Best posts made by Argothair

1. Semi-official. It’s supported by the designer and some conventions, but not necessarily by the producers.

2. You could play without a bid if you wanted to.

3. No.

4. An R1 attack on Ukraine becomes mandatory; it is slightly more viable to build an Atlantic British fleet or an offensive Indian army. G1 purchases need to reflect the likelihood that 1+ British transports will survive in the Atlantic to threaten France. Germany may want 1-2 boats in the Med, because a Baltic German fleet would be threatened by the British Atlantic fleet, and with the German bomber dying in Ukraine, it is hard to take Egypt without naval reinforcements.

5. The new setup is popular primarily because Larry Harris, the designer, retains a lot of goodwill in the community, and people are eager to follow his suggestions. I think that’s fine – Larry’s done a lot of good work over the years and I understand why people respect him, but I think the new setup catastrophically fails to fix three of the four serious problems in 1942.2. The problems with 1942.2 are that (a) the Axis are much more likely to win, (b) most of the map is strategically irrelevant, © the Allies have no opportunity for counter-attacks in the first half of the game, and (d) the Allies have no efficient shipping routes anywhere on the map. The new setup fixes (a): the Allies can win again. That’s about it. There is still absolutely no reason to visit Norway, Finland, Archangel, Siberia, the central Pacific, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, or Brazil. China is a useful highway for Japan to get to Moscow, but offers no opportunity for any kind of Allied defense. The UK will spend at least the first three turns just building fighters in London that will fly out to defend India and Moscow, and the US will spend at least the first three turns just passively building up its fleet. Russia can and must make smart trades in Eastern Europe, but the trades offer only tactical interest: nothing Russia can do will change its long-term income or prevent its need to steadily retreat toward Moscow. From the coast of the Eastern US and/or the Western US, there are no worthwhile territories that can be reached in one move: your choices are Morocco (1 IPC), French West Africa (1 IPC), the Caroline Islands (0 IPC), or the Solomon Islands (0 IPC). This means that any useful shipping route will require a minimum of three fleets: one to launch from the US coast, one to return to the US coast, and one to actually ferry troops from your forward base (e.g. Morocco) to somewhere useful (e.g. Italy). You can ship troops from Canada to France with only two fleets, but that is a full turn slower, and it also telegraphs your intentions, giving Germany plenty of time to reinforce France. Frankly, I don’t see the point of experimenting with the new setup. Unless you are very poor, I recommend buying A&A Anniversary and playing the Anniversary 1942 scenario instead.

OK, an alpha version of the 1939 map is now available for download! You’ll need to unzip the folder at the link below and put it in C:/Users/[your name]/triplea/downloadedMaps. I’m still working on this, but it’s very much playable (I finished one game with each side), and I’m excited to share. Let me know if you give it a try, or if you have any feedback, or if you want to help with graphics or playtesting – it’s easier to change things now that it would be after it gets more polished.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RTTR2kzgPeV82avij5ZI6mXuN5M9ezmi/view?usp=sharing

After watching the YouTube video, I think this variation is a very interesting series of traps for an unwary Axis player. The Axis can’t profitably attack Egypt on I1; you’re setting them up to trade the Italian fleet and the Italian expeditionary force for the expendable ANZAC infantry, and you can immediately and safely retake Egypt on UK2, so that’s all fine. Likewise, the Axis can’t profitably attack SZ 93 (Southern France) on I1 and/or G2. The Germans can’t afford to spend that much of their air power attacking Mediterranean boats that aren’t an immediate threat to any vital German interests, and the Italians are simply outclassed; if the Italians attack the combined UK / French fleet then, as Randy says, you essentially achieve the objectives of Taranto, but with the Allies rolling defensive 4’s instead of the Axis rolling defensive 4’s.

Instead, Italy should either (a) go for the New Roman Empire objective (one transport to Gibraltar, one transport to Greece), or (b) send both transports to Syria with the idea of getting into Iraq and making it unsafe for the British to build an early factory in Persia, or © send one transport to Jordan and one transport to Alexandria, stacking Alexandria from Tobruk, with the idea of setting up for a strong I2 attack on Egypt, or (d) use both transports to pick up the land units from Tobruk and bring it north to the Balkans so that you will have a huge can-opening force available to pressure Russia. Any of these plans will likely work out moderately well for Italy and Italy is not going to be under any special pressure from the Allies compared to the pressure Italy would feel from a modestly successful Taranto raid. Italy’s not going to run away with the game, but they get to keep their air force, they get to keep a big part of their fleet, and they’ll remain relevant and dangerous well into the middlegame. In exchange, the Allies save the French Med fleet, save a couple of British fighters, and pick up a couple of bucks in the Middle East / East Africa a couple of turns earlier than they otherwise might. This seems like a basically neutral exchange – I don’t see that either the Axis or the Allies come out noticeably ahead in the European theater. It’s sort of like trading a bishop for a knight…they each have advantages and disadvantages, and you can make that trade if you feel like it; there’s nothing wrong with that trade.

The problem is that you’re severely weakening your Pacific theater as Britain to make this neutral exchange happen: you don’t pick up Java, you are no longer threatening to pick off Japanese transports in the money islands, you are no longer seriously threatening to hold Yunnan, and unless those planes in British Somaliland turn around immediately and head back east toward India on UK2 and UK3, you are allowing Japan to take India on J4 without forcing Japan to commit 100% of its resources. Japan could easily wind up sitting in India, the money islands, and central China at the end of J4 while still having a substantial air force.

As a result, I’m really skeptical that Randy’s overall strategy is actually stronger than orthodox play. The stuff you’re giving up in the Pacific just seems more important to me than the ambiguous gains you’re making in the Med and the Middle East. I should note that I still don’t understand what the point of building three destroyers near Britain on UK1 is or what it is that Randy hopes to achieve in the Atlantic; I could potentially be convinced that this strategy is worth playing if those extra destroyers turn out to accomplish something impressive. Otherwise, this looks like a fun gambit that would be worth trying once to shake things up and play mind games with your opponents, but it doesn’t appear to be strong enough for me to want to use it as my new go-to opening.

I’m still very grateful to Randy for sharing and carefully describing this interesting new opening. Even if I don’t think it’s literally the best option available, I still think it’s well-considered, creative, forceful, and conceptually elegant. I may be able to apply some of the concepts described (retreat from India and Egypt and set up for counter-attacks) in some of my games even if I don’t wind up following Randy’s exact script.

@Black_Elk said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

Fingers crossed for something that lets us play around outside the box a bit. Like a map or scenario editor with an intuitive UI for altering some of the behind the scenes stuff, so we could experiment, that would be hella exciting.

Yeah, absolutely, having some type of editor would be a mandatory feature for me. As far as I can tell from the preview photos and descriptions, right now Axis & Allies Online is not offering me any features that I want. The software only includes one game – 1942.3 – and you can’t edit that game in any way. Well, I don’t want to play 1942.3 using out-of-the-box rules, so, right now, I have no interest in playing Axis & Allies Online. I wouldn’t bother downloading Axis & Allies Online for free, let alone purchasing it on Steam.

I say all of this with respect and goodwill for the software designers, who seem to be working hard and trying to listen to the community. If anyone from Beamdog is reading this, I want you to know that your software could be a really exciting, useful gaming platform…but that you won’t get there just by thinking positively and hoping that the modified version of 1942 Second Edition (known around here as 1942.3) is a good “middle-of-the-road” map. It’s not a good middle-of-the-road map. It’s a bad middle-of-the-road map that makes thoughtless compromises and achieves many of the worst features of both ends of the spectrum. 1942.3 has enough rules and enough territories to be daunting for new players, but not enough strategy or fairness to be satisfying for experienced players. It’s not a good idea to start with an unmodifiable version of 1942.3 and then work on adding minor editing capabilities months or years down the road as a sort of ‘bonus’ feature. Those editing capabilities are part of the minimum feature set that you need to have a product that will attract significant support from serious A&A players.

Right now, switching platforms from TripleA to Axis & Allies Online would be a huge downgrade for me. TripleA supports both live and asynchronous play of 30 different maps, with house rules and editing and a working lobby. Axis & Allies Online supports 1 map, with no house rules and no editing, and it’s one of the worst A&A maps ever released. I’m pleased to see new options entering the market, but those options will have to get much better before I consider playing them or recommending them to my friends.

It’s not a terrible idea, but there are a few problems to overcome. One is that you have to either keep the factory alive or force Japan to pay a crushing price for it – which is very unlikely. Even if you can stack the factory heavily enough that Japan doesn’t want to attack on J2, they can probably attack J3 – so you get 1 build before the attack. It’s not realistic to send in enough Russian reinforcements to stand up against a probable J3 attack of 6 inf, 6 planes with your US/UK/China forces of 4 inf, 3 planes; you could do it, but Russia would promptly collapse. The Russia vs. Germany battle is really sensitive to minor changes; Russia doesn’t have that kind of breathing room to spare. Send in 1 Russian inf as reinforcements, yes. Build 4 tanks and send them all into China, no, not without a huge bid.

Another is that even if you keep the factory…so what? Japan’s not dependent on China for its economy, for factory spaces, or for freedom of movement. China’s the fastest route to Moscow, but it’s not the only one – one of the main reasons why Japan might opt not to attack Szechuan J1 is if they’re busy stacking Burma on the way to India. Do you really want to pay for a 1-build-slot factory in Sinkiang for the US if that means that Japan gets free early access to the 3-build-slot factory in India?

You could imagine an all-out KJF plan where an American Sinkiang factory makes sense – Britain bids a sub and uses it to attack Japan’s capital ships in SZ 37, Russia bids an artillery in Buryatia and uses it to attack Manchuria, and America bids an AAA gun in Szechuan to make Japanese attacks there more painful. Britain builds 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk in India and starts flying planes from London to support the attack; America builds 100% in Pacific, mostly DDs, CVs, and ftrs, to gain control of naval lanes to the money islands as fast as possible, and Russia sends over 1 tnk to support the Siberian forces while attacking West Russia (only) and building mostly infantry, playing a nearly-turtling defense on the European front. If the SZ 37 battle goes well (and it should, statistically) then you can force Japan to give way on at least one front; they don’t have the starting cash to fight in China and India and Siberia and the Pacific all at once from the very first turn.

Without a bid, though, the Sinkiang factory starts looking more than a little silly. You’d need the perfect turn on defense before US1 comes along, with Japan getting diced left and right.

Good, glad to hear it. And thank you, that’s super-valuable feedback!

I also feel awkward about the income imbalance between UK and US. I agree with you that that’s a problem. I’m not sure how to solve it, and I’m open to advice. My difficulty is that I don’t want fewer territories in, e.g., Australia because I think it would make the combat less interesting, but I also don’t want the average Australian territory to be worth less income, because I want some variation among the territories (they shouldn’t all be worth just $1). Same issue with Canada, India, etc. – it’s not that I consciously decided that Britain should be earning $88, it’s just that I gave them what I thought of as their minimum income for their minimum set of territories for the kind of game I wanted to design, and I was already up that high. There’s a little bit of room to reduce the income of some of the territories in the UK proper – I could make, e.g., West England worth $2 or $3 instead of $4 – but I don’t think it would help enough, and I don’t want the UK proper to be worth less than, e.g., India. Right now the UK proper is earning $20, which only makes it first among equals compared to India, Canada, etc. – if I reduced UK any further, it would be earning less than a commonwealth.

You mentioned that places like Canada or South America are non-combat zones, but I don’t agree – the cruiser can transport commandos all the way from Normandy to Quebec (or vice versa) in one move, and Germany starts with a toehold in Argentina that can grow if the Allies aren’t careful. They’re not usually major combat zones, but the possibility for conflict exists all over the globe, and that’s on purpose.

I could increase the US income, but then the overall Allied income would be too high. I could increase German-Italian-Japanese income to compensate, but then French and Russian income would be too low…you get the idea. So I’m not thrilled with the way that shook out, but I don’t see how to fix it, either.

I like combat move first just fine; I can make that available.

Thanks for explaining about Western Russia. I guess I see Western Russia as being the direct approach to Moscow. The northern strategy is to go Lithuania -> Karelia -> Archangel -> Moscow. The central strategy is to go Belarus -> West Russia -> Central Russia -> Moscow. The southern strategy is to go Kiev -> East Ukraine -> Caucasus -> Volga, which doesn’t get you Moscow, but does get you rich. That said, I suppose there would be room for 1 more territory if I really wanted – the line could be Leningrad-West Russia - East Russia - Caucasus, with East Russia bordering West Russia, Central Russia, Caucasus, East Ukraine, and perhaps Stalingrad. Would that make things better? Why or why not?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by saying the Middle East looks squeezed. In terms of total number of pixels, its territories are some of the largest in the game – Persia, for example, is almost the same size as all six mainland French territories. Syria is a bit small, but I don’t know how to fix that; I already got rid of Lebanon and Trans-Jordan and Cyprus. It gives the French a presence in the region, which I think adds interest.

Are there any specific changes you would recommend in the Middle East?

Hi Randy,

I believe that there is a larger plan here, and when you have more time, I look forward to hearing your explanation of how it’s supposed to work. I know you’re working at UPS during the holiday season, and looking after your family, and that’s fine and I don’t mean to pressure you to spend more time on A&A than you want to, but when you’re able to film it or type it up, I think your full plan will be very interesting and worthy of more discussion.

For now, I will just point out that if the USA and UK both evacuate the Pacific and go 100% in the Atlantic for the first four turns, then Japan will win quite easily. You’re calling for the starting US Pacific fleet to move into the Atlantic to prevent a Sea Lion – but, taken literally, that means that Japan can build a couple of loaded transports on J3, divert one carrier group, and have 99%+ odds to take Hawaii on J4. If Japan also takes India on J4, the game ends after ANZAC’s 4th turn – Japan wins with Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Honolulu, and Calcutta.

Taken less literally, and assuming that the USA leaves enough material behind to secure Honolulu against casual attacks, you still have to worry about losing Sydney (and thus the game) on J5 or J6. Given that you’re proposing to move 6 units out of India on UK1 (infantry, artillery, transport, cruiser, fighter, tac) and then continue moving units out of India as they’re built to overpower Italy in North Africa, Japan can take and hold India with its starting units plus two turns of builds – everything built on J3 and later can be devoted 100% to taking Sydney. That means the J3 build can reach the Caroline Islands on J4 and Sydney by J5. If you wait until J6, many of the Japanese aircraft that survived the attack on India can also reach Sydney using airbases and/or carriers. Meanwhile, US forces built off San Francisco on US5 can make it to Honolulu on US6 and Queensland on US7 – far too late to stop a J6 attack on Sydney.

I do give you a lot of credit for looking for a way that the Allies can reliably win G40 without a bid, and I think you’re making great progress, but unless you can also explain how to stop Japan in the Pacific, then the strategy isn’t really a Global strategy.

@crockett36 It’s true that I am a little cynical. Like everyone else here, I play Axis & Allies for fun, and I enjoy the games, and I believe we’ll all continue enjoying the games, so in that limited sense I have an optimistic view of things. Basically everything will be OK and we’re all going to keep having fun with this game we like, which is good. I don’t want to lose sight of the bigger picture.

That said, I think because people have fun with their hobby, or because people are just positive thinkers in general, they wind up with these unrealistically positive views of what’s likely to come out of the pipeline from Avalon Hill. Avalon Hill has literally never released a game that was balanced out of the box. None of the releases are balanced. Revised was close, and that came out in 2004, i.e., 15 years ago. You know what else came out in 2004? Ticket to Ride, Power Grid, and Betrayal at House on the Hill. This is a long frigging time ago. You think Days of Wonder would still be a household name today if all of their games since Ticket to Ride had been borderline unplayable? Avalon Hill fans – i.e., us – are some calm, patient, tolerant mo’ fo’s. For people who like to pretend to be taking over the world and slaying millions of enemies, we sure have a peaceful, mellow attitude.

Honestly, I think the best starting map to promote with A&A software would be the version of Pact of Steel that includes Italy and China. If we have to go with an officially published map, I’d pick AA50. If we have to go with an officially published map with no bid, I’d pick Revised.

Hello fellow developers. I made a custom TripleA map from scratch using the map creator tool, and then edited the xml file appropriately, and all of that is going reasonably well. I can see the game in the list of maps available when I run TripleA. However, I can’t actually launch the game to see what the map looks like, because I’m getting the following error box:

I assume I’m just putting my map files in the wrong folder or something, but it’s in the same folder as all of the maps that I’ve downloaded, and I don’t know where else to put it. I could try uploading the map to the github repository and then downloading it from there, but I’d rather not upload it until I’ve tested it at least a little bit on my harddrive and it’s ready for other beta testers. The folder I’m using is C:/users/Jason GL/triplea/downloadedMaps. Within that folder, I’ve tried putting my xml file in /Argo/map/games and in /Argo/games.

Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance for your help. :-)

Here’s the full error message:
Mar 24, 2019 2:19:37 PM games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher loadGame
SEVERE: Failed to start game
games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.MapNotFoundException
at games.strategy.triplea.ResourceLoader.getMapResourceLoader(ResourceLoader.java:60)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.HeadedUiContext.internalSetMapDir(HeadedUiContext.java:75)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.AbstractUiContext.setDefaultMapDir(AbstractUiContext.java:107)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.TripleAFrame.create(TripleAFrame.java:232)
at games.strategy.triplea.TripleA.startGame(TripleA.java:105)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.loadGame(LocalLauncher.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:39)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

Mar 24, 2019 2:28:18 PM games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher loadGame
SEVERE: Failed to start game
games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.MapNotFoundException
at games.strategy.triplea.ResourceLoader.getMapResourceLoader(ResourceLoader.java:60)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.HeadedUiContext.internalSetMapDir(HeadedUiContext.java:75)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.AbstractUiContext.setDefaultMapDir(AbstractUiContext.java:107)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.TripleAFrame.create(TripleAFrame.java:232)
at games.strategy.triplea.TripleA.startGame(TripleA.java:105)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.loadGame(LocalLauncher.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:39)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

@Navalland OK, thank you; you’ve convinced me. I’ll split up the Caucasus as you suggest. I’m also going to see if I can create a ‘land canal’ blocking movement from North Caucasus to Volga unless you control Stalingrad (or have a boat on the Caspian Sea and use that). That way players will face a historical choice of whether to attack Stalingrad to penetrate into the somewhat-rich Volga region, or turn south, away from Stalingrad, to soak up the very-rich oil territories (but no victory cities). I may have to tinker with the IPC values a bit, there, too. Maybe 1 for North Caucasus, 5 for South Caucasus, 2 for Armenia, 2 for Stalingrad, and 3 for Volga. That way S. Caucasus + Armenia is worth $7 compared to Stalingrad + Volga’s $5.

If you have specific advice about Persia’s borders, I’ll consider it, but I honestly don’t know what about the Middle East you’re finding unrealistically proportioned right now. I know it’s not perfect, but I don’t see any glaring flaws. Can you point them out for me?

@randyshervandyke All right, I’m starting to get a sense of your overall plan, and it sounds promising. If I understand you correctly, the central idea of your opening is to contain the Axis within as wide of a perimeter as possible for the first few turns in order to conserve material, force the Axis to make unfavorable trades, and set up for a devastating Allied counter-attack in the middlegame. Instead of fighting over Java, Yunnan, and the central Mediterranean, you’re inviting the Axis to come fight you in Cairo, West India, and Queensland. Most openings advise the Allies to fight the Axis as far “forward” as possible to minimize the Axis income, but your advice is to fight the Axis as far “back” as possible to minimize Allied losses.

@simon33 I agree with you; if you leave Japan completely alone, then sooner or later Japan will take the 6th victory city, even if you turtle in Sydney and Honolulu. You have to offer Japan at least some resistance in order to keep the Pacific alive.

I like this idea, and I think it’s potentially revolutionary – this could be the equivalent of the ‘modern’ opening style in chess, which shifted emphasis from fighting directly for the center by advancing center pawns two spaces and placing pieces in or very near the center (classic) to fighting indirectly for the center by advancing flanking pawns one space and placing pieces on the flanks (modern).

That said, I think you’ve overestimated how far the Allies can afford to retreat without losing the game. For example, you can’t “give up Hawaii” to reinforce Sydney, because Japan will usually hold four victory cities quite easily: Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. From there, they only need two more victory cities to win. You and I agree that Japan will be taking India at least temporarily in this opening, so that means Japan only needs one more VC to win. If Japan takes Sydney OR Honolulu before losing India, and the Allies don’t immediately take it back, then the game ends and the Axis win.

Similarly, if you build nothing but infantry with ANZAC starting on turn 1, then that will certainly protect Sydney through turn 5, but it gives Japan a still yet easier time of capturing all of the money islands, all of China, etc, because after they sink the first Australian transport, Japan doesn’t have to worry about any further interference from the Aussies. I’m uneasy about the options this will create for Japan – Japan might be able to launch an attack in great force against Honolulu, or take all of China and start menacing the Russians from behind, or even allow the primary Japanese air/sea group to continue onward toward the west after taking India to successfully capture your Persian factory. By turn 5, Japan should be earning 80+ IPCs per turn and can afford to drop a fleet into the Pacific each turn that’s roughly the same size as what the Americans can build – even if you pivot to 100% Pacific with the US starting on turn 5, you may wind up never retaking any ground in the central/south Pacific, and Japan may continue eating into your possessions in Egypt, the Middle East, Kazakh, and Siberia. Even with a strong UK/US attack on Germany, that’s not really a position I want to be aiming for as the Allies.

Relatedly, I think routinely building 3 destroyers for the UK on turn 1 (let alone on turn 2) is overkill. Taking control of the Atlantic is a good idea, but Germany usually only has about 2 subs left in the Atlantic after attacking the UK home fleets on G1, and 1 or 2 British destroyers will usually survive in the Atlantic (Canada, Wales, etc.). The destroyers aren’t going to directly threaten Germany and it just doesn’t feel like the top priority purchase to me.

So, here’s how I would adapt and re-imagine your plan. I’m trying to be faithful to what I see as the core concepts (retreat deeply in the opening to save Allied resources; focus your first Allied counter-attack against Germany) while tweaking the details to yield better odds of Allied victory.

UK 1 Purchase:
2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer for London
Save 4 IPCs in the bank in Europe
2 inf, 1 tac for India

Allied Strategy turn 1:
Stack up the combined fleets in SZ 93 as outlined by Randy
Do not attack Ethiopia at all – instead, use one transport to claim Persia and one transport to claim Sumatra
March the entire Egyptian army to Sudan so they can attack your choice of Ethiopia / Kenya / Egypt on UK2
March the South African troops to Rhodesia.
Put the entire US build in the Atlantic, but leave the entire US Pacific fleet in place to defend Hawaii / ANZAC.
Leave two planes (the Burma fighter and the newly purchased Indian tac) in India to harass the Japanese.
Fly two planes from India to Tanganyika (not Somaliland) where they can still hit east Africa and/or Egypt.
Take Java with one infantry and the ANZAC transport, and build a transport and an infantry in Sydney.

UK 2 Purchase:
Minor factory for Persia (assuming no Sea Lion)
1 Carrier, 1 transport for London
Infantry for India

Allied Strategy turn 2:
If the SZ 93 fleet survived, bring it to SZ 91, west of Gibraltar
Counter-attack Egypt if necessary; otherwise attack the largest group of Italian troops in East Africa
Consider returning the two planes from Tanganyika to West India if they are not immediately needed in Egypt
Leave all new Indian purchases in India (or Burma / Yunnan) to make life moderately challenging for Japan
Take Dutch New Guinea with one infantry and the remaining ANZAC transport.
Build only infantry and fighters in Sydney from now on until the Americans arrive to reinforce Australia.

UK 3 Purchase
2 inf, 1 art for Persia
Transports and Fighters for London, with 1 more destroyer if there are still Axis subs near the Atlantic
Infantry for India

Allied Strategy turn 3:
Unite the SZ 91 fleet with last turn’s carrier + transport purchase to begin assaulting Normandy / Norway / Denmark.
Use Red Sea transports to attack any remaining Italian troops in East Africa
Attack Cairo if necessary
Attack Iraq if resources allow
Turtle in India and Sydney and Honolulu
Continue building American Atlantic fleet, including transports, to set up for an early serious attack on West Germany

Commentary
The overall idea here with this modified ‘rebound’ strategy (anyone have a catchier name?) is to abandon the Mediterranean Sea to Italy while still fighting hard for Gibraltar, Cairo, Ethiopia, and Iraq – Italy will have some income, but the UK will have even more income based on holding the Middle East and sweeping the Axis out of the Atlantic and launching very early, successful assaults on Axis territories on the Atlantic seaboard. Japan can take India early if it commits 100% to the endeavor, but will typically not wind up with enough spare resources after the India attack to make a serious attack on Sydney, Persia, or Honolulu…and if Japan waits to take India until later, then American can pivot to the Pacific and start giving Japan some real problems. If Germany ignores the Atlantic threat and blitzes straight for Moscow, then the large supply of British fighters (about 7 planes) can fly to Scotland on UK3, Archangel/Nenetsia on UK4, and Moscow on UK5, in time to stop a G6 attack on Moscow.

@Black_Elk said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

I think there are a lot of new people who might across Axis and Allies online via promotion on steam or from the publishers at Wizards and such, and the fact that beamdog will have tutorials and a single player mode for learning the ropes is definitely a good thing.

Yeah, my guess is that the primary target audience is new, casual players who aren’t really familiar with A&A – maybe they heard about it once from a friend who plays over the table, but they’re being drawn in by ads on Steam or while playing Magic:TG. That’s fine; there’s nothing wrong with mass-marketing a game and focusing on what casual players will want. However, I seriously doubt that even casual players will enjoy 1942.2 out of the box for more than a few plays if there’s no option for a bid, a mod, or editing. I also think that the interviews from Beamdog so far don’t admit that they’re focusing on casual players – the marketing pitch says that people like me are supposed to enjoy this game. So, that’s part of why I’m pushing back: if the game is for people like me, then it’s not ready yet.

@Panther

Actually, I think you are right – the problem was that I had the wrong name for the map at the bottom of the .xml file. I think I can keep working from here. Thank you!

Yeah, no complaints on Ladoga, man. I’ve enlarged dozens of my territories for the same reason. What’s the balance concern? You could make a canal attachment so that the Germans can’t move ships through Ladoga until after they take Leningrad. You could even have the canal be Russian-only, I think, simulating the Russians blowing up the locks as they retreat.

@randyshervandyke Can you say a little more about that? What does it mean to “declare” London off limits? It sounds like you’re advocating for sending a chunk of the US Pacific fleet into the Atlantic in order to intimidate Germany and psychologically deter them from making any moves into the Atlantic and/or intimidate Germany into calling off Sea Lion.

If so, I’m not sure that’s the right way to think about it. I’m less interested in making it psychologically impossible for Germany to invade London, and more worried about making sure it’s not a winning strategy for Germany to invade London. If Germany invades London and takes a huge loss in so doing, that’s fine with me. Even if Germany captures London for a turn or two, that’s fine with me as long as Germany pays such a high price that the Allies wind up in a winning position.

We’re playtesting the new Balanced Mod NOs for A&A Anniversary Edition!

I’ll be posting occasional updates here for anyone who’s interested. We had a fun first round; the Germans had a strong opening toward Leningrad but lost some aircraft along the way; the Japanese had a classic strong opening and will soon have to wrestle with a slightly beefy China.

Does anyone have a graphic they’d be willing to share that would be suitable for a Glider unit or Cargo Plane unit? Or maybe a plane with a parachute icon or something like that? It would need to look visually distinct from both fighters and bombers. I can color it myself, but I’m hoping to borrow someone else’s image in the right format. Right now the closest I’ve got is the Dwarven Zeppelin from Lord of the Rings, which isn’t quite the right feel for a WW2 game.

Thanks in advance for any leads. :)

@flyingbadger Yup, I checked the XML. It’s a bug; the territory is being assigned to Europe instead of Pacific. The maintainers need to add

<option name="changeUnitOwners" value="British"/>
<option name="whenCapturedByGoesTo" value="British:UK_Pacific"/>

to the Kyushu territory attachment.

@randyshervandyke Well, everybody has their own approach to the game, and if you get your kicks from emulating Churchill, I certainly won’t try to stop you! For my part, it’s not particularly easy to screw with my head, and I’m happy to trade apparently vital assets like London in exchange for winning the game – that’s part of why I like Operation Ricochet so much! You’re giving up territories (Egypt, India, etc.) that most people fight tooth-and-nail to hold on to because you think it improves your odds of a win. I feel much the same way about London – it can be scary to lose your capital and see Italy start gobbling up UK possessions while the UK is powerless to resist, but if Germany spends 50 IPCs on transports, loses 100 IPCs in planes, and loses another 50 IPCs in tanks and infantry, they just cannot recover. The 30 IPCs you loot from England and the 20 IPC/turn swing you get from conquering British territories simply can’t make up your losses in the 2 to 3 turns that you can hold England for. If you try to hold England for longer than 3 turns, Russia marches into Berlin from the east. It’s just not profitable to conquer a reasonably well-defended London, and so I’m not afraid to invite my opponent to lose his shirt taking my capital.

@GeneralHandGrenade Yup, I mostly agree with that – my usual preference is to Kill Italy First, for exactly the reasons you describe, but I’m enjoying Operation Ricochet as a promising alternative for shaking things up.

Here’s the board after round 4:

As you can see, the Allies have made some progress in Scandinavia and have kept the sea lanes to Australia open, but otherwise have had a lot of trouble getting any momentum going. The Axis are still out-earning the Allies by about 10 IPCs per turn, and Russia is unlikely to hold Stalingrad, which means that Russian income will further collapse.

Based on the playtest so far, I’ve suggested letting the Russians have their lend-lease NO income starting on turn 2 instead of turn 3, and I’ve suggested letting China collect income (including its NO, if applicable) based on what China owns at the end of its turn, which would slightly increase Chinese income – so far China would have collected another 1 inf and 1 art this game if we had been playing the rule that way. @axis_roll notes that an Allied opening that included an Atlantic fleet buy on US1 before switching to Pacific buys on US2 and later might be more effective with these NOs, and I’m willing to give that a try, but my opinion at the moment is that the Russians are seriously under-powered with lend-lease delayed until turn 3.