a multi player game. How fun is it to play Risk with 2 players? not much.

i generally argee,

but does this mean the the soveit and western allies can attack each other or germany and Japan attacking each other

the main problem in the multi vs 2 player games issue, it’s the droppers and quitters, and people who can’t behave properly.

I have never had any of that playing any AA game. I see in some games at tournaments where people DO that thing were they are not AA players but drift into our section and play and dropout ( quitters) but thats because all along they clearly made this clear that they would sub in for a few turns and bail to play another scheduled game.

But playing at friends home this was never once a concern as the whole purpose was to play some AA game. For us its a million times more enjoyable to win with some joker on your team messing up and having both sides fitted with strong and weak players to see who’s personality wins the day and the game. The negotiation of players to win in spite of all their faults is to me the most satisfying social aspect of AA, while playing ‘automation style’ from scripted home study sheets and not allowing anybody to be on my team out of the need to win at all costs is not fun. I prefer the team concept and different styles of play because it seems to me more dynamic and you learn more. Of course in some cases its only possible to play or find one other guy, but to me this is suffrage.

I guess it depends on where you live and if not in a large city its hard to find anybody except on-line.

It’s difficult to make the pacific into a major theater with Germany flexing it’s muscles in the centre of europe.

Also - I think there is the knowledge that only ONE axis power needs to fall in 90% of games. Most people know that if Germany gets screwed then Japan will surrender. Which of course is not what happened in the real thing. In fact - during a 1v1 game online I kept playing on with Japan after Germany’s fall (she still had a big navy and lots of IPCs but she was never going to win) and the allied player accused me of time wasting. Because he had to beef up a big US navy, cross the pacific and get into Japan.

So in fact - when you play KGF and it works - you are in effect following roughly the right path. You just then need to appreciate the Japanese player who keeps it going for another hour or two!

Also - in sheer numbers the Pacific theater WAS dwarfed by the european theater in terms of combatants and casualties. It assumes drama in our minds because of the boats, the planes, the island hopping, but unlike Germany - Japan was not a threat to the world - her appetite was far too ambitious. To make things more realistic you need to double the size of China and eastern Russia - make all those territories IPC free and stack them chock full of inf which are restocked according to their ‘recruitment value’ IPCs like in AA Pacific.

That way - Russia will probably not waste resources creating an offensive force so far from Moscow, and Japan will see no point in wasting resources to claim wortthless territory - hey presto! A working non aggression pact.

IMHO giving Borneo and East Indies 4 IPCs each was a joke anyway - can we really say these two groups of islands have an economy nearly three times the size of the India subcontinent? Though it was good that it tempted the US down south for a bit of Pacific fun.

I think it is an interesting point that Germany’s attempt at Lebensraum was never predicated on a negotiated peace. Germany hoped to batter European Russia into unconditional surrender and conquest. Japan on the other hand (despite what the military hotheads of the cabinet were saying) had no option but to hit the US quick, hard, and hope that they folded. They needed the propaganda coup - the American people to sue for a quick peace rather than face a long bloody war. In the end they placed the wrong bet, the addition of Germany as an anti-US belligerent gave the people a feeling of being part of something greater - a fight against evil across the globe - and this was of course played upon further by Roosevelt’s oratory.

I would therefore argue that as the two axis nations had such different paths - maybe they should have different outcomes. Like Germany has to invade London or Moscow, Japan has to earn victory points or something. For instance. Once Japan earn x.no of victory points the US sues for peace and Japan can turn back on China and maybe Russia. Maybe Japan should have 2 aims - one enough VPs and then 2) own all of China. At that point she has won. Germany should have the whole ‘Moscow/London’ thing…

Of course, once one axis nation has secured its objectives it could help out the other (if it hadn’t already) with materiel etc.

I think the key flaw in A&A is that BOTH Japan and Germany will nearly always go for Russia - and as long as that happens the game will never look like WWII because that simply was not what happened, nor was it really possible…

IMHO giving Borneo and East Indies 4 IPCs each was a joke anyway - can we really say these two groups of islands have an economy nearly three times the size of the India subcontinent? Though it was good that it tempted the US down south for a bit of Pacific fun.

India was worthless to Japan. India could not help Japanese fleet sail and fight as it had no oil. The 4 IPC islands represent the most crucial asset of conquest and the entire reasoning behind going to war in the first place. Those localities are the reason why Japan is in WW2.

The raw materials present in these islands( both oil and rubber) VS the millions of people largely poor is night and day for Japans ability to wage war is of crucial importance.

@Imperious:

IMHO giving Borneo and East Indies 4 IPCs each was a joke anyway - can we really say these two groups of islands have an economy nearly three times the size of the India subcontinent? Though it was good that it tempted the US down south for a bit of Pacific fun.

India was worthless to Japan. India could not help Japanese fleet sail and fight as it had no oil. The 4 IPC islands represent the most crucial asset of conquest and the entire reasoning behind going to war in the first place. Those localities are the reason why Japan is in WW2.

The raw materials present in these islands( both oil and rubber) VS the millions of people largely poor is night and day for Japans ability to wage war is of crucial importance.

true, those island produced much of the British Empire’s oil and resources.  Which is akin to why Bulgaria/Romania ought to be worth more than 2 as well, the value of the resources is a big point in value. (but Romania’s off topic…)

@LuckyDay:

true, those island produced much of the British Empire’s oil and resources

No, they were Dutch  :wink: But agreed with the rest: oil was very needed by japs

By mid-1941 Japanese leaders believed that war with the United States was inevitable and that it was imperative to seize the Dutch East Indies, which offered a substitute for dependency on American oil. The attack on Pearl
Harbor was essentially a flanking raid in support of the main event, which was the conquest of Malaya,
Singapore, the Indies, and the Philippines

Japan’s imperial ambitions, which included
Soviet territory in Northeast Asia as well as China and
Western-controlled territory in Southeast Asia, lay
beyond Japan’s material capacity. Japan wanted to be
a great power of the first rank like the United States,
Great Britain, and Germany but lacked the industrial
base and military capacity to become one. Moreover,
Japan sought both a continental empire over the
teeming populations of the Asian mainland, as well as
a maritime empire in the Southwestern Pacific—a tall
order given China’s rising nationalism and the global
naval superiority of Great Britain and the United States.

I like the idea of promoting a multi player game with different objectives.  You can still have somewhat of a “sandbox” format and it can curtail a lot of “gimmicky” rules for those who like to see a more historical game.

My guess is it would be divided as such: UK/USA would have virtually the same goals, Russia, Germany/Italy, Japan, China

But here are the problems I see:

1. Is it a race?  Would Japan getting to her goal 1st put a stop to everyone else and that would mean Japan would win?
2. Most importantly can it still be a two player game?  As a practicle matter, how many people can expect 3-7 players everytime.  2 is much simpler, allows (in a way) more people to be willing to play.  And most importantly more marketable.  If multi-player is to be designed, it still has to be able to fit 2 player play.

But here are the problems I see:

1. Is it a race?  Would Japan getting to her goal 1st put a stop to everyone else and that would mean Japan would win?

2. Most importantly can it still be a two player game?  As a practical matter, how many people can expect 3-7 players everytime.  2 is much simpler, allows (in a way) more people to be willing to play.  And most importantly more marketable.  If multi-player is to be designed, it still has to be able to fit 2 player play.

3. No but its a game where if somebody gets too large over a period of time they can win the game, for the allies it is a race situation to see who gets the IPC goal first. The axis are basically independent nations trying to win and this process is NO longer tied to each other , just like it was in the real war when the axis had ZERO plans for mutual cooperation. For japan she was just grabbing stuff and starting a war for different reasons and thought the focus would be on Europe allowing for japan to take parts of Asia and nobody would be the wiser. The problem i see is the aspect of alliances was only part of the equation, Both sides were pursuing totally independent goals and this has not ever been solved in the game but it could be a real benefit to solve some of the complaints of people who hate having a partner and want to do everything themselves. This removes the social aspect of gaming of which AA is supposed to be supreme at and once was before the internet.

4. yes certainly, because in this way you just focus the game toward getting one of your nations to win and focus the strategy to make that nation look good. Its like in a basketball game where one player is scoring at will and the other members keep feeding him the ball… he will score enough to win, so a simple player can try to perfect this with each nation and using the others as ‘soak offs’ and finish the job with the nation he wants to deliver the final blow.

I think making both oceans bigger would be good. The continents have got bigger - but as far as I can see the Pacific is almost the same as in the 1984 ed! Definitely it is not significantly larger.

I’d rather have playability over realism.  That’s not to say you can’t have both, but if you tie things to closely to the realism side you end up with a boring one sided game.

On the flip side, if we go too far it would be equally as bad to have a game that is always decided in the Pac instead of Europe.

I don’t like the idea of VCs and I think most players like to take Capitals.  Call it an old M84 bias, but people like marching into Capitals and building big armies to win, not playing to build a few trans to sneak a few Island VCs that may take 2 turns to get back but you only have the current US turn to do so.
IMO, its a plain and simple cheap win (exception time based games) just like M84.

To truely encourage a World Wide game, it must be equally likely for Ger-Mos to fall as it would be for Tokyo-WUS and it must happen within the same time frame, otherwise one will be viewed as “easier” whether it is or not.

You also can’t go overboard with ticky tack rules and over complicating things too much, like minor powers or non-aggression treaties or specializing too many units (exception: Tech).

Some of my fixes would include:
-Add a Sz to prevent the Ecan-Alg one turn shuck
-All Pac Islands worth at least 1 IPC.
-Key islands like HI, Sol, Mid, Wake worth more (2-4 ipc).  You don’t need a VC if you make them worth enough IPC.  Example, France isn’t valueable b/c its a VC, it is valuable b/c it is worth 6 ipc.
-Make WUS worth 8 IPC (equal to Japan), give the US potential production cap issue.
-Give China back to the US but divide it up into 3-4 ter.  Make one worth 2 ipc, the others worth 1.
-Give Russia an arm or 2 (or rt) in the Eve area.  Not able to make a rd 1 attack but gives the player the freedom to move either East or West pending their strategy.
-Make Egy a “gimmie” for Ger on Rd 1 (maybe 3 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm vs. 1 inf, 1 arm) and not counterable by UK.
-Rebalance the Middle East and India.  I would think you want India “holdable” for the UK for a 2-3 rds without reinforcements.  Maybe drop it to a 2 ipc territory but beef up initial forces.
-Alternative:  Start Japan extremely weak on Asia, but strong in the Pac.  Maybe they only start with 2-4 inf on Asia that are able to attack.  Maybe they start tran and navy heavy but extremely light on ground troops.

I’m sure I could think of more, but in any case it would have to be massively play tested and quite honestly play testers can’t compete with the numbers of games that can be played online in a 1 vs. 1 format.

My final Alt that I’ve mentioned in another thread or two would be to split the US into 2 separate players, an East and West US player.  West US gets China.  You’d have to rebalance IPC but if you had the WUS coming out to 18-20 ipc (not including taking any J islands) and EUS coming out to 22-28 (not including any gains in Afr or Eu) you can essentially mandate a specific % split of US resources to the appropriate theatre.

@DarthMaximus:

I’d rather have playability over realism.  That’s not to say you can’t have both, but if you tie things to closely to the realism side you end up with a boring one sided game.

On the flip side, if we go too far it would be equally as bad to have a game that is always decided in the Pac instead of Europe.

I don’t like the idea of VCs and I think most players like to take Capitals.  Call it an old M84 bias, but people like marching into Capitals and building big armies to win, not playing to build a few trans to sneak a few Island VCs that may take 2 turns to get back but you only have the current US turn to do so.

I am probably more in agreement with you.  I hate special rules.  I would much rather have a look at the board and figure out how to take command of it, rather than everyone having a different goal.  If it is someway possable to have Japan and Russia be somewhat seperate style players though, that would be very intriguing.  To me it feels like victory when one achieves tactical and economic superiority over the board to such an advantage that the only way to lose is by a MAJOR oversight or “beyond” bad luck with the dice.

That being said, even with VC’s if it is more effective to shut down a capital, I would pursue that path anyway. My guess is it probably would be.

That being said, even with VC’s if it is more effective to shut down a capital, I would pursue that path anyway. My guess is it probably would be.

IMO, that is the problem in each of the versions of the game so far.  Nothing trumps taking a capital, and the only one Japan can feasibly go after is Moscow.  And I’m just not a fan of that.

Maybe a time limit, where by the time Japan got to Moscow, the game would be over anyway - that might force me to take VCs instead.

Cheers

Just have Germany as its VC is take Moscow, Japan takes X IPC, or X territories, or X income over a 3 turn period, or take what we got in AAP and give them victory points for every 10 IPC they have. This is not complicated or “unbalanced”

The western allies can win by either taking Berlin, or by turn X, or defeating Japan, The Soviets can win only by taking Berlin.

What is not balanced by assigning different victory conditions? If you want balance then give everybody 20 IPC a turn and the exact same military forces. The game is not balanced in that manner, so why do the VC all of a sudden have the be the same thing for everybody?

I don’t have a problem w/ separate VCs, except as a 1 to 1 game.  Even in Multi-player games, both sides are played by commitee, so it may as well be 1 vs 1.

I need something that accounts for that.

Besides, I’m still finding that taking Moscow 1st, THEN taking the VCs is the way to go.

Cheers