Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

I edited the Tacs in list.
Is there still a bid ?
BB & CR shore shot at 11 and 9 ?
How many table top games have you played ?

@dilton You’re right about the Axis needing to take Morocco before you can take it back, sorry about that. I still think the overall point (there are other options besides Gibraltar for your bases) stands, though.

-Midnight_Reaper

Do you have any pictures of your board with all the different units?

I’m with CWO Marc here – I think at the point where you are trying to run a balanced March 1943 scenario, you’re not talking about a few minor revisions to history for game balance; you’re talking about totally re-writing history. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll have to be bolder about your edits.

It’s a little hard for me to read your scenario setup from a wall of text; a graphic or illustration of some kind would be helpful. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made in interpreting your scenario. That said, the problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that there is no credible Axis path to victory. The Axis have to simply wait around and hope the Allies make a mistake. Maybe the Germans can press on to Moscow and get lucky there, but they have no time to build up additional reserves, no way to wear down the Russian economy, and no ability to threaten London, so there aren’t really any strategic choices to be made – just march every man east to Moscow, and hope you get lucky. Similarly, Japan is earning much less than the USA, is not in position to do devastating damage to the US Navy, and is not in position to capture enough of China, Siberia, or ANZAC in time to achieve parity against the US. They can fight over the Dutch East Indies but not hold them, which means that’s a losing strategy for Japan, because it will cost them more in lost transports and destroyers than they earn by holding the islands. Maybe Japan can get lucky against India, but, again, Japan has no real options in this scenario – they have to just send every man west and hope they roll well.

So, if you want a balanced March 1943 scenario, consider some or all of the following changes:

Germany controls and can hold Leningrad

German battles in Stalingrad were inconclusive; Germany still has significant forces in Rostov and Caucasus

Britain lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, resulting in Italian control of Alexandria and Cairo; British forces are defending in Sudan and Trans-Jordan

Italian navy was warned of the Taranto raid, and so more Italian navy survives, maintaining local naval superiority for now in the central Med

America was slow to recover from Kasserine Pass, and holds Morocco but not Algeria

Japan won a bloody victory at the battle of Midway, and so Japan currently has four carriers to America’s two, as well as control of Midway, Wake, and the Aleutian islands

Japan won the battle of Guadalcanal, and so Japan currently has control of the Solomon Islands and both territories in New Guinea

The goal of these changes would be to give the Axis additional (any?) strategic options so that the Axis have multiple credible long-term paths to victory and feel like they are somewhat in control of their destiny, instead of just serving as a punching bag for the incoming Allied invasions. I like the idea of a balanced 1943 scenario very much, but you’re not going to get there by starting with historical 1943 borders and tweaking the unit counts a bit. Contrary to popular belief, the war was lost for the Axis by March 1943; after the Axis failed to knock any of their opponents out of the war and the Allies secured naval lines of supply to France, Africa, and Indonesia, an Axis defeat was just a matter of time. This dynamic, unfortunately, will be well-captured by OOB A&A rules, and will result in your Axis side getting defeated 19 out of 20 games unless you make drastic edits.

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!