AARHE: Phase 2: National victory conditions

I think the USA non-combat turn zero pretty much balances the game 50/50! If you want, you can give the Axis a bid of 3 to 6 IPCs, but I doubt it’s necessary.

I don’t think Russia gets erased by Germany. Russia actually starts with a healthy number of troops even out of the box, and because Russia goes before Germany, Russia has a chance to shape the European map in its favor. With an USA turn zero, the Allied Atlantic fleets will survive, which means much earlier Allied pressure on Norway/France/Morocco, which really limits Germany’s ability to secure a permanent economic advantage against Russia. In other words, in my opinion, the problem with the OOB 1942.2 setup isn’t that Russia is too weak – it’s that the US & UK are too weak. Giving the USA a zero turn helps protect both US & UK assets, which fixes this problem.

Related to #2, if you haven’t already read Black_Elk’s sticky thread on Russian Openings, you really need to. It will totally change the way you see the 1942.2 board.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35487.0

After a year break we played a game according to these rules yesterday.
Japan heavy navy focused getting Honolulu, Sydney, Rio de Janero and even San Francisco! Leading to a land war on the American continent.
Meanwhile Russia and Britain heavy focusing Germany, with conquering the whole of northern and eastern Europe (Oslo, Kiev).
But then, Germany seized an opportunity of taking London after Britain player overcomitted and did some bad rolls.
Axis win the game.

It was very confusing, and we did a lot of bad mistakes. But it was fun, and we really had a game with battles at totally new battlefields.

After Russia and Britain both starting very defensive, Germany and Japan player decided to play an altrenative strategy, attacking US. It worked at least partially. Germany forced to play defensive on land, losing total whole of east and north Europe (but defensive Russia took quite a while). Japan using heavy Navy and invading Australia, South America and finally even US west coast. Land war on the American continent between Japan West coast and US East coast (and Canada a bit). Few action in China at all…all players were turteling after the initial clashes. Money was needed elsewhere and infantry could hardly attack alone. Tank war in Africa between German Egypt and British South Africa. Both players had minor factories in africa, pumping tanks. Great navy clash in the northern Atlantic between US+Royal Navy and the German navy. To some bad rolls, British and US player losing atlantic fleet. Germany lost as well nearly whole fleet, but was able to invade exposed London and win the game. Maybe one turn later, the Russian steamroller would have taken Berlin.

The changes in Navy Balance (increase offensive power by chaper Battleship and Cruiser) as well as the alternative start setup allows for totally new strategies like “Kill US”. We are still not sure if this setup is balanced, we did only 3 games with this so far. I’d be happy about any feedback.

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

@oztea:

I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea a while back, wherein to win you had to get to a certain number of points. 2 points for each capital, 1 point for each non capital VC, and 1 point for each National Objective you satisfied this turn.

You calculate the axis total, and the allied total.

Lets spit ball, the axis wins if they have 20 points at then end of turns 1-5
or they win if they have 18 points at the end of turns 6-10
or they win if they have 16 points at the end of any turn after 11 they win.

The Allies would win if the axis falls below 10 points at the end of turns 1-5.
Or if they fall below 12 points at the end of turn 6-10
Or if they fall below 14 points at the end of any turn after 11.

I’m gonna have to digest this and see how the math works in different situations, regardless… it’s great to hear from someone that believes in the points per city formula, and I really like the idea of points for objectives as well.

Nice work thanks, the dropbox files are still available! I have downloaded them all, now I have to find a way to print these in a decent way. Any tips?

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.

Just play w/o them in first game then play with both tech and NO in second game. Start out slow.

Yes private emails and a few PM’s its been going on for about 4 months. Its usually ok, but that last one was rather long. I answerd the first 5 questions and felt it would take me alot of time which i didnt have.

thanks again.