@Commander Jennifer and others…

To shorten the game, has anyone considered having all of the Axis players go together followed by all of the Allied players…?

@Cmdr:

I think there are some minor changes that need to be made to make the game more palattable.

One: They have got to figure out a way to break up the turn order better.  It’s ungodly waiting for, essentially, 5 countries to go and even worse trying to use all 5 at the same time.  I feel it really slows down PBF and most likely, desk top play too.

One_Solution:  I feel a proper solution would be thus:

• (Axis) Germany
• (Ally) Russia
• (Axis) Japan
• (Ally) England Europe
• (Ally) England Pacific
• (Ally) ANZAC
• (Axis) Italy
• (Ally) America
• (Ally) China
• (Ally) France

Note, this also makes it more comfortable to play France which, by about Round 1, is essentially useless. Okay, maybe Round 2 or, at best I feel, Round 3.  I’ve had multiple opponents express wonder as to why France is sandwhiched between Italy and Germany in the turn order and I, personally, have contemplated just telling my opponent(s) what to do with the French guys - if anything - just so they can post Germany right away.

Also, I do not feel the change in the turn order would change the balance at all.  It is essentially the same turn order, except that America and China are back at the bottom of the turn order.  In other words, go back to the out of the box turn order for the countries.  The English and the Americans are still consecutive in the Pacific and only a minor Axis power lays between them in Europe.  I have not seen a benefit to the new order of play, only a mind-numbing detriment.

Possibly, I would consider (with some seriousness) swapping England 1 and 2 and ANZAC with China, America and France.  But I fear there would be backlash against Italy in the form of nerfing her navy.

What about all of the Axis players going at once and then all of the Allies going?

I am not sure how many of those would work out honestly, but they seem to offset each other to some degree… We use a couple of them in our group, but we have many nation specific ones as well that come from an older version.

@Kobu: I disagree. The game is fairly balanced as is, especially with Alpha 2, so as long as one advantage is offset by another it should be ok…And who doesnt play with a bunch of house rules. From what i can gather everyone and their mother who plays A&A uses their own house rules…

I have always been a BIG fan of nation specific (Russian Winter for Russia, wolf-packs for Germany, etc.) national advantages in Axis and Allies, and I was hoping to incorporate some house rules into this version.

Any thoughts on some good ones….?

Mark: We will be starting the game around 9 or so this morning, so I will let you know how it goes. I usually spend some time going through various scenarios in my head and speculating as to which side should have the greater advantage when doing changes like this. Without really looking at the board, I am thinking it will be the Allies, because for one their are many more of them so they stand to gain more by teaming up/attacking the Axis at the same time. Furthermore, one of the 3 Axis players (Japan) can’t really use this advantage, b/c they are pretty much isolated.

With that in mind, I am considering weakening the Allies a bit and see how it pans out. One idea I have is reducing the major IC in India to a minor, and adding another minor IC in West India as well. I will probably also add a couple extra infantry in India to start out with too. This will allow India to serve as a legitimate garrison for the UK, with allowing them to dominate…at least thats the plan.

I am considering this approach b/c I believe the Allies will dominate the Atlantic, and Germany will be hard pressed against a combined US/UK invasion plus Russia breathing down their necks, so my thinking is that by weakening India’s offensive capabilities a bit, Japan will be able to pressure Russia more from the east, thus making up for the imbalance in the west.

Like I said, this will take some time to get down, but I think the two-turn system will be worth it in the end. I really wish A&A would move to this system in the first place, as I know many that use it, or would like to use it.

Let me know your thoughts!..

So my friends and I really like playing Axis and Allies to where there are only 2 turns. On one turn all Axis players go, and on the other all Allied players go. (I think Imperious Leader might be the one that sort of made this play popular, idk). Anyways, I obviously realize that this greatly alters the balance of the game, as it is clearly not designed or playtested for this type of play. Nevertheless, this is how our group prefers to play, so we are going to try to make it work, though I realize this will take a while to get it down to where it is balanced and doesn’t favor one side too much.

What I would like to know is what you guys think as far as what we can do to make it more balanced. In other words, which side do you think this type of play will benefit more, and how can we tweak it to where it can be offset to where it ends up balancing out better?

Your input is much appreciated. Thanks!

Yes well forgoing a J1 attack is out of the question, and giving the US 40 IPCs up front is a bid, which is not optional on this forum. The question posed is objectives, our group prefers to give a few bonus objectives here and there, so if you would like to contribute please address the topic at hand.

I personally do not like like the bidding system, but prefer bonuses instead, so I have done the following to balance the game (or attempt to) more in favor of the Allies.

China: 5 IPC bonus for holding Kansu
US: 5 IPC bonus for Western US
UK: 3 IPC bonus for India

Let me know what you guys think, I am open to some feedback here!

***Please keep in mind my own personal goal (it may differ from yours) for these bonuses is to give the Allies a slight advantage in this game. I want it to be where the Japanese have to work a bit harder to win. The idea is that the Japanese should be played by the more skillful player, can afford to make fewer mistakes, and may even need a bit of luck (as far as rolling the die) to pull it off. However, they should still have a good chance.

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you guys could give me some feedback about how to shorten A&AP1940 up a bit. I absolutely love the game as is, but practically speaking, it just takes too long, and I am looking to expand my play group some, so i need to shorten it up to draw in new players.

One idea i have is to require that Japan only need to capture 5 victory cities. Now I realize i will have to add a few more units to the board at the beginning of the game so that they simply cant win the game during their first turn. That is where i am needing some input. How many pieces should i add and where?

My goal here is to create a game where Japan basically has to win in 4-6 turns or it is over, b/c by then the allies should have the momentum. Maybe they develop the nuke or something, i dunno, but i am open to suggestions.

*Note: Moderators please do not move to house rules section

Regarding some sort of mandated non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Japan:

I for one, hate built in rules like that. I believe the purpose of this game is to allow us to sort of go back in time and act as the leaders of our own country like Japan,
Russia, etc… We are not going to make the same decisions as the real leaders did, but thats what’s great about this game, it gives us a starting point in history and allows us to recreate it. Pacts should never be mandated. And they should NEVER give you free guys. This is war, and if you want to risk moving troops off of one of your borders, you can do that, but if your enemy then strikes, you shouldn’t magically get free guys to place there. If you wanted them there, you should have left them there. Its just one of many tough decisions you have to make in war.

Now I personally think that is what’s going to be great about the global game, Japan will be able to invade the Russian far east, but just like in AAP1940, it will do so at the risk of overstreching itself. Same goes for the US or any other power that has a global influence. If they shift too many resources to one front, sure they will make a big impact on that front, but at the expense of the other one, so it should balance out, at least in theory. If America goes all out against Germany, Japan will not only destroy the British, Anzac, and Chinese forces, but they will then be free to pressure Russia as well, will take some pressure off Germany, thereby counterbalancing America’s decision to go a KGF strategy.