Switching alliances for balance?

@SeaYa quick point of reference. I play test games. So no version, certainly not out of box, is completely baked. And this is proven by 2nd editions and tournament rules. That is why I have been advocating for a governing body for years. Gotta go.

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

Example Prototypes

 Advanced Artillery

 Rockets

 Heavy Tanks

 Increased Factory Production
1 stack - Minor
2 stacks - Advanced Minor (Technology - Increased Factory Production)
3 stacks - Major
4 stacks - Adcanced Major (Technology - Increased Factory Production)

 War Bonds

 Improved Mechanized Infantry

 Super Submarines

 Jet Fighters

 Improved Shipyards

 Radar

 Long-Range Aircraft

 Heavy Bombers

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

These posts from a past thread on AA guns summarized many AAA’s limitations:

@Vance:

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.

Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.

AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.

So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever. A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

@allweneedislove:

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.
aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.
@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.
like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@ryguy:

Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You cant do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why cant you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?

If were talking in real life terms this might seem weird (Im not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns cant be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. Theyre just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.

Im not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPCs with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If theyre valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I dont like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casualty (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

WILD BILL provided two interesting abilities to planes which can limit somehow the unbalancing effect of AAA#1 or AAA#2 continuous firing :

1- Any hit from attacking planes could be directly taken on AAA units.
2- All attacking aircraft units can retreat after each combat round while ground units still be part of the battle.

Maybe one or both should be add to the mix to reach an equilibrium point.

@Frederick:

Hi Ryuzaki_Lawliet, you could….

A. add more inf to Russia.

B. add to the German navy in some areas.

Those are some thoughts I have right now.

I’ll probably do this. Give me about a week to try and mess with the default setup.

Maybe 4 or 6 more submarines should be good for Germany, with a Transport and Cruiser near Africa to provide more options for their stuff there. No starting US units save for 1 Infantry. Maybe.

@knp7765:

Hey Yavid,
I like your idea for Vichy/Free France. I have been wanting to incorporate that into the game, but most of the house rules for that seem too complicated. Your rules seem fairly simple. I have a few questions:
1 > If the Allies move into a French territory with no units in it (French Madagascar, French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa, French Indo-China), those territories are simply liberated for Free France, right?
2 > Vichy France is considered an Axis country and their remaining income goes to Germany during the Vichy France collect income phase. So, after Germany finishes their turn and collects their own income, you add whatever Vichy France has left to the German total for spending next round, right? So it is possible that Allied forces could cut that down a bit.
3 > What happens if Axis forces enter Vichy French territories (e.g. Italy moving from Libya to Tunisia)? Since Vichy is considered Axis, I am assuming that Italy doesn’t actually take control of Tunisia, rather it is simply a shared occupation with the existing French infantry there.
4 > Can French units, once they turn Vichy, move from one French territory to another (e.g. French infantry from French West Africa to French Central Africa)?
5 > I am unclear what happens to the naval units. Are they also Vichy?
A = Do they have to just sit in their sea zones?
B = Or can they move and attack Allied ships?
C = If Allied ships attack Vichy French ships, do they have to sink them or can they turn them Allied?

I think that is it. If you could answer these questions, I think I can incorporate this idea into my next game.

Liberate them for Free France, correct The way I play it is Vichy France collects there income and hands it straight to Germany. The Allies can cut into Vichy’s income by attacking Convoy zones. Vichy Frances turn is basically only handing money straight to Germany. If an Axis power moves into Vichy France then it’s just like if Germany moves units into Italian territories. The just occupy it together. With the added risk of Vichy France switching sides when it comes to defending it. No they can’t move there units around. Vichy France tired to pretend to be neutral so they tired to stay out of it without angering Germany. The French navy also becomes Vichy. Remember UK attacked the French fleet in the med. because it refused to surrender to the allies. It’s kind of the effect I’m shooting for. Remember Vichy units only fight for one round and only one round all surviving Vichy units then switch sides and become Free French. Now that I think about it Vichy shouldn’t be able to switch by being attacked by only aircraft. A popular UK move is taking the Mech Inf. from Egypt and attacking Syria with no help. Odds are the mech doesn’t hit and the French inf. has only a 33% chance of a hit thus turning it Free French.

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.