True, threatening Sealion is strong German play, but as Young Grasshopper himself has said, many British players do not fear it much these days, so you might as well hit Russia hard, right from the start, and get the killing blow(in my strategic opinion).
Thanks and God Bless You All from AxisandAlliesGeneral
Is the Axis Advantage it's overwheling Air Power?
-
In think one of the main reasons you never see Japan win is that the US usually puts most of its money against him, and not G/I.
-
I agree with ghr2. USA controls the game and if they place most of their IPC’s in the pacific then Japan is stalled pretty good after round 6.
-
Which again leads to my initial assertion that it isn’t that Japan has too many aircraft, but rather that Germany does not have enough. If Germany was more of a threat, then the US might have to split resources more equitably and therefore Japan might have a chance to win every once in a while.
These are just MY opinions and I am not even claiming they are informed opinions but rather speculation based on anecdotal evidence and inferences.
-
But it’s not Germany having too few planes to be a threat that makes the US spend mostly Pac side, it’s Japan’s huge number making them a larger threat that does so. Sure, adding some planes to Germany would make them enough threat to demand US attention, but then Japan will most likely be too strong to stop. Removing some planes from Japan also makes Germany a comparably larger threat, encouraging the US to split its income, while making the Axis slightly weaker, not stronger.
-
I dunno how you fix some of these problems without going into house rules. I think it’s ridiculous though that Russia gets so beat up by the Axis and the US has to always pick the ETO or PTO when historically the US spent very little in the PTO and won. Secondly Russia was weak and under prepared at the start of the war but was able to ramp up their forces. Not sure how I’d fix this without creating a variant or something, but Japan’s air IMO is a bit too strong.
-
Yeah, I agree with you toblerone77. Historically, the US spent roughly 25%-30% of it’s war output in the Pacific at first. It may have been more later in the war, I’m not sure. Still, like you said, the US was successful in the Pacific at grinding the Japanese back further and further toward Japan itself. Yet in this game, if the US only spent 25%-30% in the Pacific, Japan will be able to match them and still make all their other gains.
Same with Russia. They were beaten really bad and took a lot of losses in men and equipment in the first 6 months or so. Then they got it together and launched fierce counter attacks with lots of reserve troops from Siberia. Also, their production steadily increased from the Urals to eventually overwhelm the Wehrmacht. Yet in this game, Russia seems to get beaten back to Moscow to make a last big stand. In the process, Russia makes less and less money, thus they produce less and less. Not to mention the severe Russian winter that stopped the Germans in their tracks and probably saved Russia from final defeat.
Of course there are house rules to turn to. I have seen some covering the Russian winter. I’m not sure how you would be able to simulate the Russian production actually increasing later in the war or the US defeating Japan with a fraction of what they spent against Germany with the way the game mechanics work. At least not without making it unfairly balanced against the Axis.
That is something I find interesting about this game. Both the Axis and the Allies can win and there are strategies for both that are WAY different from how it actually went down. I’m not even sure that you could play a game that went like the actual war. -
Thanks for all your posts guys. Is good to see we think alike.
I think I prefer the 42 scenario, because you can maKe it closer to history. Italy does not feature in it, which I like and the Pacific is already set up for the US to go from the Solomons on.
Russia should survive too. -
And Japan does not have 21 planes!
-
I agree, fishing for oob counter strategies to deal with the successful ones the Axis already have, has become a waste of valuable gaming hours. The bid system has worked for online games, but does not transition well on table tops because there is usually a rotation as to who’s turn it is to play the Allies. Therefore house rules seem logical to achieve balance, but where do we begin and when do we stop. The truth is not many games are using purely oob rules, heck… every online game played in tripleA is modified with added pieces to the setup, and I know that I’ve been guilty of over doing it when it comes to house rule sets. The issues with the game as knp and Wittman have pointed out, go far deeper than just removing a few planes or adding a sub or some other bandaid unit. I honestly think that the game can be repaired by modifying and/or adding a few new national objectives, for example…
Using all out of box 2nd edition rules with the following modifications and/or additions to national objectives.
UNITED KINGDOM
_Reinstate this old Alpha National Objective:
NO U-BOATS IN THE ATLANTIC = 5 IPCs
There are no axis submarines in the Atlantic_Plus:
AROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING = 3 IPCs
The United Kingdom has conducted a successful SBR on a German production facility this roundTHE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and CelebesAMERICA AT WAR = 5 IPCs
The United States are at war with all the Axis powersGERMANY
_Reinstate this old Alpha National Objective:
LONDON = 5 IPCs
Germany controls London_SOVIET UNION
_Split the oob National Objective “National Prestige” into the following:
LEND LEASE ACT = 5 IPCs
The Allies control Archangel, and there are no Axis warships in sea zone 125NATIONAL PRESTIGE = 5 IPCs
There are no Allied units on any original Soviet Union territories_Plus:
SECOND FRONT = 5 IPCs
The Allies (not including Russia) have at least 1 land unit on an original German territoryJAPAN
CHINESE CAPITULATION = 5 IPCs
Japan controls all original Chinese territoriesUNITED STATES
AROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING = 3 IPCs
The United States has conducted a successful SBR on a German production facility this roundTHE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and CelebesANZAC
THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and CelebesCHINA
_Modify the national objective “Burma Road” to the following:
THE BURMA ROAD = 2 Free artillery units
The Allies control all territories connecting the Burma road_ -
Taking a bomber away from either Japan or Germany would be a significant change and might be enough to balance the game and remove the need for a bid. It could even result in a bid for Axis.
For Japan, the 2 bombers are important pieces on J1. Losing a bomber could make J1 attacks on Yunnan and/or sz 37 overly risky. Allies would have a better shot at stacking Yunnan round 1 (though that’s still a risky move for Allies if the Yunnan stack isn’t supplemented by bid units).
Similarly, if Germany lost a bomber, that would increase the risk factors on G1, especially if Germany intends to attack both 110 and 111. It would also make it riskier to attack a Brit fleet in 97 or 92 on G2.
-
There is a player in my group who loves playing Germany, and if his opening strategies were to be altered due to a house rule removing one or more of his air units, he would cry foul and leave my group never to return. That’s why I lean towards adding stuff for balance, because people like my friend seem to care less about giving the Allies units, then taking away their stuff. His Philosophy is “I know what I want to do with all my units, and they all depend on each other. Instead of taking something from me, give my enemy something extra and see if they know what to do with it”.
-
I think it is very difficult to design a game like A&A with a closer historical set-up.
We would play a game where the Axis can never win.With this in mind I can understand that the Axis are given some sort of advantage. The overall strategical idea is indeed (I think I read that in this thread somewhere already): “A military superior side faces a weaker side which has a vast economical advantage”.
Playing Japan in a historical set-up would not be fun, I guess. I believe by the end of 1940, America had about twice as much LandBasedAir as Japan in the pacific, and a Carrierfleet already 2/3 in size of what Japan had. Imagine that in a game as A&A ;-).
This does of course not help the community who feels the axis indeed are a tad to strong in this game. Allied side is not impossible to win but bidless it is too difficult for too many players if both sides are past their rookie-status.
I must admit I too feel less and less attracted to playing the allies because I am increasingly unwilling (to the point of loathing) to play a side that is so unforgiving for a few strategical mistakes. It requires a too careful play, severely slowing down the pace. I admit I cannot win with the allies against a strong axis player if I do not calculate (very extensive BC-usage) where I shall put my each and every little INF. Figuratively speaking… Playing axis is a relief. Much more intuitive.That having said, it is also that much more rewarding to ultimately find a counter strategy with the allies after a few losses but that is not (fun) for everyone. Not to say that we A&A-players are just ‘everyone’, ofc ;-).
I think 1 simple change of the rules should be made to give the allies a little more comfort.
It could be anything, as long as it is a small, simple change so all the rest of the game/set-up can remain the same.
For example: nobody can use captured enemy IC’s anymore unless it is a Capital, nor can there be one built on enemy soil. So, Germany cannot use Leningrad, Ukraine, Stalingrad, Normandy (etcetera) any longer, whereas the allies can (liberation being different from conquest). Likewise, Japan cannot build IC’s anywhere in Asia (after all, Manchuria and even Korea are enemy territory), and the Axis cannot use/build IC’s in Persia but they can in Iraq/Bulgaria/Finland/etc.I think such a small rules change is all it takes to make it a bit harder for the axis (but not impossible)and even more historical as a free gift!
-
ItIsILeClerc,
I like your ideas a lot, here is something I threw together with my own small twist which includes a VC condition and created a new thread for conversation into this.
-
Would be easier.
Take 1 bomber from Germany, 1 Bomber from USA and split the American economy so that any IPC earned on the Pacific map has to be spent there the rest has to be spent on the Atlantic map just like the British Empire is split. Could even cut the USA NO to 10 IPC Pacific, 20 IPC Europe.
-
YW, YG :-).
The Idea just popped into my head while I was not even thinking about it. People so often get their best ideas at those moments.
Closer to the historical situation as well. It was very, very hard for Germany to reinforce and supply their troops at the Russian front because of the long, long, long supply lines. A logistical nightmare.
As it is now, it is too easy to throw in Reinforcements for the axis after they have conquered Leningrad and Ukraine (not to mention Stalingrad)…I am also fond of a forced split of the USA-economy like Jennifer suggested, but that’s me personally.
However you are going to put it, this almost certainly means an increase of the US economy. We cannot expect the USA to hold Hawaii with only 17 IPCs/turn pre-war going up to 27 wartime. So this needs more consideration. My own ‘ongoing’ calculations are suggesting that the USA needs an average of ~50 IPCs per turn invested into the pacific to prevent Japanese 6VC win after a J1DOW (Cowstyle).
The Euro-income at the same time, looks fine. 35 pre-war and then 55 wartime production. Almost the same as in a normal A&A Europe 1940 game. -
ItIsILeClerc are you saying USA should have an economy of 105 per turn. 50 pacific and 55 Atlantic? I think that is way too much.
I do like your rules on complexes. I remember when we played the classic Axis game in 1984 and played without the ability to buy complexes. It did steer the game in a more historical path. There was no more unlimited production out of the Persian IC.
-
That’s easy enough.
The United States of America is allowed to spend their IPC on either map as they see fit for the first 5 game turns regardless of if they are at war with any power or not. Thereafter, the United States must spend what it earns on the Pacific map in the Pacific and what it earns on the Europe map on the Europe map. The 30 IPC national objective may be used for either map at the player’s discretion should they collect it.
That way the US can do a hard focus to catch up on the Pacific map, but still gets hamstrung and forced to at least build something on the Atlantic map later.
Keep in mind, players can still buy naval units and shuck them to the Pacific map with Atlantic map money, it just takes 2 turns to navigate there. They could also buy land/air power and shuttle them to W. USA easily enough. Either method is just a little slower than dumping straight into W. USA or SZ 55.
-
Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:
- Dice game
- Low luck game
- Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?
-
Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:
- Dice game
- Low luck game
- Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?
My position on LL is that the outcomes in such games are hugely weighted on the results of the opening round. By its nature, where every pip is relevant, bidding in an LL game is a more exacting process, and the starting unit set up and production limitations are critical. The air advantage in the opening round is magnified under such conditions.
I favor dice generally in A&A, but specifically because of the way it randomizes outcomes for the game, not just in the first round, but throughout, and especially during the endgame. I favor randomization, whether through cash bonuses, or technology advances, or turn order, or just about any thing, over the pre-placement bid. Because its just so easy with a bid to break the game’s set up.
I think the best solution on game balance is to give everyone more money, through whatever mechanic you like. But do it for all players, not just the one side. The spread doesn’t have to be equal, by nation or side, but if you give everyone something then the likelihood that you get a unique game, and a game not as dependent on opening rolls, is increased. More money allows for more tech, if that is your preference, or more unit replacement as the driving force in the game, instead of putting the whole emphasis on the starting units and whatever imbalances my be inherent in the set up. The game evens out and feels more glorious when you are defeating your opponent (or get defeated by them) as the result or your purchasing decisions rather than from the dice in the opening round scripted battles. That’s my view anyway.
The Axis advantage in any case, is not so much the air units themselves, as it is the lack of Allied cash to respond to the Japanese planes more expeditiously. :-D
More money likewise accelerates the gameplay, at least in the respect that people are more willing to engage their units when, when the relative cost of unit replacement goes down.
As to the split US, or split UK. I’m not a huge fan of the rules which treat both sides of the map separately for the purposes of income collection or turn sequencing and the like. Its supposed to be global after all. Some might dig that split approach, but if you are going to split, then instead of splitting the USA into what is basically 2 players, I much prefer a hard map restriction on movement by theater. For example, if you just enforce the borders of the full map, and do not allow the map to wrap at the Atlantic/Pacific/Americas boundaries, then you can achieve basically the same effect, but without having to change the rules with the sequence of nations or phases in a given turn. The only thing you have to do is restrict the map the connections to match the display of the physical board on your table. In its simplest formulation this means no movement through the Panama canal, and no direct transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific around cape Horn, or across the North American continent.
This makes the game on W. USA a bit more interesting as well, since it is more viable as a target, with the production limit that results from not being able to move units Atlantic to Pacific. It is essentially impossible in OOB G40 for Japan to take W. US with any real effect, but this not so if you restrict the movement down the middle and simply dont allow it aross theaters, along this route.
From a USA gameplay movement restriction perspective, this could be justified in game as the result of how the US allocated different troops and funds to the war effort in Europe and the Pacific. From the Axis movement restriction perspective I would justify this by basically recognizing that the rocky mountains exist, and that the panama canal was basically on lock, and traveling around S. America (while novel) isn’t really necessary for the game to still function. This is basically a distraction route anyway, people generally transit as part of a feint, and then they double back, which basically wastes more time for the player attempting it, than it does in confusing the enemy. Plus there is virtually no money on this southern Atlantic part of the board, so its not often missed. But what you do get out of the situation is a more dedicated approach to US spending in both theaters, since they can’t rely on a rapid transit of air or men or ships from one theater to the other. In this respect, I would favor giving the USA something extra to assist in prosecuting the dual theater war.
-
While I have not tried it…yet I think a “build and move” opening round where everyone gets a complete round of NCM and purchasing with no combat could alleviate many problems as well as eliminate bidding. Of course this goes against many grains and touches on too many other topics but it’s something to think about IMO.
Suggested Topics
