Quick answer is that bids seem to keep going up with bids over 20 now common.
yes
just the dollar amount.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Black_Elk, I wonder if this NO can be modified to better incente battle for Islands in PTO:
JAPAN NO:
+10 if Japan controls any of Hawaii or New South Wales.Do you see a way to justify only these two and not San Francisco or India?
These two NOs are for Fortress Europa, right?
+5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for control of Normandy and Holland together. -
The Norway/Sweden NO is traditionally understood as representing the iron and nickel mines of Petsamo and Kirkennis, which Germany badly needed for its war economy. During winter, the ore had to be shipped north out of Sweden and counterclockwise around the coast of Norway, so losing control of Norway (or the goodwill of Sweden) would mean an end to ore shipments.
-
Would likely be fine, I just put a large bonus for Hawaii specifically based on CWO and LHoffman’s suggestions, to try and give it some kind of special status or weight. Thought being that SF, Sydney, and Calcutta already offer a nice cash windfall but Honolulu provided very little in the way of enticement. The original formulation had +5, for all those.
Tried to frame the Fortress Europa NO to match, though the one dealing with Sweden involves the baltic Trade. Sweden is the only thing that really distinguishes the two, since otherwise they are formally pretty similar.
I think it’s very useful to see the list of NO’s from balance mod 3.0. Is that discussion primarily in the software section?
I recognize many ideas in there from earlier posts in this thread from a while back or elsewhere in the HR section, so seems like the right idea. I’m guessing that part of what is happening now (if it’s in its 3rd iteration) is an attempt to achieve balance by sides using NO modification and no bid. That is also good, because I’ve long felt that money is the most flexible.
But I would suggest that once we have these NOs or VCs established in the HR package we don’t change them over time.
For one thing, the idea here is not so much to create a set mod with everything integrated to the Nth degree, but rather a modular package with many options, which may recommend different things for different settings (depending for example on which roster expansion options, or unit tweaks, or VC settings one chooses etc). I think the easiest way to address balance under specific settings is probably with a suggested starting cash adjustment, rather than objective modification in most cases. Or if need be, a bid, or set up change. Or perhaps the addition of specialized NOs or Penalties. But better if those are additive rather than substitutions. So they don’t mess with the standardized HR stuff once it’s established. If that makes sense.
I think the Sphere of Influence and NAP concepts will be fairly transformative, along with the listed objectives.
Who knows, maybe balance mod 4.0 or 5.0 will use some of the ideas mentioned lately? But my goal would not be to create a competing mod. Rather it’s meant to be a package that allows players to create something like a balanced mod on the fly, (or your own HR mod using only the things you want to) simply through editing selections.
The ideal would be a package that does not require a new set of gamefiles or xml editing for each mod, but just a recommended setting or a savegame with presets. The HR package itself is meant to be more universal.
-
I like the way it is shaping up.
I was a little hesitant at the Violation penalties initially, because to my recollection A&A has never had a negative economic penalty. However, I think that a penalty is a better solution than a bonus with the opposite intent.
-
Probably the most sensible thing to do is include the full BM NO list (latest iteration) as an independent pre-set in the add tech toggle.
That way they can go in there along with some of these newer proposals.
Provides a maximum degree of flexibility for HR package, and helps to solidify things that are already working, without cutting off the option to add in new stuff, or tweak elements not already present inside that Mod.
I think it might be nice to have two sets of ready to go objectives anyway. Just to stress the adaptability of the file.
Seem cool?
Then the House Rule gamefile covers a lot of ground…
You get more new units, new map features, new objectives, each with a couple entry options.Our credits list will likely be massive. But there is room in the game notes if we just ditch the OOB changelog (which hasn’t beenough updated in years.) And replace that with a big list of A&Aorg and tripleA handles.
-
Shifting gears back to 1942.2 for a moment. Since we are doing House Rule objectives for G40, I think we could also consider these for 1942.2
I would suggest that we keep Sphere of Influence and the NAP for v5, but reduce the penalty to fit with the smaller board. Something like…Sphere of Influence Violations:
-5 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
-5 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
-5 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
-5 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.NAP Violations:
-5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
-5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Russia is first to break the non aggression treaty.The closest board in scale to 1942.2 (and its predecessor) is AA50, with 6 players and 18 total objectives.
In 1942.2 we have 5 players. I think this would recommend something in the range of 15 total objectives, or perhaps a dozen.We should fold the Italian objectives into the German objectives for sure, but there are others which would also need to be adapted for a board like 1942.2. China is not a separate nation in v5 for example, but it could likewise be folded into US or Soviet objectives to suggest Chiang or Mao.
The values in AA50 can also be rather high, suggesting +5 for pretty much everything. I think some of these could probably go down in value or be somewhat more focused to match the economy and playscale of v5, which is more limited in scope.Below is the AA50 list…
Which objectives get axed, and what do we change so it makes more sense for V5?National Objectives Germany: Lebensraum-
+5 PUs if Axis control France, NW Europe, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland.
+5 PUs if Axis control 3 of Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine, East Ukrain, and Belorussia.
+5 PUs if Axis control Karelia or CaucasusJapan: The Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere-
+5 PUs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, and French Indo China.
+5 PUs if Axis control 4 of Kwangtung, East Indies, Borneo, Philippine Islands, New Guinea and Solomon Islands.
+5 PUs if Axis control 1 of Hawaiian Islands, Australia, or IndiaItaly: Mare Nostrum-
+5 PUs if Axis control 3 of Egypt, Trans Jordan, France, and Gibraltar
+5 PUs if Axis control Italy, Balkans, Morocco and Libya AND no enemy surface ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.United States: The Arsenal of Democracy-
+5 PUs if Allies control France.
+5 PUs if Allies control Philippine Islands.
+5 PUs Allies control W U.S., Central U.S., and E U.S.
+5 PUs if Allies control 3 of Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, and Solomon Islands.United Kingdom: The British Empire-
+5 PUs if Allies control any territory originally controlled by Japan.
+5 PUs if Allies control E Canada, W Canada, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia and South Africa.
+5 PUs if Allies control France or the Balkans.Soviet Union: The Great Patriotic War-
+5 PUs if Soviets control Archangel and no allied forces in Soviet controlled territories.
+10 PUs if Allies control 3 of Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Balkans.China: Chinese Resistance & The Flying Tigers
+1 infantry for every two territories controlled by China at the beginning of her turn. These infantry must be place in a territory with less than three Chinese pieces. No Chinese Units, including the Chinese Fighter may leave Chinese territory (except for Kwangtung) (this means no entering sea zones) -
For my part, I prefer a much simpler scheme without any other NOs outside these:
Sphere of Influence Violations:
-5 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
-5 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
-5 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
-5 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.Japan NAP bonus:
+5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.Russia get no bonus (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
However, Japan bonus would remain active for all the rest of the game.No complex things to learn and only a NAP which is beneficial to Russia and Japan.
This would be another incentive to go west for Japan, without compromising the Center Crush strategy.
Once this said, with option toggle switch on/off, it is still an opportunity to test NOs as a viable concept for 1942.2
However, VCs will already play a part in strategy.
I think that it must be as simple as 1 or 2 max per 5 powers, so 5 or 10 NOs at most.For Germany, I would use a kind of Atlantic Wall for Europe and Mare Nostrum in Med.
Atlantic Wall (Fortress Europa):
+5 PUs as long as these Axis TTy were never conquered by Allies: Norway, NorthWestern Europe and France.
Once Allies take this once, no more bonus.Mare Nostrum:
+3 PUs If all TTy bordering Med are Axis Controlled: Gibraltar, France, Italy, Southern Europe, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia and Morocco.For Russia, it is difficult because VCs (with Warchest might incorporate most of Lend-Lease NOs).
If Helsinki is chosen as VCs over Archangel, then it may be possible to use:Soviet Union: Arctic Convoy route
+5 PUs if Soviets control Archangel and no axis warship in bordering SZ 4.United Kingdom: The British Empire western colonial resources
+5 PUs if No Axis warship in Atlantic SZ (excluding SZ5 and SZ6) and Gibraltar is an Allies TTy.United Kingdom: The British Empire eastern colonial resources
+5 PUs if No Axis warship in SZ28, SZ33, SZ34 and SZ35 (African East Coast+ India SZ) and Suez Canal is open (Egypt and Trans-Jordan are allied TT).Japan: Outer defence perimeter:
+5 PUs if Japan control Hawaiian Islands, Midway, Wake and Solomon IslandsJapan: The Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere-
+5 PUs if Japan control Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China, Kwantung and Burma.
+5 PUs if Japan control 1 of Eastern Australia, New Zealand or India.(IDK which one is better for Japan)
United States: The Arsenal of Democracy-
+5 PUs for each TTy Allies control: France, Philippine Islands or Kwantung.
+1 PUs for each original Axis Pacific Island TTy owned by Allies.Here is my first draft. 10 NOs+ NAP and Sphere of Influence Violations…
-
I agree, less is more for 1942.2.
Was always resistant to NOs, even when first introduced in AA50, as being overly involved. So I like the idea of having them framed as “add ons” for a higher economy game, rather than as an indispensable part of game balance for 1942.2
Some of the other tweaks already suggested, and the material in Argos pdf will be sufficient to make that board pretty entertaining. But since we were already in an objective kind of mindset seemed like a good time to float some.
I prefer something along the lines of what you suggested, where each player nation only had 1 or 2 principle objectives. That way it’s easier to track.
AA50 had many multipart objectives, like control 3 out of 5 territories for +X, or 4 out of 6 territories for +Y. The second AA50 OOB German and Japanese NOs read this way for example. I think stuff like that is a bit too complex, and involves too much tracking for a simpler game like 1942.2.
I’d prefer bonuses that really concentrate on doing one big thing. Or a couple big things for each team. Because a lot of what we want should already be addressed somewhat by VCs and the othe4 options.
-
Here is a few comments on NAP and penalty:
It was on BMode thread:@Baron:
@aequitas:
@Baron:
I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.
You need to get your Hands dirty in order to wash them with the right soap :wink:
I recommend you to take the offer regularkid gave you and Play against him a BM game.I would like to have such time on my hand to play a G40.
I would be seriously beaten up for sure but it is really about useful analysis I’m actually looking for.
And I’m pretty sure between obvious aspects and aberrations there is way for experienced players to share their opinions and feedbacks.
I was just pointing some possible BMode topics to comment.I think you and the Redesign team are going about it in the wrong way. First of all, the chances of landing in the range of reasonable game balance with everything you are planning on changing with no playtesting whatsoever is extremely low. There may be no theoretical limit to theorizing about changes and their effect on balance, but in practice and with so many changes you would save a huge amount of time by playtesting them as you go along, or you’ll be left with an unbalanced game at the end of your redesign, and balancing that will take more effort than putting the whole thing together.
Second of all, you do not seem to have very experienced players as part of your Redesign team. I’ve skimmed through the thread and most of you are worried about outdated Axis tactics, saying for example that the Central Crush is the best/only way to go as Axis to win the game, and hence your efforts are concentrated on making other strategies more viable. While the Central Crush theory might have been the norm a few years ago, it isn’t at all anymore and the Axis have much better strategies than that. That’s why you need a few people in the Redesign team with at least 100 games completed, and who are knowledgeable about the current meta and what works and doesn’t work.
Lastly, there will inevitably be problems you haven’t foreseen and inconsistencies, and these issues are identified and corrected with playtesting. Something might sound good in theory, but applying it is another story. For example, you have an income penalty for whoever declares first between Russia and Japan, but this is easily taken advantage of by simply declaring war when you are about to lose your capital in order to reduce the plunder, which is gamey.
Good luck to the Redesign team, but at the very least don’t try to change 2 different maps with the same concepts. Focus on 1 map at a time.
-
I’m sure Adam514’s criticisms are kindly meant, but I’m not seeing much practical, actionable advice here. If someone has played 100+ games of G40, they are probably pretty happy with G40 the way it is, and not much interested in a redesign! And, yes, of course we will have to playtest all of this, but when a game takes 8+ hours per playtest, it makes sense to invest real time in developing a promising first draft of the rules before you start playtesting.
As far as national objectives in 1942.2, my only real comment is that they need to be tailored around a specific purpose. In G40 and AA50, there are so many territories on the board that a “regional objective” that rewards players for controlling 3 out of 4 territories in a region can help to give order and shape to the map – it helps players make sense of where they’re supposed to be aiming, and how far they are meant to have penetrated by the end of the opening and by the end of the middlegame. So the purpose of the G40 / AA50 objectives is to help give shape and structure to players’ attacks.
In 1942.2, the map is small enough that every territory and every spare infantry matters. The problem isn’t that players have too many options, the problem is that the map is well-understood enough that players are often forced to stick pretty closely to an “orthodox” script if they want to be at all competitive. The OOB game revolves around France, Karelia, West Russia, the Caucasus, Egypt, Persia, and India. That’s where armies will naturally pile up and face off against each other, and in 9 out of 10 games, that’s where the game will be decided.
If you take that existing structure and add a bunch of regional National Objectives on top of it, even if you put a lot of love and care into designing the NOs, you’re likely to wind up complicating the game without really adding much fun or variety to the gameplay. You might slightly shift where players focus their energy – maybe Norway becomes the key tug-of-war point instead of Karelia – but you’re pretty much working with the same themes, only now instead of being able to see where to focus by studying the map, you have to study the map and keep glancing back at your National Objectives reference card.
A few months ago, I designed some National Objectives for the specific purpose of trying to shift energy away from the center of the map and toward the periphery (Norway, Australia, Soviet Far East, etc.). My buddies playtested them once, and they worked OK – they had some bugs, but they were interesting. But in the Redesign, I don’t think we can take it for granted that we’re going to need to shift energy away from the center. Depending on what options are selected, the game may already be balanced between the center and the periphery. E.g., with 30 VCs each giving $1 in Lend-Lease each turn on the 1942.2 map, I bet the corners of the board will be getting plenty of attention, National Objectives or no.
I dislike non-aggression pacts that pay off with a cash bonus, because they seem horribly unrealistic to me – if you make a surprise attack, it gives you an advantage, not a disadvantage. I’ve argued about that with y’all on other threads, and I think you know my point of view. It’s not a dealbreaker for me.
I am also very uneasy about the sphere of influence violation as applied to the 1942.2 map. On the 1942.2 map, beginners often fail to reinforce Moscow and West Russia appropriately – they will not send even one fighter to Moscow until it’s too late. Advanced players often develop a very rigorous schedule of reinforcement, and they will not be willing to compromise that schedule just to avoid a $5 penalty. Basically I’m not sure that a $5 penalty will wind up deterring more than a tiny fraction of 1942.2 players. There are Russian berserkers who constantly attack with Russia and don’t want any defensive help anyway, and there are Russian fortress-builders who can’t imagine playing Russia without Allied reinforcements, and there isn’t much in between, at least in my experience.
Part of the issue with the sphere of influence violation is that it’s all-or-nothing. If you have already accepted a couple of British fighters on Moscow, chances are that if you withdraw those fighters, then you’ll lose your capital. Nobody wants to risk losing their capital just to collect an extra $5 that will be promptly looted by Germany before you can spend it! But if you continue to double down on the Allied reinforcements, then there is no additional cost – you can stack 20 British infantry, 5 British tanks, and 10 British fighters all over central Russia for the same penalty you would get if you put 1 British infantry in Leningrad.
In a typical game, Russia’s power will go slowly but steadily down over the course of the game. If Russia’s power starts to noticeably increase after the opening is over, that’s usually a pretty reliable sign that the Allies are destined to win. At that point, a few extra bucks here or there isn’t going to matter; you’ve already broken the German spearhead, and the rest is just a matter of mopping up. Same thing with, e.g., Japan in a Kill Japan First opening – if the Allies all try to kill Japan, and Japan’s income dips from 30 down to 20 and then down to 15, but then rebounds back up to 25, that probably means the Axis are a few turns away from winning the game.
Consequently, there will never be a good opportunity to remove troops from a weak ally’s territory. From the moment you decide to put troops in their territory, they are only going to get weaker, and so they’re only going to have more need for your troops.
So I’m a little unsure of what the sphere of influence rule is accomplishing for us in 1942.2. Do we really imagine that in most games, Russia will be able to manage its defense without any outside aid? Are we trying to incentivize players to wait until later in the middlegame to start dropping reinforcements into Russia? What is our goal here?
In general, I think it would be useful if someone could compile a bulleted list of 1942.2 house rules that might go into the redesign, one line of text per rule, and then compile another bulleted list of design goals, one line of text per design goal. We should be trying to figure out how (and whether!) each of our proposed rules is actually furthering one of our design goals, and whether some of those rules are stepping on each other’s toes.
-
I take the criticism, and admit I do feel somewhat deflated by it.
On the other hand, even within that modification, ideas are already being used which would not exist if people hadn’t first done a fair amount of theorizing. So I still take a certain pride in tossing out ideas, and rambling endlessly about these games in a more general way.
:-DI think the difference is that, once you set a clear foundation to build on, you can’t really go back and revise that foundation too much, without tanking all the various balance adjustments that have been made along the way. Balanced Mod is already established by now. So whatever tweaks remain to be made there, are unlikely to include more new ideas that diverge substantially from what is going on with the latest iteration. The priority goal for anything with “Balance” in the name, is clearly to make it balanced by sides (ie no further adjustments needed.) They are basically in Beta mode right now, where the parameters are more or less set, and they are trying to fine tune.
Like would they want to add more VCs at this point? Or new units? My guess is no. Kid laid out his priorities there a while back, that the mod would have a particular scope in that area, using C5 Marines and Vichy and some other select modifications at the foundation, but otherwise keeping the flavor of map as much like OOB as possible, and then drive with a more lazer like focus towards balancing those materials.
This is a rather different aim than what I was hoping we might provide for tripleA here, which is not a mod focused on balance, but is essentially a kind of HR tool kit that mirrors the table top experience, allowing players to adopt HRs for the official games in a simpler way on the fly. Instead of hacking xml files, importing graphics, designing new triggers and all the rest, instead they’d have a set of standardized options to pick and choose from a la carte.
Just as a quick example. Say a player wants to use Vichy rules but not Marines or vice versa. That’s not possible right now unless you create a new gamefile. Or similarly if you want to add any other unit concept that players might be interested in, or things like adding VCs etc. In practical terms it is not possible to balance for all these things at once. So I would make no claims there. All I’m shooting for is to put more options on the table, and increase the modular flexibility.
His point about the Violations is a good one. It’s true I had not anticipated how a malus removing ipcs for something the player chooses to do, might be abused to reduce their treasury before capital capture. Same deal with what Arg just mentioned regarding 1942.2
That idea was very recent, so its no surprise if it may prove unworkable. Part of the reason that deliberation can sometimes be a good thing. So there is plenty of time to shut it down before the reactor blows.
:-DSo yeah, maybe axe those. I also like that last idea of Arg’s to start bullet’ng it out.
-
Just thinking more on Adam’s point, is there any kind of NAP that actually works in A&A, without totally hamstring’ng the gameplay in the process, or which isn’t so weak that it’s inevitably broken as a matter of course? I mean I’ve looked at many of the BM saves in the league thread since it launched, and the Russia/Japan situation seems to still deteriorate pretty regularly. It’s obviously not as bad as OOB, because of other things going on, but still see similar breakdown develop in the midgame. Certainly the OOB NAP is nowhere near strong enough to deter Russia from saying “screw it” right out the gate.
What if the DoW phase occurred before unit purchase?
Then the violator of the NAP could get hit with a penalty at purchase rather than collect income. Would that solve the issue of having the penalty gamed before capital collapse?
Seems like a lot, just to get one thing working correctly, but if it doesn’t impact the game substantially in any other way, maybe it works? Similar to switching the combat movement phase to be before purchase/combat proper with no real effect.
-
That would solve the don’t-get-looted exploit, and having the penalty be more “immediate” might help motivate players to take the penalty more seriously. Neuroscience says that people care more about small, immediate penalties than they do about large, distant penalties.
I still say a financial penalty of any kind is the wrong tool to keep russia and japan away from each other. If I wanted to try to keep russia and japan off of each other’s backs, I would severely limit Japan’s unit caps relative to its total income. For example, in 1942.2, Japan has $30 of starting income, and 8 unit slots to build each turn. After a few turns, when Japan has built a factory, that often rises to something like $40 of income with 10 build slots. Either way, you’re roughly in the $4 per unit range, which means that you have the option to build plenty of infantry and artillery as Japan.
In real life, Japan’s manpower was tapped out – by spring 1943, after the Japanese Army bogged down in China, Burma, and New Guinea, Japan had almost no able-bodied soldiers left to draft. They had enough industry to continue building more planes, tanks, ships, etc., which acted as force multipliers, but they if they needed to field another army of 200,000 infantry, they simply had no way to do that.
I think this is a major reason why Japan chose not to invade Russia in the 1940s! Invading northern Asia would have required another army of 200,000 infantry that Japan simply didn’t have. You can’t invade a vast land mass with nothing but tanks; at some point you also need boots on the ground.
So, suppose you reduce the value of the Japanese home territory from $8 to $5, and suppose you reduce the value of Manchuria from $3 to $2. You can increase the value of some of the islands from $0 to $1 so that Japan’s total income stays the same. Now Japan is collecting $30 income with only 5 build slots, and later in the game they’ll collect $40 income with $7 build slots – closer to $6 per unit. At $6 per unit, you want to build a lot of ships and tanks and planes to multiply your firepower. You might build one or two infantry each round, but you’ll be chronically short of infantry, so invading the (low-value) territories of Siberia will naturally be much less attractive. You won’t have to bribe the Japanese to leave the Russians alone – they’ll do it anyway, because that’s their natural incentive from that starting position.
Meanwhile, concentrate the bulk of the starting Russian infantry closer to Yakut and Evenki, rather than in the Soviet Far East and Buryatia. The Russians will then cheerfully and gratefully migrate any surplus infantry westward to Moscow and Archangel – they certainly will not go picking a fight with the Japanese.
Another, altogether different option is to trigger some American lend-lease if and when Japan invades Moscow. If Japan breaks the non-aggression pact first, then America can make a one time cash transfer of up to $16 from the US treasury to the Russian treasury. That at least simulates real diplomacy – the Western Allies are pissed that Japan is making a surprise attack against their alliance partner, so they send the partner some extra cash by way of retaliation.
-
…What if the DoW phase occurred before unit purchase?..
Why not ? already games with combat before purchase
-
That would solve the don’t-get-looted exploit, and having the penalty be more “immediate” might help motivate players to take the penalty more seriously. Neuroscience says that people care more about small, immediate penalties than they do about large, distant penalties.
I still say a financial penalty of any kind is the wrong tool to keep russia and japan away from each other. If I wanted to try to keep russia and japan off of each other’s backs, I would severely limit Japan’s unit caps relative to its total income. For example, in 1942.2, Japan has $30 of starting income, and 8 unit slots to build each turn. After a few turns, when Japan has built a factory, that often rises to something like $40 of income with 10 build slots. Either way, you’re roughly in the $4 per unit range, which means that you have the option to build plenty of infantry and artillery as Japan.
In real life, Japan’s manpower was tapped out – by spring 1943, after the Japanese Army bogged down in China, Burma, and New Guinea, Japan had almost no able-bodied soldiers left to draft. They had enough industry to continue building more planes, tanks, ships, etc., which acted as force multipliers, but they if they needed to field another army of 200,000 infantry, they simply had no way to do that.
I think this is a major reason why Japan chose not to invade Russia in the 1940s! Invading northern Asia would have required another army of 200,000 infantry that Japan simply didn’t have. You can’t invade a vast land mass with nothing but tanks; at some point you also need boots on the ground.
So, suppose you reduce the value of the Japanese home territory from $8 to $5, and suppose you reduce the value of Manchuria from $3 to $2. You can increase the value of some of the islands from $0 to $1 so that Japan’s total income stays the same. Now Japan is collecting $30 income with only 5 build slots, and later in the game they’ll collect $40 income with $7 build slots – closer to $6 per unit. At $6 per unit, you want to build a lot of ships and tanks and planes to multiply your firepower. You might build one or two infantry each round, but you’ll be chronically short of infantry, so invading the (low-value) territories of Siberia will naturally be much less attractive. You won’t have to bribe the Japanese to leave the Russians alone – they’ll do it anyway, because that’s their natural incentive from that starting position.
Meanwhile, concentrate the bulk of the starting Russian infantry closer to Yakut and Evenki, rather than in the Soviet Far East and Buryatia. The Russians will then cheerfully and gratefully migrate any surplus infantry westward to Moscow and Archangel – they certainly will not go picking a fight with the Japanese.
Another, altogether different option is to trigger some American lend-lease if and when Japan invades Moscow. If Japan breaks the non-aggression pact first, then America can make a one time cash transfer of up to $16 from the US treasury to the Russian treasury. That at least simulates real diplomacy – the Western Allies are pissed that Japan is making a surprise attack against their alliance partner, so they send the partner some extra cash by way of retaliation.
Your idea is very out of sand box but it needs to be explored.
A 5 IPCs Japan but 3 IPCs Manchuria can it work?
Can it have an IC on set-up? (Allowing a lot of boats in SZ and keeping the same 8 units max.)
And UK can get 3 more ICs in South (WAus, EAus and NZ) to compensate.With such low production it can somehow reduced the turtle effect when Allies fleet may attack Japan.
A 37.5% drop of Infantry (8 to 5) may make it within a possible KJF finishing by a Tokyo invasion.
Okinawa, Iwo Jima (or Carolines Islands) and Formosa can all get 1 IPC value.For NAP penalty, you can say that all Warchest is going to Russia, or Japan according to who break it.
Maybe Japan can lower to 4 (same as caucasus TT), and gets +1 in all four TTs above.
Might create an interesting pattern of purchase and prod. -
Yeah, I think you could do this with a variety of IPC values! The dynamic could work with Tokyo at anywhere between 4 and 6 IPCs, and Manchuria with either 2 or 3 IPCs, depending on how much the new British factories are actually pressuring Japan. I like Baron’s point that a lower-valued Tokyo would also make it easier for the Allies to go in for the kill in a Kill Japan First opening.
Note that if you start Japan off with a factory in a 3-IPC Manchuria alongside a 5-IPC Tokyo, you are almost reproducing the OOB status quo; Japan still starts with 8 build slots at game start, and can immediately expand to 10 build slots by purchasing a factory in, e.g., Kwangtung. So I don’t think that particular setup would work well to create Russo-Japanese non-aggression.
Also, I would not give the entire Warchest (i.e., including enemy dollars) to the victim of whoever breaks the non-aggression pact. That is just a disguised way of taking cash from the aggressor and giving cash to the victim. I cannot even begin to imagine what historical force or scenario that rule could possibly be supposed to represent. I don’t know why this idea is so popular. I think maybe human beings are hard-wired by evolution to enjoy seeing “cheaters” and “sneaks” be fairly punished. That’s a healthy instinct; it’s helped us build a decent civilization, but in the particular case of Axis & Allies, I think it’s extremely counter-productive. If Russia and Japan are each other’s enemies, then the rules of the game should reward them for launching a surprise attack against each other, because surprise attacks are a useful and effective tactic.
Saying that Japan should get an in-game penalty for attacking Russia is just as silly as saying that Japan should get -1 dice in combat if it attacks Pearl Harbor on the first turn because the poor Americans weren’t expecting the attack, and the Japanese were too sneaky so they have to be punished. That’s just not how it works. If you sneak up on someone, then you get a bonus to your fighting ability, not a penalty.
Part of the reason why real governments don’t make sneak attacks on each other in the 21st century is that it ruins your reputation, and makes other countries less likely to trust you and trade with you and do you favors. But who, exactly, was Japan trading with in 1941? Nobody. They’d already been completely cut off from the international economy. That was the whole point; that was why the Pacific War started in the first place. Once the unrestricted submarine warfare got going in the Pacific, that made the mutual embargos that much tighter.
If you want to say that a Japanese attack on Russia motivates the US/UK to send Russia more direct aid, fine. But if you want to say that a Japanese attack on Russia motivates Japan itself to send Russia direct aid, or that a Japanese attack on Russia somehow magically makes more Russian troops appear from nowhere, then I just have no idea where you’re coming from.
Sorry if I’m getting emotional here, but I’m feel frustrated about not having been able to clearly communicate this thought to you all.
-
No worries, I understand clearly everything you are saying. Short answer is basically, ‘no the NAP is not workable in A&A.’
Basically no simple carrot or stick is large enough to do the trick, and even of it was, it would be too hard to justify the abstraction in a satisfying way.
If going for a dramatic redesign of the Japanese production spread on the game map as a way to achieve the desired aim, then in tripleA terms I’m not sure we could really still call it 1942.2 or Global etc. It would probably be more appropriate to use a different name to describe a map with adjusted base ipc values. Like “catchy name” v5. I’d say once we go that route, there is really no reason to restrict adjustments elsewhere. Anyone who wanted to use the physical gameboard would need a way to indicate the adjustment in a more permanent way, like with a number token. It’s a pretty significant break from the boxed game. But its not much different than adding VCs, except that visually it is more of an eyesore. But if doing this, what of the OOB game do you preserve? Unit set up charts and territory division remain the same, and only map values change?
Or do you mean a single change, just to the Japanese home island (Tokyo) and nothing else? If it was only one territory on the map (or say just a few associated Japanese territories) being adjusted this way, then perhaps we can get away with it, and don’t have to open the flood gates completely.
Let’s say for example that Japan is reduced to 6, and Okinawa and Carolines are raised to 1 as an offset. Maybe that is acceptable, since it only requires 3 marker changes. Not too crazy.
But I think if we go too far in this direction, you will end up with a base map that starts looking pretty different, recommending unit set up changes too and starting cash adjustments to make it work, which basically means tossing out the set up cards. Not trying to go too slippery slope here, but if you have several changes to map values, and different set up cards, it’s basically a new game at that point. I’m not opposed to making a new game on a v5 scale, though at some point I’d say why use 1942.2 at all haha. I mean, of all the A&A maps, this one is probably my least favorite to begin with from a design standpoint.
For that kind of investment in time, I’d rather print out a new map FtF, or work with a tripleA map that actually looks clean. Instead of the old Revised baseline, with all its blobs.
:-DPerhaps this is a better approach?
That seems to be what CWO suggested early on, that we just make something from scratch. And recent exchanges with other members here have me thinking that redesign efforts for the OOB global game aren’t much appreciated anyway.
If you really want to do this, I will draw you a baseline for use in tripleA on the scale of v5, but with the territory divisions you want to explore. So you can plug in the desired prosuction numbers.
It’s been a while, but I’ve done this many times before. Integrating the map file and drafting the basic connections in xml is what takes the longest.
If going through the trouble to create a new world projection at the scale of v5, it would probably be best to make a map which actually works for v5 too. It has always bugged me that 1942.2 uses the same baseline in tripleA as Revised and Spring 1942 v4, when the OOB map is clearly different. It’s not really a second edition in map terms, it’s a new edition. The only reason it doesn’t have a new default map in tripleA is because it was easier to hack v4 than create a new map, and because I was taking a break from tripleA when Veq threw it together, and so I wasn’t around to press for a new baseline.
ps. like if I was to try for it, I would probably use the AA50 baseline, but remove unnecessary tiles. Compress Spain and tweak Gibraltar so it aligns a bit better than the AA50 baseline. Here is a garish draft from a while back, with hard and fast paint fill, and some shoddy text thrown in. Its a bit jpeggy, but you get the general sense haha. I can’t remember what idea I was trying to explore at the time, probably something with starting factories or Russia (since it has way more TTs than necessary), or maybe the v5 sea zones since I see a bunch of tweaks over AA50 there? But anyway, I think if you created a new baseline for use with v5, then it would be a lot simpler to include an extra gamefile on the v5 scale, but which included things of interest like adjusted ipc values or more VCs or whatever. Is that more what you were thinking?
Are you ok with this sort of basic projection? Because I already have a few versions of that baseline at different sizes. Then it would just be a matter of compressing a couple areas, blowing out Europe for v5 scale, erasing borders until you have the basic v5 territory distribution and then adding sea zones.
If you want Europe larger the easiest way to do that is with a vertical stretch, but will quickly start to distort the med and mid east if you go too large. That’s why Africa/India always looks so weird in A&A maps. This projection was my best effort to address the compression we usually see in A&A while still trying to make a map that looks recognizable in places like China. Not sure if you’re into it.
-
Sorry if I’m getting emotional here, but I’m feel frustrated about not having been able to clearly communicate this thought to you all.
About NAP penalty, you can say that all Warchest is going to Russia, or Japan according to who break it.
Sorry Argothair, your thought was clearly understood first time. It is my intent which was not clear in my sentence. It was all Axis warchest which was going to Japan or all Allied Warchest to Russia, not both to the poor victim.
My sentence was confusing I see it clearly.
At least, it allows you to say more about your POV on NAP breaking.
:-) -
do you mean a single change, just to the Japanese home island (Tokyo) and nothing else? If it was only one territory on the map (or say just a few associated Japanese territories) being adjusted this way, then perhaps we can get away with it, and don’t have to open the flood gates completely.
Let’s say for example that Japan is reduced to 6, and Okinawa and Carolines are raised to 1 as an offset. Maybe that is acceptable, since it only requires 3 marker changes. Not too crazy.
This change on Japan was exactly what was done by Phillip Swartzer in WW2 Pacific Expansion.
It reduced Japan by 3 or 4 pts to increase Japanese Island Values on good old Classic map. At that time, I did not realized it can make an easier Japan invasion.
It provides a few Japan Control Marker with different number (1,2 or 3) on it.
For table top, we can suggest this tweak for Japan only.
More, you can use original one side white cardboard leftover from OOB to draw number on it.
What can be Japan critical initial production number to make a viable NAP?
I rather keep OOB Manchuria, there is not that much high value TTy in Asia.
Going as low as 4 Japan and 1 for Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Carolines to keep same initial income?About 1942.2 Map, if you have a better drawn map for Triple A, why don’t try it instead of v4 revamped?
I was not into redrawing map, but a background change may help see visually that Redesign is a new mint. -
It was all Axis warchest which was going to Japan or all Allied Warchest to Russia, not both to the poor victim.
Ah, OK. That makes plenty of sense.
At least, it allows you to say more about your POV on NAP breaking.
Zounds! You’ve discovered my true motives! :)
And recent exchanges with other members here have me thinking that redesign efforts for the OOB global game aren’t much appreciated anyway.
Well, there are always critics. My experience is that for everyone who bothers to tell you your idea is insane, there are a dozen who think it’s pretty neat but who just don’t bother to post most of the time. Otherwise why would our posts get up to thousands of views? Are there hundreds of people who all want to silently laugh at our dumb ideas? Or maybe there’s some weirdo out there who keeps refreshing all my posts like a maniac just to drive up my “views” count and trick me into thinking I know something…that would explain a lot, actually.
More seriously, if we want to shift gears to a brand new map on roughly the 1942.2 or AA50 scale, that’s fine, and I’m happy to help with that, including the .xml file, but I don’t think we should be pressured into doing that based on public opinion. I think the Russia vs. Japan issue can be adequately addressed without major territory value changes; putting VCs and military bases in the ANZAC region will help give Japan a reason to go south, and the combat-impassible Western China will seriously nerf the Japanese Death March to Moscow ™, and the Lend-Lease effect of the Warchest will allow Russia to resist Axis aggression much more effectively.
Suggested Topics
