@mhal21 I don’t play poison gas warfare for one simple reason. Poison gas was not as much of a thing as people think it was in WWI. Yes it was terrifying and it made the headlines when it happened, but the estimates are that around 150 000 casualties happened due to gas, which is something like 2-3 days of a huge battle on the Western front.
I know some people have dabbled with it so there is stuff out there. You might want to hop on the Axis and Allies Facebook page to ask your question !
"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion
-
@The-Janus So is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league? It sounds like there isn’t . Which is easy enough to handle in a scenario.
It seems a shame to have deployments defined for major neutrals, and not get to use them.
As always, I can have multiple scenarios which handle the major neutrals differently.
-
@RogerCooper After reviewing maps, I concluded that the East & West map is closest to the TripleA Big World map, so I will implement it first on Big World and then use the actual map.
In terms of neutral handling I see the following possibilties
-
Major neutrals impassable except that Russia may attack the Arab League.
-
Major neutrals are fully playable and can be allied through the diplomacy technology table.
-
Major neutrals can be allied through the diplomacy technology table and are absorbed into the allying power. They are impassable until then.
-
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league?
It’s kinda been theorized that USSR might want to attack China, in certain situations.
If China isn’t defending North Korea, or worse, if they’re actively letting NATO move units through their territory, the USSR might be better off attacking.
The other thing is that the complication table is weighted more toward China’s outrage than the other 2 majors, so if the USSR has the ability to send nukes, it’s also generally assumed that they will, whereas the US is less likely to use them; in a long enough game, that will swing China towards favoring NATO, so the USSR might pre-empt that at some point.The other option is as a game-ender, towards obtaining an economic victory. In fact, such a thing is probably pretty impossible without invading most of the neutrals on the Eurasian continent.
P.S. I still think modeling neutral contributions as N.O.'s is an option to keep in mind
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league?
It’s kinda been theorized that USSR might want to attack China, in certain situations.
If China isn’t defending North Korea, or worse, if they’re actively letting NATO move units through their territory, the USSR might be better off attacking.
The other thing is that the complication table is weighted more toward China’s outrage than the other 2 majors, so if the USSR has the ability to send nukes, it’s also generally assumed that they will, whereas the US is less likely to use them; in a long enough game, that will swing China towards favoring NATO, so the USSR might pre-empt that at some point.The other option is as a game-ender, towards obtaining an economic victory. In fact, such a thing is probably pretty impossible without invading most of the neutrals on the Eurasian continent.
P.S. I still think modeling neutral contributions as N.O.'s is an option to keep in mind
Implementing the complication table would be difficult. The game rules already suggest dropping the complication table as an optional rule. Note that it would be possible to use having a nuclear weapon as trigger but not using a nuclear weapon. I think that in practice the high cost of nuclear weapons is more of a deterrent than the nuclear complication rules.
Using National Objectives for neutral contributions is fine.
-
@RogerCooper East & West has a rule that allows tanks to move out of a territory in non-combat movement. As TripleA does not support this, should I just ignore it or increase the defense of tanks to 3 in compensation?
-
@RogerCooper if the fighter rules can’t be changed to allow tanks to “land” in recently captured territories, I would still not change the defense value. Players can/should just use the EDIT mode in these cases.
My two cents.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
if the fighter rules can’t be changed to allow tanks to “land” in recently captured territories,
Hi Good Captain
Not sure what you mean here. Tanks can move in ncm to newly conquered TTys if they didn’t take part in combat.
But yea, edit better than hardwiring it imo as well. It becomes second nature once you start using it.
A map option to turn on or off with the tank boost can also work.
-
@barnee In this version of Axis and Allies, tanks that fought in combat can move out of the territory during the noncombat movement phase if they have movement remaining, just like a fighter. They can also stay in the territory they just fought in.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
tanks that fought in combat can move out of the territory during the noncombat movement phase if they have movement remaining, just like a fighter.
This would be a good Feature request. Seems as if it might not be too hard to do. Idk. My understanding of java is almost zero.
Anyway, can make a request with a git issue if you’d like.
-
@barnee I don’t think there is anyone left there to do the work even if they were interested enough to do it. That’s been my experience anyway. Sorta backed up by panther as well. Roger doing whatever he is doing for East & West right now is a random miracle imo.
-
Been some deveopler activity lately is why I mention it.
-
@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.
For completeness, there are two tank types: the tank attacks at three and defends at two. The heavy tank attacks at four and defends at three. The soviets start out with access to both tank types.
-
@The_Good_Captain I’ve watched your first few videos about A&A: Europe (1999) and your comment about the game being a 6-round affair sort of struck a chord with me.
I think E&W is similar, except that it’s “1d6 rounds” owing mainly to how soon the USSR can get the first nuclear bomb tech. Granted, their economy needs to be strong enough that they can afford to build a bomb while maintaining parity in terms of land units.
The issue is that NATO generally can’t counter-attack anywhere on rd1; if the Soviets spread their Pacific fleet properly, they can insulate Korea as well as Kamchatka. The only place that’s usually left open is Yugoslavia. The adjunct to that is generally the USSR spends all of rd2 attacking neutrals, which NATO can do nothing about; since there is no “Pro-neutral” type of mechanic within the designs, NATO can’t lend support/deterrence to neutrals that are vulnerable to attack (i.e. on the Soviet border.)
If the strongest weapon in NATO’s arsenal is the US attack in the far east (which takes til rd3 to reasonably get new transports involved in a landing) you’re at least halfway along the doomsday countdown by that point.
Even if NATO is splitting their fleets to mitigate the effects of a nuke, I think that having to rebuild, say, 3 transports in the Pacific is more cost-intensive than the USSR having to crank out another nuke – particularly if their income is anywhere in the 70 IPC range. If India is bottled up, you end up in a situation of the UK basically throwing good money after bad, just to maintain the status quo, with no real potential of ever swinging the momentum, from that position. Never mind the costs NATO is going to incur trying to keep up on spying.
I think the Kamchatka landing can absolutely work, but it’s a lot easier if NATO can sway China (hard, if not impossible) and they absolutely need to be pushing past Eastern Siberia within “1d6 rounds.” Otherwise the game just deteriorates until NATO slowly dies to nukes. Even when I’ve had NATO making grand offensives to try and keep the economics of the game from stagnating, they either can’t sustain it because the USSR absorbs and counter-attacks everything, or they’re forced to pivot off of one position to bail out another, and all momentum is lost in the process.
NATO has time in which to gamble, but they don’t have the economic edge in this game – and they have all the drawbacks of the Allies, always needing to build up their logistics chain (and spying!) before they can really even act. They’re on the back foot from the word ‘go’ and they have only a handful of rounds to do something decisive.
-
@The-Janus I have almost finished, the preliminary version of East & West in TripleA.
The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.
Not sure how you would code it as such, but the Soviets should view the nuke as an anti-ship weapon; never mind just raw “TUV swing” numbers, but taking out 5 transports is way more valuable than only taking out 5 infantry.
As for the infantry cost and such, the start of rd2 typically should have the cash on hand as something like:
- USSR: 65 = 32 inf
- WE: 21 = 7 inf
- UK: 33 = 11 inf
- US: 41 = 13 inf
So already, the Soviets are ahead of the allies by 1 infantry – but that’s not taking into account that the US likely needs to put down about 4-5 new transports at the start of the game, as well as up to 3 spies for the NATO alliance, and as many as 3 more transports for the UK.
The rd1 attacks should more or less even out the units on the board (if it’s implemented in TripleA we can get an accurate accounting of TUV, but even a mock-up of the typical battle results would likely bare this out) so from rd2 onward, the USSR should be edging ahead. It isn’t even really advantageous for NATO to attack (in most cases) because unless they can take out planes or armor, or guarantee an infantry kill ratio of 3:2 or better, they’re just spinning their tires and likely weakening themselves in the overall calculus of the game.
In rd2, the USSR typically builds on their lead by taking Iran and Sweden, with Finland, Pakistan, often Afghanistan (and Switzerland, depending on the circumstances) falling in rd3. In that time, NATO might be able to counter-attack a weak West Germany position, and the US might start to land in Asia. But the alliance is most definitely behind the 8-ball from the outset.
-
@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper
-
@The-Janus I agree with about 80% of this. The rhythm and flow sound right. Where I disagree is that I think the game is significantly NATO favored pending a fairly extreme result in the spying/tech arena (which doesn’t have such cataclysmic outcomes as tech in Anniversary/Global - a plus imo). The Soviets have to really make gains early with tech/spying or the USA comes through the back door. In my experience, WE and UK can reasonably expect to hold down the fort and USA can reasonably be expected to kick in the back door via Kamchatka.
When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts. Also, if NATO is playing (imo) efficiently - they can shrug off the first nuke and lose five naval units with almost no disruption or replacements needed (losing subs, cruisers or WE transport - fodder units). To rinse and repeat as the soviets (20 infantry total now) is crippling.
I still feel this game is so solid and on point that it deserves to be considered canon and the Axis and Allies answer to a cold war variant.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper
This is going be more inspired by East & West than a port of East & West. The complex tech & espionage rules can’t be done in TripleA. I am just randomly giving out tech & neutrals through events.
The major neutrals are also an issue. I think that it works better to make them distinct powers rather than awarding their units & territories to the major powers. Having China as Russian ally and OAS as Western ally seems natural. The problem is that whoever gets the Arab League wins. My probable solution is to give the Arab League to the Eastern alliance and suggest playing the West with an income bonus.
-
@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts.
I think you need to ask the question, “why would NATO buy a nuke?” because you’ve always based the entire cost/benefit analysis on how many infantry a nuke costs. Why would NATO spend 20 IPCs to kill 10 IPCs of infantry? Even with the upgraded nuke, it’s still only a break-even proposition for NATO.
I think if the USSR can pull ahead by, say 3 infantry per round over/above what NATO can put out, they can afford a nuke every 3rd round while still maintaining parity on land units. If they can get the “10 IPC free SBR” of a spy kill, that helps their economic prospects even more.
If you take the standard chunk out of NATO (Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, South Korea) on rd1, they’re down to 94 IPCs (31 infantry, rounded down). If the USSR can add Sweden, Finland, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (usually doable by rd3) they’re at 69 IPCs (34 infantry, rounded down) without any contribution from China – already putting them ahead 3 infantry per turn. If NATO loses any more territory than that, they’re completely behind the 8-ball economically (never mind militarily, because that would probably mean losing/trading Italy or India, or both.) So yeah, by rd3, the US had better have put together a landing that can sustain itself; if the Soviets are able to push that back either militarily or with nukes, I don’t see a path to victory for NATO.
As for the naval units, I find I tend to burn through most US and UK subs in the first few rounds, mopping up the Soviet navies; by the time nukes start flying, I usually don’t have any/many left – and this is coming from a guy who prioritizes using the US starting nuke on navies, whenever possible. I also find the WE navy very useful, so I’m not in the habit of just parking it by the UK to soak nukes; maybe I’m too aggressive as NATO but I feel those transports are valuable in opening new fronts around the Mediterranean (and that’s probably the best assignment for the UK’s carrier, too).
It also takes the UK a long time to consolidate their ships from around the Indian ocean into either the Atlantic or Pacific, if you spend any amount of energy gathering up units from Australia, Africa, and/or putting down extra transport loads of infantry at Singapore.
That all being said, I do think it is hard to defend Kamchatka (…unless the USSR has an amazing Tokyo Drift – which seems to happen about 50% of the time). The problem is mainly that the USSR has such a low production capability in/around the region, that even having 2 rds to build up doesn’t always amount to much. And the other problem is that aside from what starts in the region, all Soviet equipment is basically 2+ rounds of movement away from being able to help out. One of the things I’ve looked at is trying to get the tanks (or infantry?) from Moscow over to East Siberia ASAP, rather than stranding them in Turkey – but 2 tanks worth of offense is basically impossible to replace, on rd1.
This is why when I gameplan as the USSR, I’m always trying to squeeze as much non-combat movement out of my S1 attacking units as possible. I look at things like, can I get a fighter into my Scandinavia attacks, instead of a tank? or even a heavy tank instead of an armor? Can I get another fighter into Turkey and use the heavy tank somewhere else? etc.
The other thing I’ve tried to hammer out is, where should the USSR be producing more infantry, to send to the far east? Having a defensive line at Turkey/Georgia/Kazakhstan and maxing out placement in those areas, while marching them eastward seems like a good idea. The problem is the USSR is so tight on cash, that they need every scrap of territory in order to be competitive; not taking Iran, and also just abandoning Turkmenistan doesn’t seem to be viable. But if you dip too far down into central Asia, those units are effectively stranded for the duration, and can’t be used elsewhere. It’s a catch-22.
Basically, I’m taking the principles of the Orient Express where units do “double duty” as both offense and defense, and trying to apply that to the Soviet’s supply chain into the far east. For example, would it make sense to be placing infantry in Orel every turn? They could be used to counter-attack landings in Karelia or Komi, but also moved to defend Moscow and then continue eastward. But is that really better than just placing as much stuff as close to the front lines as possible? It doesn’t seem to pan out that way, and it actually seems like it’s not maximizing the value of the placement rules, for the USSR.
Suggested Topics
