I’ve been intrigued by a shorter and quicker A&A game with AA50 rules and quality, but one question is without answer so far. I guess everybody (or almost everybody) can agree that AAR main problem was the lack of a meaningful Pacific theater. Assuming NOs are too complex for a game of AA42’s scope, how will Larry & co. promote a Pacific theater in AA42?
- A victory condition stipulating that Axis wins if they control all at-start European and Pacific VC plus Leningrad, Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu.
- A changed IPC allocation: take IPCs from Africa in UK’s case and Latin America in America’s and put them in the Pacific. For example: India & Australia at ‘4’, Burma at ‘3’, Phillippines at ‘4’, Hawaii at ‘3’ and Wake+Midway+Solomons at ‘1’ each should really change things. Africa could have fewer territories and Mexico, Panama and Brazil be reduced in value.
- Nothing (This will probably be my vote.)
IPCs in case 2) here would represent morale & political factors rather than raw materials etc, but that’s OK for me. I’m sure the British and American war effort would have been less effective if Australian, Indian and Hawaiian citizens would have been hauled into Japanese POW camps while Churchill and Roosevelt did nothing… Basically 2) does the same thing as NOs with less complexity, which should be what AA42 needs.
And it’s not sure that if India and Hawaii and Australia was lost to the Japs that FDR and Churchill would resign, or be dismissed from office, not if they started full war production and said to the people that “we are still strong” “we will take back any acre that was stolen”.
That is what happened when Japan captured Phillipines.
I strongly disagree that the A&A global war games can be decided by losing/winning theaters instead of world domination.
Most industrial production at the timeline of WW1-WW2 was in Europe, from Moscow in the East, to Spain/France in the west, and Italy in the south, not forgetting England. US had higher production than any other single nation, but the US was not threatened by other nations, as in Europe, no power could invade US.
Well, political considerations were also factored in for both UK and USA. If Hawaii would have been lost, actually retaking it and forcing the Japanese back would have made Operation Overlord look like a logistical beginners operation. UK still wanted to keep its commonwealth together, and abandoning India and Australia probably would make Canada and South Africa less than enthusiastic about helping Britain. Simulating this is what they tried to do in AA50 with the NOs.
For a truly historical game, Japan would have such a weak economy that only a tactical victory would ever have been possible for them, but A&A is not the game for that scenario!
Perhaps a starting factory in India/ Aus, China as it’s own (minor) power, a decent amount of material for the US already positioned in the pacific. Add that to maybe Japan could pose a legit threat to WUSA by T2 or 3 if the US ignored it. I think that may add a more full pacific experience.
Some of these have already been suggested…
India and Aussie should be worth more IPCS, and should have more starting units. A factory on one or both would definitely help promote fighting in the Pacific.
China should be a lot stronger, and should take several turns to destroy.
IPCs for Wake, Iwo Jima, Solomons etc.
HOW TO PROMOTE A PACIFIC THEATER
Ships must cost less.
More VC’s in the Pacific
Convoy zones in the Pacific.
I think some of this will be in the new game. Ships might have the same costs as in AA50, but i dont think the zones will be on the map. I do think more VC will be in pacific.
I hope they have national victory conditions.
- A victory condition stipulating that Axis wins if they control all at-start European and Pacific VC plus Leningrad, Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu.
That doesn’t promote the Pacific theatre at all. Allies play KGF, Europe falls, Russia holds, Japan is toast and the concedes. Even if the only victory condition for the Allies is to occupy Japan, the Allies will still play KGF! It’s the surest way to (eventually) winning the Pacific theatre.
I’d like more incentive for Japan in the Pacific. Make the West coast harder to defend. An extra space in Canada would help.
- A changed IPC allocation: take IPCs from Africa in UK’s case and Latin America in America’s and put them in the Pacific. For example: India & Australia at ‘4’, Burma at ‘3’, Phillippines at ‘4’, Hawaii at ‘3’ and Wake+Midway+Solomons at ‘1’ each should really change things. Africa could have fewer territories and Mexico, Panama and Brazil be reduced in value.
This is the right line of thinking - more income in the Pacific. Money and factories in that area will encourage both sides to fight for it.
Also make it harder to KGF. Maybe another space between USA and Africa. Give Germany more U-boats to start, close to US waters.
- Nothing (This will probably be my vote.)
I’m sure an attempt will be made.
That doesn’t promote the Pacific theatre at all. Allies play KGF, Europe falls, Russia holds, Japan is toast and the concedes.
Well, if AA42 is like AA50 in rough terms Germany should be able to hold off the Allies for something the three turns Japan needs to gobble up India, Aus and Hawaii. Then Allies would be forced to defend those places and we would have a more balanced game. A problem with VCs though is that people don’t seem to like a victory being made by counting VCs, the A&A tradition is to grab capitals and then the IPC-change idea is better suited.
I think Africa can be merged into 4 territories (Sudan-East Africa, French West Africa and Congo/Rhodesia, South Africa) below Egypt and Madagascar made into a 0 IPC island like Greenland. That’s 4 IPCs to put in Pacific theatre (1 for India, 1 for Burma, 1 for Australia, 1 for Solomons). Mexico at 1, Panama at 1, Central US at 5 and Brazil at 2 is 4 more (2 at Hawaii, 1 each Midway and Wake). 8 IPCs should be enough for a major effect on the game.
Factory in Australia
China got a capital and more units
USA got more ships in Pacific, and they are set up in central Pacific so its not easy to move them to Europe
Factory in Australia
China got a capital and more units
USA got more ships in Pacific, and they are set up in central Pacific so its not easy to move them to Europe
I am in agreement, but I think it may be neccessary to have Japan be able to, at least in theory, be able to capture the Western US quickly if the US does nothing. The WUS should have the potential to fall quicker than Russia, if played carelessly.
I agree with Zoooma - the game ends with either Germany or Russia falling. I need to have an incentive to help me win the game to go after the islands in the pacific - VCs don’t cut it.
I also believe that even more spaces b/n Japan and Moscow are needed and a beefed up China to discourage Japan and look elswhere for a win.
Cheers
In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.
In the real WW2 Axis lost.
I think one possibility could be to give Germany and Japan separate victory conditions and allowing them to win separately. As a consequence even if Germany is defeated if Japan fulfill its Victory condition Allies lost (and vice versa, Germany may win even if Japan loses). This should “persuade” Allies to not neglet Pacific. After all Germany and Japan were in the same boat but they did not act according a common strategy.
This will play better in more than two players, I suppose.
In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.
This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical. But I do want it to feel historical. Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.
In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.
This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical. But I do want it to feel historical. Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.
You have to understand that at the initial outset of the game there is a historical setup (exact strength is not maybe to scale, but is simulated or maybe rather abstracted for gameplay), and once you start playing you are altering history. Japan was fighting Russia before the official starting of WW2, and the two countries have never signed a formal peace treaty. Japan did imperially kick the US’s butt for the first few months of the war in the Pacific, and very nearly could have won at Guadalcanal. Perhaps had Admiral Yamamoto survived longer, they could have further prolonged. Even still, at the end, they were within weeks of their own nuclear bomb when the US’ dropped.
There is a choice to look at the game from either: What did happen or What could happen. What did happen will limit what is seen as historical or right to happen, but what could happen allows for many different realities that could very well have occurred if choices had been different.
Japan could have sent fighters to help Germany, just as Germany DID send atomic bomb materials to Japan for use in it’s two nuclear bomb projects.
No point in arguing what ifs, I suppose … no one will convince the other. I disagree with the idea that Japan could have sent planes to Germany or crush the Chinses or cross Siberia while you think it possible. OK.
My point is that the best way (and only, I believe) is for the Axis to focus on Moscow. I think that everything else is a waste of time (at least with the present victory conditions).
If I am missing something, I am eager to learn a new strategy!
Cheers
In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.
This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical. But I do want it to feel historical. Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.
So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd. If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?
Well, if AA42 is like AA50 in rough terms Germany should be able to hold off the Allies for something the three turns Japan needs to gobble up India, Aus and Hawaii. Then Allies would be forced to defend those places and we would have a more balanced game.
That sounds like the minor victory in Revised. Germany could grab Leningrad, and hold off the Allies for a few turns. This forced the Allies to hold India (at least until they could secure another city) which I thought made for a more balanced game.
Note though, that this works because the Axis could win (with Leningrad and Calcutta) in an unstable position. That is to say if you kept playing after the minor victory was achieved, the Allies may well have gone on to win the global war. The economic victory from MB was similar. Usually an 84 total would mean certain world domination, but sometimes the Allies could lose by the economy when Germany’s demise was immanent (and the allies may have proceeded to conquer the world).
This is the only way a victory condition can affect play. If you can’t accomplish your victory condition without a tight stranglehold on the world, then you simply play for that stranglehold. The victory condition (whatever they may be) will surely follow. In all versions to date, this means focusing on Europe and Moscow first.
So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.
I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’. In a global war, they are a significant - but separate - power. I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres. No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.
Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides. What would you peg the number of turns needed?
If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?
:roll:
No point in arguing what ifs, I suppose … no one will convince the other. I disagree with the idea that Japan could have sent planes to Germany or crush the Chinses or cross Siberia while you think it possible. OK.
You seem to still be confusing possibilities with actualities and historical war decisions with the roads not taken, but planned for. Convincing someone of anything can never be done, but what can be done is lay out the facts and someone can choose to believe them or not to. They then live with the choice.
(edit)
What you don’t like is the part of the game that occurs that did not occur in history. That’s fine. Jap planes could have flown to Europe, it’s a fact, yes, they didn’t, that’s a fact too. Jap troops could have used the same Siberian rail system that the Russian Siberian troops used to get to Moscow, it’s a fact, yes, it didn’t happen, also a fact.
But to take a game based on historical situations and abstract out a scenario where one side wins based on something that would not have happened historically (separate theaters) is only furthering what you have stated as not liking.
This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical. But I do want it to feel historical. Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.
I disregard the ‘feel’ comments, because if you are just basing your attitudes towards game change on feelings, you would be better served to make your own house rules than to try for a complete change to the game for all. Most of the changes at that level will be for historical or sheer gameplay issues.
I’ll wait for another post to get into thoughts on balancing the theaters, prefer having conversations that start where everyone has a common understanding of how the game is put together and not confuse strategy with game mechanics. As what we are really doing is helping to shape the games that come after AA42, as it’s instructions and such are going through the printers as we speak no doubt.
So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.
I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’. In a global war, they are a significant - but separate - power. I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres. No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.
Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides. What would you peg the number of turns needed?
If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?
:roll:
My opinion on victory conditions is fairly low. I am not a fan of having them dictate the way I play my game. I would rather look at the board and see what is the superior way to dominate it. Let me set my own victory conditions, so to speak. Seperate and loosley linked theaters may be somewaht achievable though, as I think this thread has shown some other great ideas other than VC’s or gimmicky nation specific rules (things that I happen not to like).
