Confirmed Details???

[variant]

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

If the starting IPCs is correct, I am not buying the game. What the hell kind of imbalance did they create in this game?

[Lynxes]

/variant

Look at the game map pictures on www.boardgamegeek.com!! You can see that Japan grabs a lot of territories very quickly, since the game starts in 1941, and the same goes for Germany as the first turn is the Barbarossa campaign.

I wrote out what my predictions are for turn 2 and I do think that is quite a good balance. The ratio I predicted is probably not right exactly, but all in all the Axis might well have it slightly better than in Axis&Allies Revised.

[variant]

@Lynxes:

/variant

Look at the game map pictures on www.boardgamegeek.com!! You can see that Japan grabs a lot of territories very quickly, since the game starts in 1941, and the same goes for Germany as the first turn is the Barbarossa campaign.

You are assuming that Japan and Germany want to grab those territories. A game should not be balanced on assumption or railroading a player into taking specific actions just so they can survive!

[Lynxes]

Check out the “Throw us a…” thread. These IPCs bonuses seem to be decisive and we’re trying to figure them out.

[Romulus]

Also in Classic and in Revised there are a lot of first turn scripted actions. For example in Revised there are must attacks for Germany: the Egypt, the Med UK BB. Sure you can not attack the UK BB in the MED, but then UK will have two BB. Here UK starts with one BB, no need to sink one in the opening move for germany. Similar things happens for USSR, she have to attack West Russia first turn.

First turn openings are restricted to few options. However this not means that Classic or Revised are scripted. Here we have TWO setup and then two set of opening moves. I think this is more better.

[shermantank]

@Romulus:

First turn openings are restricted to few options. However this not means that Classic or Revised are scripted. Here we have TWO setup and then two set of opening moves. I think this is more better.

I agree wholeheartly. This will make the game more interesting and unpredictable to be certain.

[Romulus]

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

[squirecam]

I think folk should take a step back on balance.

Remember, there are 2 scenarios.

The 1942 scenario should be what you “expect” to see in Revised and Classic. Japan having certain gains, but not having as much units due to losses.

The 1941 scenario grants the axis a “what if”. Can Japan gain more/lose less than at the start of 1942? Can germany do better in its Barbarossa assault?

So the Axis can do better or worse depending upon dice outcomes and tactical choices.

If you dont want to be “railroaded”, then start in 42 like usual.

[Guest]

I don’t know, I am a bit less excited about the 1941 scenario… it looks like all the 1941 scenario does is give you the opportunity to put yourself into the 1942 scenario (since, as said, there are many must-take actions).  Hence, it adds gameplay length, for no necessary reason.

(Plus, 1942 has been the A&A World start for so long… I can’t imagine it any other way!  :-P)

[Imperious Leader]

1941 must be better because you decide how to attack the Soviets. I don’t like the 1942 when your already invested in SU and would at least like to know how it happened. The Soviets have no air power and no offensive punch. The G1 attacks would have little counter with a bunch of crap thrown at it.

[Romulus]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Thanks for the clarification! I have misunderstood the term “hits”.

[axis_roll]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

[squirecam]

Your CAP would defend at 2 though.

[Guest]

@axis_roll:

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

Well, if it makes it worse for you… the winners at GenCon say they dominated because US just shipped bombers to Germany…  :x

I dunno, I might just try out Enhanced if this game isn’t balanced  :-D until of course an AA50 Enhanced is made!

[shermantank]

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

[Guest]

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

[variant]

@timerover51:

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

Good luck finding someone to play Axis.

[Imperious Leader]

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

[axis_roll]

@shermantank:

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

That’s funny… you like the rule but don’t know the details  :roll:  :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Imperious Leader]

LMFAO!!!

yea thats kinda funny actually. :-D