I think you have given too many NOs to the Axis, which is a problem with 1940.
Sorry!
US would not even have 70, which is not enough in a regular game. I think this would see the Allies struggle to regain lost territory. Russia will have its usual income problem too.
A couple of people were experimenting (on AAA) with giving the U.S. more basic Income, as NOs. We were at about +15. We all know how hard it is to cross the Atlantic or Pacific, If the other side can just Bomb the fleet out of the water.
However, it is good to see some new NOs. I hope you enjoyed thinking about them.
The only problem I have with your set up, is the depth of Japan’s expansion into China.
I would like to check, but I think you have given them too many territories.
I believe he was just offering up some ideas, not suggesting that all of them be implemented as is or necessarily at those values.
To the low income objection, it’s true that typically in A&A the Atlantic crossing is difficult for the US to set up, but that’s in large part because their starting TUV is usually much lower relative to income. In 1940 or 41 or 1942 the game has them building up over several rounds so they need higher income to create an expeditionary force and a navy and enough fighters and carriers to match Germany’s air builds. But that whole play dynamic comes from the fact that their TUV is low compared to Axis and the units are all out of position. If we give the US more starting units, with a more useful starting composition, put them in stronger starting locations, and then the need for such a high US income per round is less pronounced.
I think that was the idea at any rate. Could still be that the ownership of territories in China be tweaked. But there again, it depends on the starting TUV for the Allies in the region and what aid Russia can send.
I think the experience of G40 needn’t be a guide for what works or not in a general sense. Since the TUV available at the start could be a lot different. Creating an entirely different play pace and different income requirements.
Russia likewise, could field more starting units as a way to compensate for lower starting income.
For the Germans you could find other ways of develop an interesting opener. Perhaps with more subs to raid, as opposed to making naval combat attacks. Or preserve a carrier option, but not one that allows for early 1940 style sea lions, since that hardly makes sense for 43. The battle lines could be drawn in an entirely new way.
I’d suggest first designing the openers, by configuring the units in the border zones and contested areas. Then concentrate whatever forces are needed back in the core, so they don’t have to puchased but still need to be moved out. At capital territories for example.
Hi. I have looked and Japan only had the North East of China. It had pockets on the Coast in the South East and that is all.
I would suggest: Manchuria, Jehol, Shantung, Chahar, Anhwe and Kiangsu only (11 IPCs). That is what I gave it in my July set up.
China would still have 12 and its NO.
Black_Elk I didn’t say that Russia and Japan couldn’t attack each other I was saying they weren’t at war until a certain round or unless the other attacks the other (Argothair, good NO’s for the nonaggression pact).
Also Argothair, here’s the NO’s I wasn’t a big fan of the Chinese Bases, Petroleum Shipments (It’s a good idea but I don’t like all the transports in all those sea zones), I didn’t understand Panzer Offensive does it have to do with blitzing?, and the Free French. The others are pretty good and I know they were just ideas I do appreciate “I Shall Return”. Don’t forget about contesting Leningrad.
Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
Quebec – where I happen to live – may be a French-speaking province, but it hasn’t been a part of France for a couple of centuries and therefore should not be counted as a “Free French” territory (nor as a Vichy one, nor as any other kind of territory belonging to France).
I am playing my set up (July) for a second time and am finding it is more balanced than I hoped!
Japan and Germany started with 600 less TUV, but on T3 are holding very well. Japan and Germany are making far too much income for my liking.
All I can suggest , is that Japan must begin with far fewer units, as it can buy so many and Russia needs many more cheap ones. I gave the Allies a Sub off each of the DEI and Malaya, but it only took two turns to rid myself of them. Japan has to be strangled from the start and remain strangled. Russia, by 3, still can’t go on the offensive. And that is not what I expected.
I need to work on the starting units even more. I worry if you want to start in Feb, that the Axis will have more power than my July one.
wittmann, did you use any of the ideas we thought of?
I did my scenario at least 6 months ago and used the NOs from 1940. I used the 42 set up for Tournament, so Russia goes first. I had hoped to replicate the Russian counteroffensive post Zitadelle.
Not sure what you mean by: “any of the ideas we thought up”. I am playing by AAA and am not clever enough to change the settings or NOs. I presume I have not.
I am happy to research the Eastern Front to get the troop compositions right. Germany would be very low on Armour and prob air units too.
I mean ideas like give Germany some free tech.
I would give America Shipyards and Russia Improved Artillery. I really don’t think Germany or Japan need anything. They have so many territories, which equates to too much income. It should be easier for the Allies and I worry it will not be.
