Not a farfetched “what-if?” scenario, and the Iron Blitz CD game had a scenario with the USSR teaming up with Germany but then had Japan join the Allies (perhaps the US sweetens the trade pot, looks the other way for Japan’s actions in China and promises them Siberian territory).
If you put Japan on the Allies it would be a balancing factor as Japan would have no access to NOs besides the “not at war with Western Allies” one. Otherwise the Allies would have no shot at landing in Eurasia since Germany and Russia can run amok through the Middle East and China.
True, sir, but remember the skill difference here. The players, in this hypothetical, playing the Axis have never played a game before although they know the rules. The Allied players are as experienced as Young Grasshopper. So even with Japan still on the Axis side, the Allies have a shot if they play smart.
-God Bless you from AxisandAlliesGeneral
I think you’re new to the forum…don’t be surprised if your discussion post gets moved to the House Rules section.
Experience or no, I simply don’t see the lack of any threat what-so-ever on the German Eastern front, and the ability for Germany to go all-out on a Navy/Luftwaffe approach to taking on a Sea Lion, possibly even with a Soviet Fleet’s help, that there would be any chance for the Allies, experienced players or not, to survive such odds.
In a similar manner, Japan is at the very least, slightly less taxed on Asia, if not more so… because I doubt the UK would be able to divert as much funds/materials to the Far East if England itself was at such a peril with Germany and Russia both focused all-out on the UK.
You’re looking at a Germany at least 50% stronger in his ability to divert forces, and Japan, also increased in ability to shift focus, while the UK must do everything it can to survive, and can’t afford diversions in the Pacific… to be honest, American would almost certainly have to abandon the Pacific to keep its one remaining partner alive as well, come to think about it.
I didn’t even address what a Soviet player would do with no Germany attacking it… I would imagine it could do any of the following:
This is a neat idea, but to be frank, it completely ruins the balance of the game. London would stand no chance with Germany’s undivided attention as well as that of the Soviet Union. Europe would be very stacked toward the Axis, and if Japan joined the Allies, it would be a massive build up on the Pacific side, with nobody to challenge them at all for several turns (except the 18 Soviet infantry and 2 AAA guns). As cool as a new scenario like this would be, it needs more balance and a great deal of play-testing.
The powers are interspersed vertically which makes for an awesome game
Ally
Axis
Ally
Axis
Ally
Ally
Ally
Axis
Ally
Ally
When you stick an Axis between the other two Axis, there is nothing to do but run to the edge of the board, because your team already owns the main battlezone and all the income/transit areas.
Don’t think player skill is enough to alter the balances.
One fun idea was to switch out France and Italy (so france starts Axis and Italy starts Allies and dies on turn 1-2) without changing anything else, maybe try that?
One fun idea was to switch out France and Italy (so france starts Axis and Italy starts Allies), maybe try that?
The entire premise here was that there was some historical backstory to a potential Axis Soviet Union (even though in-game it totally ruins balance)… you are now just randomly tossing out nations that in neither case make the slightest bit of historical sense… Axis Republican France and Allied Fascist Italy?
Lets just make the US Axis and Japan Allied while you’re at it.
Historical accuracy wasn’t the goal. And, also, you’re wrong. A different 1890 sedan could have led to a german dominated france and a different post ww1 Italy could have easily led to an allied Italy as long as someone offed Mussolini
If keeping Molotov rippentrop pact intact after 1941 is alternate history how is my proposal not?
I’m not “wrong”, you’re just miffed that someone called out your nonsensical idea.
If keeping Molotov rippentrop pact intact after 1941 is alternate history how is my proposal not?
Because a Soviet-Nazi pact DID exist during WWII… what you propose is total fantasy nonsense 50 years removed.
Thank you, sir-historical accuracy was a goal of my scenario in the sense of alternate history that could easily have happened if the November 1940 talks went differently. I thought it would be interesting to imagine the result if 4 players with no experience or strategic background knowledge played the hypothetical Germany-Italy-Japan-Soviet Union Axis against 2 very experienced players playing the remaining, Allied powers.
Thanks and God Bless All of You for Your Continuing Feedback-AxisandAlliesGeneral
I tried to leave this alone, despite the complete unbalancing of an already unbalanced game to begin with. What my biggest “wtf” about this is the “4 noob axis players”. First off, it is a task and a half to try and convince someone to take 12+ hours out of their day to play a board game they aren’t too familiar with. To add to that is the fact that if you manage to sit them down and they start reading the “political situation” part of the rule book you have to stop them and say “don’t bother with that we are going to play test something”. Right there I can picture some people just deciding to leave before it begins.
Secondly, after two or three games(trying to imagine this actually works out) of this scenerio you will have to go out and find 4 brand new players to play the axis for the Allies to have even the slightest of a snowballs chance in hell of winning(the UK player would have to be the greatest and luckiest A&A player in the history of the planet). All in all, I would never see this being a good to go houserule with the NOs and starting OOB setups being what they are.
The idea however is intriguing I will give it that. Things would have to be adjusted for this to have a slight chance of working. The USA income would have to be increased by a lot. And it’s major factories would have to be able to produce 15/20 units each per turn. UK would need an income increase as well. France would need more starting units in its capital to take more German units off the board G1. Maybe remove some German airpower at beginning(like a reverse bid) so that one of the two UK Europe starting BB fleets survive. And the Pacific Allies would need some sort of a bid to be able to keep Japan at bay while the USA tries to deal with 3 European Axis nations. The Pacific bid would need to be split up between everyone in that theatre. More Infantry in China, more ground units/air/naval for UK and Anzac would need a bigger starting navy.
I tried something similar to this a long time ago with A&A Classic. Germany and Russia were together while US, UK and Japan made up the other team.
Germany/Russia basically took over all of Europe, Asia and Africa while the Allied team ruled the seas. Whenever the Allies tried to land any force on the continents, German/Russian tanks would show up with air power to blitz them. Any time Germany or Russia tried to put ships in the water, Allied planes would swoop down and sink them. So, it was kind of a stalemate although Germany/Russia was making more money with all that territory.
We also tried something with Global 1940 by having France be an Axis power. It was kind of cool seeing France last past round 1 and be able to buy stuff.
I’d be willing to sign up as the noob player, I just finished reading the rules. IF there exists a way to play online with such a ruleset then I could play online. Why would you need 4 axis players though? Isn’t this game purely zero-sum anyway? So a single axis player and a single allied player should be mostly similar to having multiple players on each team.
