Game play Idea

[SJS063]

So, from what I have noticed there are quite a few differences from A&A and actual history. Not saying this is a bad thing, especially since it would be so boring if the Allies won every time. But the biggest difference between the 2 that I think could have an interesting effect on gameplay is/was the total lack of coordination between Japan and Germany in actual history. In WW2, Japan attacked the US, and Germany unwisely declared war on us as well, but she was totally unprepared. Meanwhile, in this game, if there is more than one player for the Axis, you can decide whether or not to go KRF, attack Britain, or try to stangle American shipping. Now, as I type this, I realize this is kind of a house rule and maybe should be in the other topic, but my idea is this:

Play the board seperatly, Europe and Pacific. the German and/or Italian Player could only see the European Board, and only Japan could look at the Pacific Board. There may be no coordination between the 2, unless they announce a declaration of war. Anyways, please give me feedback. My fear is that it could make gameplay too complex and uninteresting, but it could add a new flavor and or balance to games usually dominated by the Axis

Thanks,
                                SJS063

[Young Grasshopper]

I have wanted to try playing the separate 1940 theatre games on the same table, but I haven’t been able to convince anyone to try it with me as I would need at least 4 players.

[CWO Marc]

@SJS063:

Play the board seperatly, Europe and Pacific. the German and/or Italian Player could only see the European Board, and only Japan could look at the Pacific Board. There may be no coordination between the 2, unless they announce a declaration of war.

I recently wrote about the topic of German-Japanese WWII cooperation (or rather lack thereof) over here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38007.0

I agree that it would be nice for a multi-player A&A game to replicate their uncoordinated wartime efforts, but I’m not sure that the best solution is to prevent the German and Japanese players from looking at the opposite half of the game board (regardless of whether or not they announce a declaration of war, by which I presume you mean some sort of joint declaration of war).

The problem which Germany and Japan had in WWII wasn’t that they didn’t know what the other war doing, nor was it that they hadn’t declared war jointly; their problem was a) that they were located on opposite sides of the planet, separated from each other by enemy countries, and b) that their war efforts were motivated by factors which had little to do with each other and lacked any significant common objectives, and c) that there was very little in practical terms that each country could do for the other, except make vague offers of exchanges of information and other liaison activities.  The Allies, by contrast, were much better positioned to think of the war in global terms.  The USSR was in direct physical contact with the Axis powers, with German-occupied Europe on its western borders and Japanese-occupied Manchuria on its eastern borders.  Britain had vast imperial holdings around the planet, and its economy depended on international maritime trade.  The US had a smaller global footprint at the time, but it did have associated territories here and there; moreover, the fact that its home turf has both a long Atlantic coastline and a long Pacific coastline on its home turf meant that the US had maritime interests in both directions (as illustrated by the title of the “Two-Ocean Navy Act”).  The US also had enough material resources that it could afford to provide substantial assistance to its allies, in addition to taking care of its own needs.

A game restriction that would better reflect of historical reality would actually be to have a rule preventing Germany and Japan from coordinating their war efforts in significant ways that didn’t actually happen – most crucially, by prohibiting Japan from going to war against the USSR.

[cyanight]

Something I have been thinking of which is very similar is to have the Allies and the Axis play on separate boards. You could see only units of your side and would have to use recon/attacks to reveal your opponent’s pieces. This would create a “Fog of War” element to the game. The only problem is Global is already a very time consuming game and to use fog of war would just extend the game time.

[CWO Marc]

@cyanight:

Something I have been thinking of which is very similar is to have the Allies and the Axis play on separate boards. You could see only units of your side and would have to use recon/attacks to reveal your opponent’s pieces. This would create a “Fog of War” element to the game. The only problem is Global is already a very time consuming game and to use fog of war would just extend the game time.

You’d also need a neutral umpire to act as a go-between, in order to relay only the information that applies to the territories where opposing forces are in contact.  And the umpire, in addition to tracking the effects of recons and attacks, would also have to track the effects of all moves (even non-combat ones), because a move by unit X into territory Y could bring it into contact with unsuspected enemy unit Z.  The only way for all this to be both practical and fast and accurate would be to use a computer rather than a human to track the separate boards, which would mean writing a custom program of some sort.

[cyanight]

@CWO:

@cyanight:

Something I have been thinking of which is very similar is to have the Allies and the Axis play on separate boards. You could see only units of your side and would have to use recon/attacks to reveal your opponent’s pieces. This would create a “Fog of War” element to the game. The only problem is Global is already a very time consuming game and to use fog of war would just extend the game time.Â

You’d also need a neutral umpire to act as a go-between, in order to relay only the information that applies to the territories where opposing forces are in contact.  And the umpire, in addition to tracking the effects of recons and attacks, would also have to track the effects of all moves (even non-combat ones), because a move by unit X into territory Y could bring it into contact with unsuspected enemy unit Z.  The only way for all this to be both practical and fast and accurate would be to use a computer rather than a human to track the separate boards, which would mean writing a custom program of some sort.

Yes you would. An umpire with TripleA to verify units position.  Yea, like that will ever happen. I have a difficult time just finding 4 players, lol

[CWO Marc]

@cyanight:

Yes you would. An umpire with TripleA to verify units position.  Yea, like that will ever happen. I have a difficult time just finding 4 players, lol

At least we have the benefit of living at a time when you’ll find a wireless networked computer in the back pocket of every self-respecting teenager in North America, and when you can get those computers to do all kinds of stuff for you as long as you have a suitable app.  Our primitive ancestors had it much tougher.  Back in the 1970s, a tabletop wargamer published a book in which (among other things) he described a non-umpired system for achieving blind movement by players operating on separate maps.  Each map was arranged using a grid system, with numbers and letters identifying each cell of the grid.  The grid was replicated on a device consisting of consecutive stacks of empty cardboard matchboxes (the kind with a little sliding tray that can be opened on either side of the box) glued together both horizontally and vertically to form a kind of upright slab.  The players would sit on opposite sides of the slab.  Each tray was grid-numbered on both of its sides.  When, let’s say, the Blue Player was ready to make his next move, the Red Player would look away from his side of the slab and say that the coast is clear.  The Blue Player would then, let’s say, move one of his map units from cell B2 to B3 in the following way: he’d open matchbox B2, remove the blue token that he put into it in an earlier move, close matchbox B2, then open matchbox B3 to put his token into it.  If he sees that matchbox B3 is empty, he’ll know that his moved unit has not made contact with the enemy.  If, however, he finds a red token in matchbox B3, he’ll signal to the Red Player that they have units in contact, and the game at that point would shift into combat-resolution mode.  Not bad for pre-computer days, but very time-consuming and, on top of that, totally dependent on the honesty of the players.

[WILD BILL]

I think the cooperation of both the axis or allies in a given theater is more acceptable then say the German and Japanese players that are on opposite sides of the globe work closely together (Europe/Pac). I think that the games mechanics (or lack there of) drive some of this. The victory cities win gives us some pretty strange doings. You can have games when one of the axis powers completely bails on all its own objectives to help their partner go for the VC win. Like you can have Japan throw away its 20+ air force at Moscow to weaken it for an easier German takeover. Or the Japanese go for Egypt to secure a Euro win, but actually give up most of their holdings on the Pac side to do it. The German stack heading for Moscow turns south to go for India because it is the sixth VC on the Pac side……These things are going to happen from time to time because of the victory conditions, but we know they would never happen in the real war.

The above are kinda extreme, but coordinated planned out efforts by the Axis to topple Moscow should be allowed. It is also my understanding that the when the Germans launched Barbarossa, Hitler wanted the Japanese to break the NAP they signed earlier that same year with Russia and invade. It was considered, but the Japanese decided to keep the NAP w/Russia and continue to press southeast Asia (leading to DOW on USA, UK, and Dutch). Of course getting their butts kicked by the Russians multiple times also had something to do with that, and the Imperial Army lost much of it’s influence because of those border clashes. The point is there was some communication about joint efforts, they just weren’t carried out. So as axis players you should be able to discuss these things IMO. You can have the Japanese start grabbing all the Russian Pac territories (income), and launch an SBR campaign on Moscow to help the Euro axis.

Somethings are weird, but are done more because of the games mechanics and turn order. Like you can send a couple German bmrs to the Pac to take out Allied blockers for the Japanese. This would have been unlikely in the war, but game play is the factor here IMO.

I think that the allied side should be able to work together to a certain degree, as they did. Maybe even more so then the game allows for. The USA is the leader on the Pac side with out a doubt, so they should be able to influence what the Anz do/don’t do. On the Euro side the UK and US should have some coordinated efforts, and someone should be the supreme leader. But you should also allow for individual goals that lead to some rivalry. The Western allies shouldn’t be allowed on Russian land, or share territories. However there should be a degree of lend-lease that either allows the Allies to give IPCs to Russia or units that convert once they hit certain Russian territories (allowing for axis intervention).

I read through some of the posts that CWO Marc linked us to and I’m intrigued with some of the house rules. I have some AA style games that do simultaneous movement/attack that I have dabbled with, and it would be pretty cool to do that in some degree w/G40. I also like giving the powers their own objectives, and YG tokens sound pretty cool too.

On another note, I saw a clip on the History Channel years ago about a cooperative effort “plan” that the Germans had with the Japanese involving the India. This was before the Japanese attack on Pearl and the DEI. I’m a little fuzzy on all the details, but it involved a German backed coup of the Indian Government, and a threat or possible landing by the Japanese. From what this documentary said, this plan was nearly implemented, but because of the well known rivalry between the Imperial Navy and Imperial Army it was abandoned.

.

[Wolfshanze]

If you want something more realistic without complicated rules of this or that and you can or can’t see this or that, there’s one very simple rule to put in place, that is very clear, very understandable, very easy to enforce, allows for as small as a two player game, and nobody has to play “blind”… Germany and Japan can see each other and cooperate as much as they want, without the unrealistic effects often seen in A&A games.

Here’s the simple one-step house rule that would fix everything instantly.

Russia and Japan are never allowed to be at war or invade/cross-through each others territories.

Problem solved.

[WILD BILL]

@Wolfshanze:

If you want something more realistic without complicated rules of this or that and you can or can’t see this or that, there’s one very simple rule to put in place, that is very clear, very understandable, very easy to enforce, allows for as small as a two player game, and nobody has to play “blind”… Germany and Japan can see each other and cooperate as much as they want, without the unrealistic effects often seen in A&A games.

Here’s the simple one-step house rule that would fix everything instantly.

Russia and Japan are never allowed to be at war or invade/cross-through each others territories.

Problem solved.

Yeah you could house rule in such a thing, and could even call it historical if you want. I know some rule in that the Russians can’t break the NAP until Berlin is in allied hands sighting that is what happened in the real war. Similarly the Japanese can’t invade Russian soil unless Moscow is in German control (basically the NAP is void when one member is gone).

I don’t like it though because although it didn’t happen, it very well could have. Sea Lion didn’t happen either, but you can do it if you want. There is historical documentation that had the Imperial Japanese Army gotten its way they would have invaded Siberia. Keep in mind that Stalin had a NAP agreement with both the Germans and Japanese. It is also documented that Stalin feared an invasion from the east more so then from the Germans (thinking they were too busy with the Brits and not ready), even though his own spies told him otherwise. Stalin kept his best troops and armor divisions in the east in preparation for an invasion that didn’t happen (but it could have). There was also a lot of pressure on Japan from their axis German partner to invade, but as we know they had other plans.

So being that this game starts in 1940 as an armchair general of the Japanese the option of invading Russia should be on the table, even though the game doesn’t properly represent the capabilities of the Russian’s in the Far East.

[CWO Marc]

@WILD:

On another note, I saw a clip on the History Channel years ago about a cooperative effort “plan” that the Germans had with the Japanese involving the India. This was before the Japanese attack on Pearl and the DEI. I’m a little fuzzy on all the details, but it involved a German backed coup of the Indian Government, and a threat or possible landing by the Japanese. From what this documentary said, this plan was nearly implemented, but because of the well known rivalry between the Imperial Navy and Imperial Army it was abandoned.

The documentary may have been giving a somewhat mangled combination of two different historical facts:

• Germany, Italy and Japan had agreed on paper to divide the world at a longitude of 70 degrees east, a line that runs through India and the Indian Ocean.  The agreement was a secret protocol appended to the Tripartite Pact, which I’ve copied below.

• Japan and Germany supported a so-called Indian provisional government (Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind) which was established in Singapore in 1943, and whose ambition was to overthrow British rule in India.  I don’t think it ever amounted to very much more than a propaganda tool.

[Karl7]

Bah, most games where one Axis bales for the other side of the map are losers for the Axis.

[taamvan]

The game has numerous, totally unrealistic possibilities for coordination considering between the Axis considering (to my extensive knowledge) not one german built and piloted fighter flew alongside a Japanese (built and piloted) fighter in combat nor did a single Japanese purpose built warship sail along side a kriegsmarine one in open combat for the entire war.

Realism would dictate not “fog of war” but a super fun rule

Realism Rule;

“No German or Italian unit may ever occupy the same space as any Japanese one”

388 MG150 cannon were sent in an Italian submarine to equip the Ki-61 fighter; in a realistic game Germany and Italy would be allowed to contribute the 3/8ths of the funding needed to build a single fighter squadron for Japan.

If you wanted a realistic game, the Axis would win by holding out for 4 years rather than 3.

[Wolfshanze]

@WILD:

I don’t like it though because although it didn’t happen, it very well could have. Sea Lion didn’t happen either, but you can do it if you want. There is historical documentation that had the Imperial Japanese Army gotten its way they would have invaded Siberia. Keep in mind that Stalin had a NAP agreement with both the Germans and Japanese. It is also documented that Stalin feared an invasion from the east more so then from the Germans (thinking they were too busy with the Brits and not ready), even though his own spies told him otherwise. Stalin kept his best troops and armor divisions in the east in preparation for an invasion that didn’t happen (but it could have). There was also a lot of pressure on Japan from their axis German partner to invade, but as we know they had other plans.

The thing about A&A that makes the whole Russian thing unrealistic is somewhat two-fold (aside from the entire would they even be allowed in the first place).

#1) Distances covered for both Russia and Japan to fight in the Soviet Far East. This isn’t really handled well in OOB A&A… Russia has to dredge troops from Moscow out to the Far East, more or less on foot, when in reality, they had the Trans-Siberia Rail, which helped quite a bit, and is not represented in A&A. In reverse, Japan in-game can be knocking on Moscow’s door in relatively quick time if they become successful… in reality, even if Japan were able to crush all Soviet resistance in the Soviet Far East, having a ton of Japanese tanks and infantry assaulting Moscow from the East is pretty much ludicrous. You argue “while it didn’t happen in reality, you’re given the choice to do so if you want”… while attacking Russia should be an option for Japan, the end results are never even remotely realistic… at best, control of the Far East would be the end-result, not Japanese Tanks driving down Red Square.

#2) Equipment, production and manpower differences.  First off, lets start by comparing the Japanese Type-95 Ha-Go tank to the Soviet T-34… oh no wait… that is way too cruel… lets not even go there. If you’re going to be fighting the mass number of miles from the Soviet Far East to Moscow, you can’t do it without a major commitment to armored formations, and all tactics aside, the equipment disparity between Japan and Russia on that matter is MASSIVE… of course in A&A, a tank is a tank is a tank, so its impossible to show that discrepancy without some pretty serious overhauling of the rules. Speaking of mass formations of armored forces… where does Japan suddenly come up with multiple divisions of tanks? Production in A&A is represented by IPCs… Japan gets a nice fat bonus from something like Java/Borneo, which represents oil riches… in-game, that helps buy lots more tanks and infantry, but in reality, that just means they have oil… doesn’t mean Japan can suddenly double the number of tanks it produces. Finally, the Soviet Union has mas reserves of men they could throw at Japan, while Japan would be limited… once again, the IPC system wouldn’t reflect this in game.  Hey, if Japan has Borneo and Java, they get more infantry to throw at Russia! The reality, once again, would be different.

Historically, Japan did fight Russia one on one in the Far East just prior to WWII and didn’t fair well at all.  Of course, there’s the whole “ya, well Russia wasn’t fighting Germany at the time” thing to factor in, which would of course make a difference on many things, but tank quality, distances covered, production and manpower realities still wouldn’t matter, and fighting Germany or not, I can’t fathom any scenario in reality that even if Japan went balls-deep attacking Russia, would we see a bunch of Type-95 Ha-Go’s driving down Red Square.

A&A is a very fun game, and I love it to death… have since I started playing in 1984… but the scale the game is played at, and the rules in-place, make some things that are possible in game, very unrealistic to what could have happened, even in the best of circumstances… and pretty much the entire Russia vs Japan thing never plays out like it should/could have.

P.S.
I just found out J-a-p is considered a naughty word.

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

YG tokens sound pretty cool too.

I can’t stress enough how much our victory tokens have solved many problems we were having with G40. Now our games are balanced, competitive, goal oriented, and the results after each 10 hour game are both diverse and definitive.

[taamvan]

well YG, it does go to a deeper question;  If it were (more or less) realistic, would it be (more or less) balanced?

I think some years of pondering indicate that even without the Surrender of Stalingrad or the waste caused by the Battle of Britain, and even adding a Battle of Moscow victory to the Germans, that Japan would have still been defeated in detail by the Americans, nuked, and then Germany would face the wrath of a nuclear armed set of Western allies ready to invade in force in 1945.  Every supposed advantage of the Germans is contradicted by an equal disadvantage

unity of leadership offset by monomaniacal cult of personality without self-examination or criticism

initial technical superiority (materials, design) offset by micromanagement and failure of mass production (and no radar, code breaking, or strategic defense)

decisive action/use of force at beginning of war offset by total loss of strategic focus in the face of determined enemies

early short war rush to victory offset by later long war sieges of entire nations

I always like the example of Betty Bombers using a bicycle gear and pedals to aim their rear cannon vs the computer aimed remote turret of the B-29 as standard equipment 6 years later.  No comparison, very little possibility of victory.

[CWO Marc]

Here’s a thought for whatever it might be worth (which may not be much).  Historically, the biggest help which Japan gave to Germany during the summer and fall of 1941 was the possibility of a Japanese invasion of the eastern Soviet Union kept some of the USSR’s best troops (its tough Siberian divisions, trained and equiped to fight in harsh winter conditions) tied down during the early months of the German invasion of Russia.  One can debate how much of a real threat this was, given that the Japanese had lost against the Russians and the Mongolians during the border wars of 1938 and 1939, and given that Japan was already in over its head in China even before it added to its problems by going to war against Britain and the USA…but Stalin still took it seriously enough to keep his Siberians at one end of the country while the Germans were running rampant at the opposite end.  It was only when Stalin learned in the fall of 1941 from Richard Sorge that Japan’s intentions were aimed south and east (against the British, Dutch and Americans) rather than north and west (against the Russians and Mongolians) that he transferred his Siberian divisions westward, getting them there just in time to help save Moscow from the Wehrmacht.

As Wolfshanze and others have said, the A&A concept of Japan being able to march on Moscow is utterly absurd for many reasons.  On the other hand, it would be perfectly credible for Japan to be able to tie down part of the Soviet armed forces simply by being in a position to attack the eastern Soviet Union.  In other words, the Soviet player might be given an option of transferring some of his eastern forces to the western front if he judges that the Japanese threat on his eastern borders is too small to worry about…and the Japanese player might be given the option of reinforcing his own position in Manchuria and Korea in order to increase the threat to the USSR, thereby discouraging the Soviet player from transferring forces from the east to the west.  It would be realistic, but to keep this scenario truly realistic it would have to be coupled with a rule governing what would happen if Japanse strength in the area and/or Russian weakness in the area were to lead to a Japanese invasion of the eastern Soviet Union.  Realistically, the most that Japan ought to be allowed to grab off would be the portions of the USSR east of Lake Baikal (which is what the Japanese coveted in their ambitious moments) because the distances and terrain in Siberia are simply too formidable.  The Soviet player might therefore simply decide to sacrifice that part of the country to Japan (knowing that the losses will never extend west of Buryatia) in order to transfer all of his eastern forces to the western front.  So this may not be any actual improvement over either the OOB rules or the far simpler concept of simply prohibiting Japan from going to war against the USSR.  But perhaps someone here can think of a way to apply the historical threat-of-invasion / transfer-of-troops elements in a way that would work.

[taamvan]

Japan isn’t realistically or historically represented at all, since it was never even able to meet its Washington 1920 tonnage limits, had no air corps depth, and had awesome battleships that were white elephants.

These “facts” are represented in this game by 3 core sea fleets, 2 strategic bombers for each axis (huh?), nearly 20 air fleets, and well, also a bunch of battleships too, all in 1940!

As you said, the Japanese were not ready for strategic combined arms warfare against Russia on the battlefield, so they were also not ready for strategic continent-crossing offensives across thousands of miles.  The were a so called “naval power”, while somehow having minimal radar and only 2.5 tons of shipping for every 10 that the UK and US had.  They had six unarmored fleet carriers against 30 fleet and 60 escort carriers.

the tie-up rule you refer to Mr. Marc, is in the game; its 1940 Europe 2ed standalone NO “Russia gains 7 IPC during euro game during war”

[Young Grasshopper]

Lately I’ve been appreciating Axis & Allies 1940 Global for the strategy board game it is, and letting go expectations of it needing to represent a WW2 simulator.

[taamvan]

My basic position is that “games that attempt realism aren’t, and aren’t as much fun as a result”

wish we would spend more time asking why Fortress America isn’t “more realistic” with the big blue Pan-Caribbean Alliance coming up through texas…

:wink: