Is the Axis Advantage it's overwheling Air Power?

Maybe the problem isn’t Japan with too many planes, it’s Germany with too few?

@Cmdr:

Maybe the problem isn’t Japan with too many planes, it’s Germany with too few?

Yeah Jennifer, I like the way you think. Hmmm, let’s see, we can add a Stuka to Holland/Belgium, a fighter and bomber to W. Germany, a Stuka to Norway and maybe even a fighter to Romania. That ought to about do it, hee hee hee hee. LONG LIVE THE AXIS!

I always thought the 4 air units in Manchuria were a little much, remove one chip from each fighter and tactical bomber stack there and the setup would still look good.

When I start seeing Japan pulling out VC win after VC win, I’ll go along with Japan having too many aircraft.  Right now, it is my impression, most victories are still Germany/Italy over Russia and/or England, if Japan wins, it’s more of an accident than a plan.

I could be wrong.

Russia is too weak once at war, Jen. That is the problem on the European side.
Germany is collecting more than double Russia’s income after 3 turns of the invasion. Russia should be able to flood its borders with cheap Inf to counter the Mechanised armies of a NO rich Germany and soon can’t even buy 8 of them. Its at war NOs are useless and ahistorical.
They should mirror Germany’s ones.

Japan having too many Air units and not winning, is because an astute Axis player can hold the Pacific Allies, while the Euro Axis win the game, using those Air units from ABs in Asia. The Pacific Allies cannot get too close too the Coast, for fear of losing their combined fleet.
I hold with my belief that Japan’s number of Air units is excessive and contributes to Axis victories.

Yes, but no one ever liked my idea for Russian Partisans:

Cost: 2 IPC
Attack: 1
Defend: 1
Move: 1
(Think Snipers, Farmers with hunting rifles, etcetera.)

That would certainly slow the Germans down and bring some equality to the western half of the board.

But that doesn’t negate that one rarely sees a Japanese VC win despite their overpowering planes.  I think this issue is more due to the fact it’s just impossible to ever take that 30 IPC NO from the United States.  Another thing I tried and lobbied to have altered (move the NO out and spread it out so it was easier for Japan to capture some of those territories that create the income and stop the US from getting it.)

A balance for that might even be Japan gets a 10 IPC for every round that Tokyo isn’t captured (it’s hardly as ridiculous as the US one!)  Would also give Japan some flexibility and with that change, and the extra couple of rounds in the beginning before the US just gets insane incomes, I could go along with removing a few Japanese fighters and bombers from the initial startup.

Would a simple air-for-infantry/artillery IPC swap suffice? Say if Germany or Japan has one less tac bomber and two more artillery and one more infantry. Then again maybe swapping a fighter and tac bomber for seven infantry would be too much. Perhaps it should be for 75% of the value of the air unit.

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 round

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

AMERICA AT WAR = 5 IPCs
The United States are at war with all the Axis powers

GERMANY

_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 125

NATIONAL 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 territory

JAPAN

CHINESE CAPITULATION = 5 IPCs
Japan controls all original Chinese territories

UNITED STATES

AROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING = 3 IPCs
The United States has conducted a successful SBR on a German production facility this round

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

ANZAC

THE SOUTH PACIFIC = 3 IPCs
The Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes

CHINA

_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.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34478.0