AAE40 setup ( now verified)

[mohare6]

Hey IL, you said you have historical information on the forces in the field of world war 2, do you think you could provide a link to your info, or do you get it from a book?

[Imperious Leader]

Both but here is one link

Go to Pacific War online and they have all the OOB for the Pacific.

[The Fire Knight]

This is completely true and further proof that the research to at least make the games seem realistic was not considered. This is the whole point of the recent discussion regarding the AAP40 set up issues and changes being made. Its like the old adage of telling a lie and then trying to cover it with yet another lie. Eventually the whole deck of cards crashes down under its own weight because the original foundation is faulty and now you get into situations where you got to ‘fix’ what others have already worked on because they started in the wrong place.

Here Here! This game should be set up exactly to the T how it actually was in 1940. Then the should just give the axis the forces they would have needed to make it a fair game. nothing else should be altered. No subtracting here and then adding there and then counter this to offset that…

[katfishkris]

then it would be a different game, and not axis and allies

[LHoffman]

@Imperious:

I have the historical information to set them both up realistically and will be doing this. But you have to at least play AAE40 and global 40 to see what they did.

IL, I am not totally familiar with your developed games, so tell me if you already do this, but… could you or would you be willing to examine a historical setup scheme for the base Global 40 board?

What I mean by that is, if we just wanted to play with the boards, and game rules, as they come in the boxes, but have a more historical and balanced setup…

I know you modify the boards and modify the game on your own (I have downloaded some), but would you be willing to design/playtest a setup scheme for the base game?

[Driel310]

I don’t see 3 bombers in Central USA in the setup nor in the screenshots from DJensen.

It’s hard to tell but I don’t think it says bombers in the US setup chart. And in the test game from DJensen there is one shot from the Eastern USA building up where there is only one bomber in the Eastern USA. Probably (we don’t know the political rules exactly) because USA can enter any other territories than her own.

[Proud American]

There are bombers in the Central US. However it may be 1 now that I looked at it.

[Proud American]

setups from http://www.axisandallies.org/node/416

Italy 10 IPC:
Albania: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Ethiopia: 2 Infantry
Italian Somaliland: 1 Infantry
Libya:2 Infantry
Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base
Southern Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base
Tobruk:4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank
Sea Zone 95: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 97: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

United States 35 IPC:
Central USA: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Bomber, 1 Major IC
Eastern USA:1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 108:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

France 17 IPC:
Algeria: 1 Infantry
Normandy/Bordeaux: 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base
French West Africa:1 Infantry
France: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base
United Kingdom: 1 Infantry
Morocco: 1 Infantry
Southern France:1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Naval Base
Syria:1 Infantry
Tunisia:1 Infantry
Sea Zone 72:1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 93:1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 112: 1 Cruiser

Soviet Union  28 IPC:
Archangel:1 Infantry
Baltic States: 3 Infantry
Belarus: 1 Infantry
Bessarabia: 2 Infantry
Caucasus: 1 Infantry
Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry
Karelia: 2 Infantry
Novgorod: 6 Infantry 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor IC, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Russia: 2 Infantry,  1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 AA Gun, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base
Volgograd: 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Minor IC
Vyborg: 2 Infantry
Western Ukraine:1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Sea Zone 115:1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine

Germany  30 IPC:
Denmark: 1 Infantry
Greater Southern Germany: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Tanks
Germany: 6 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Bomber, 1 Minor IC
Holland/Belgium: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter
Norway: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Tank
Romania: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Slovakia/Hungary: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
West Germany: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 4 Mechanized Infantry, 1 AA gun, 2 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Sea Zone 103: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 108: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 113: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 117: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 118: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 124: 1 Submarine

United Kingdom  29 IPC:
Alexandria:2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Anglo Egypt Sudan: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Naval Base
France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Gibraltar:1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Iceland: 1 Air Base
New Brunswick: 1 Naval Base
Ontario:1 Infantry
Quebec:1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Minor IC
United Kingdom: 1 Infantry, 1 AA Gun, 3 Fighters, 1 Major IC, 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base
Union of South Africa: 2 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base
West India: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 71:1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 85: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 98:1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 106:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 109:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 110: 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 111: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 112: 1 Cruiser

[McMan]

I love the new scale of ships in Pac and Euro! I’m so used to Revised where a nation has MAYBE 7-10 ships at max. Now several powers start the game with 7-10!  :-D

[cressman8064]

I am so freaking excited to play this game and the set up looks awesome, but I am getting sick of all those history buffs who say the set-up isn’t historical. I want a set up that is fun to play, which is what Larry is providing. If they made this game historical then the allies would win every time. Gamers seriously stop the whining.

[The Fire Knight]

@cressman8064:

I am so freaking excited to play this game and the set up looks awesome, but I am getting sick of all those history buffs who say the set-up isn’t historical. I want a set up that is fun to play, which is what Larry is providing. If they made this game historical then the allies would win every time. Gamers seriously stop the whining.

make me  :x

[LHoffman]

@cressman8064:

I am so freaking excited to play this game and the set up looks awesome, but I am getting sick of all those history buffs who say the set-up isn’t historical. I want a set up that is fun to play, which is what Larry is providing. If they made this game historical then the allies would win every time. Gamers seriously stop the whining.

Much of the “whining” is going on because we are skeptical of game balance, not simply because it may not be historical.

While the game should be as historically accurate as possible, I think most of us would welcome tweaking with unit placements/amounts to even out the matchup in the long run. Otherwise it might not usually be “fun to play”, as you put it.

[maverick_76]

From the looks of things this game will be very balanced with a slight edge to the Allies.

[San Chillos]

Those scaling issues are very disappointing.  However, I don’t think they’re that hard to fix. The main problem is the Pacific setup has waaaay too much aircrafts although the scaling of navies seems totally correct. (Brits have more destroyers and cruisers in Europe than Japan and as many battleships.) And maybe a few infantries can be removed in some spots of the Pacific map (like Malaya) but it’s not as much necessary IMO. Basically removing half the japanese airpower (14 aircrafts is enough) would make the setup much better. Most of allied aircrafts should be removed too (why does ANZAC has 4 fighters?!? 1 would be enough) along with about half of the three very ugly 6 infantries piles in eastern Russia. I tried this and I was able to get very nice and much more “credible” global setup on a historical point of view by removing exactly the same IPC values in units on both sides. Is it balanced? I don’t know but as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t look bad…

[gamerman01]

@San:

Those scaling issues are very disappointing.  However, I don’t think they’re that hard to fix. The main problem is the Pacific setup has waaaay too much aircrafts although the scaling of navies seems totally correct. (Brits have more destroyers and cruisers in Europe than Japan and as many battleships.) And maybe a few infantries can be removed in some spots of the Pacific map (like Malaya) but it’s not as much necessary IMO. Basically removing half the japanese airpower (14 aircrafts is enough) would make the setup much better. Most of allied aircrafts should be removed too (why does ANZAC has 4 fighters?!? 1 would be enough) along with about half of the three very ugly 6 infantries piles in eastern Russia. I tried this and I was able to get very nice and much more “credible” global setup on a historical point of view by removing exactly the same IPC values in units on both sides. Is it balanced? I don’t know but as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t look bad…

I agree the setup should have some resemblance to historical reality, and the 2 halves of the game should be compatible.

The Allies did have a huge, huge army at Singapore in 1940, so I think that’s OK.
There was no BB at Singapore in 1940.  They didn’t arrive until 1941, from what I looked up.

Removing half of Jap planes might be a bit drastic, but I agree they seem to have way too many, and ANZAC surely shouldn’t have 4.

Have heard complaints that 18 Russian infantry out east isn’t right - should be more mechanized, etc……

[Imperious Leader]

WE together should come up with a historical 1940 setup once both come out. The people who made it didn’t look up any facts regarding who had what and where. Balancing does not have to only be a function of the set up.

After a time i will make an entirely new map based on these with a more credible set up. But first we should study the prospect of a historical setup.

One thing immediately that seems missing is the rule for Japan on her first turn of DOW where all allied ships defend at 1. This was a good rule in AAP and made a huge difference to address the compensation of extra japanese pieces.

[gamerman01]

@Imperious:

WE together should come up with a historical 1940 setup once both come out. The people who made it didn’t look up any facts regarding who had what and where. Balancing does not have to only be a function of the set up.

But first we should study the prospect of a historical setup.

Sounds good!  I understand it is possible to be TOO historically set up (since various geographical barriers and the Russian winter, etc. are not simulated), but I’m sure a lot of us agree that this 1940 game needs to be set up a lot CLOSER to historical reality than it is.

From what I was researching last week about military positions in the Pacific in 1940, the P40 game setup leaves a LOT to be desired.  I’m afraid I agree with IL that they apparently didn’t look up any facts regarding who had what and where, based on the knowledge I do have of military positions in 1940, and based on what research I did last week to check on whether an all out J attack in 1940 really did have all those juicy targets.  (Answer - “no”)

Personally, I’m not really interested in a perfectly historical setup.  But I would like to see the top 10 (for example) most egregious misrepresentations remedied!!  Starting with my own pet peeve - there wasn’t a single battleship at Singapore in 1940!
Lead the charge, IL!

[Imperious Leader]

Yea you START with historical and then tweak with balancing the game. I know for a fact that adding 30 japanese planes could not have been any result from any historical starting point.

Rubbish. Pure Rubbish.

We will get the job done right 100%

I will start the study of the AAP40 map and have something in a week or so. From this starting point ( based entirely on historical) you guys address the balancing phase. First is to show it as it should be.

[San Chillos]

I’m with you guys. First let’s design a new setup for the global game using the original map. 1) It should be realistic. 2) It should be at least “somewhat historically accurate”. 3) Scale should not be too much unbalanced knowing that 100% scale balance is not possible. 4) Army strengths in the setup should not only represent numbers but also quality, terrain, leadership and even opportunism. 5) It should be balanced (this is the hardest part I guess…) 6) Finally, it should be fun.

Rock on!

[Imperious Leader]

Spain has 6 infantry and Turkey has 8.

So Spain would be harder to capture, but not impossible.

I have already formed the information on land sea air OOB for June 1940. I will post just what the facts say in terms of totals, then we can decide placement etc…