Posts made by Argothair

The thing that annoys me more than anything else about AAA guns is that they are only better than infantry when defending against an enormous stack of planes. If you spend 15 IPCs on 5 infantry, you get 5 HP and 10 defensive pips that roll in every round of combat. If you spend 15 IPCs on 3 AAA guns, you get 3 HP and 9 defensive pips that roll in only the first round of combat, but that have the potential to eliminate enemy planes before those planes can score hits against you. So the question is, how many hits would they have to score against you to even up that gap? At least 2 hits (since you can use your extra 2 infantry as ‘fodder’ and still come out ahead), and probably 3 hits unless your opponent is strafing (because the infantry’s ability to keep on rolling dice will let them pull ahead in ‘total’ defensive value as the battle goes on even if the advantage is to the AAA gun on the first round of combat).

So the break-even point for AAA guns is somewhere around an attack by 6 ftr OR 2 ftr, 3 bmbr. No matter how many AAA guns you pile into a territory, your opponent can still profitably attack you with ground forces supported by 3-4 planes. That’s really stupid.

If you have really dense flak coverage, a territory should become a death trap for planes, and even if you only have one AAA gun in a territory, it should be able to trade itself very profitably against attacking planes.

Mechanically, to make that happen, I would say get rid of the pre-emptive strike ability – it’s unnecessarily fussy and it’s too hard to predict. Instead, just give each AAA gun a single combat die that hits on rolls of 4 or less, but the die can only be applied to hit (and must be applied to hit) attacking enemy planes. That way the AAA gun packs a noticeably stronger defensive punch than infantry for the price (5 IPCs), but is weaker on HP and is useless for anything other than deterring aerial attacks.

Conveniently, this new AAA unit would cripple the ‘light trading’ tactic that currently serves as the lynch pin of orthodox strategy on the 1942.2 map. Planes really, really don’t want to trade lightly against territories with AAA guns.

Note that even though this makes AAA guns much stronger than they are now, they can still be overwhelmed with a large enough air force. Suppose Germany is attacking with 1 inf, 1 art, 5 ftr and Russia is defending with 3 inf, 1 AAA. Germany rolls an expected 3.1 hits, versus Russia’s expected 1.8 hits. Germany loses 1 inf and 1 ftr (-13 IPC). Russia will have to lose 2 inf, 1 AAA (-11 IPC) because if it loses 3 infantry then Germany could retreat the planes and mop up with the artillery unit, which can’t be hit by AAA guns because it’s not a plane. In the next round of combat, Germany attacks with 1 art, 4 ftr for a virtually guaranteed hit, and Russia attacks with 1 inf for 0.3 hits. Germany loses another one-third of a fighter (-3 IPC) and Russia loses another infantry (-3 IPC). Germany seizes the territory (+2 IPC), and so the TUV exchange for the battle is even (14 net IPCs lost for each side).

I think you’re right that the Flying Tiger survives if Japan chooses (as it should) to use J1 to both crush the combined British fleet in SZ 30 and destroy half the American Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor on J1. If Japan wanted to carry out all three attacks (SZ 30, Szechuan, Pearl Harbor) on J1, then the most Japan would be able to responsibly bring to Szechuan is 1 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, which just isn’t enough against 3 inf, 1 ftr (assuming 1 Russian inf from Kazakh reinforces Szech).

I think you’re wrong that this is a problem for Japan, no matter how many fighters Japan trades for (more expensive) boats on J1. Japan can very easily get away with buying 3 new fighters on J1. Japan’s only real disadvantage in the OOB opening is that Japan has to invest in factories or transports in order to make effective use of its purchasing power – ground troops aren’t a good buy at first because the starting 2 transports aren’t enough to ship 30 IPCs worth of ground troops from Tokyo, and planes aren’t a good buy at first because the starting 6 ftr, 1 bmbr is more than enough to support the ground troops that are already in mainland Asia. If the Allies give Japan an opportunity to trade fighters for enemy ships, the Allies are essentially volunteering to solve Japan’s problem for it – now Japan can profitably build more fighters and fly them to the mainland, without the need to make an early investment in transports or factories. Delaying this investment until J2 both accelerates Japan’s offensive and gives Japan more strategic flexibility, so that Japan can drop the transports or factories exactly where they will be most useful in light of the Allies’ initial deployment.

I am intrigued by your suggested Siberian attack plan for Russia with the bid bomber, but I feel compelled to point out that for this opening to work, Russia has to score a hit with the bomber before the destroyer scores a hit, so that the Japanese transport is also eliminated. The odds of this occurring are only 57%. (2/9 no hits, 4/9 clean Russian kill, 2/9 trade, 1/9 clean Japanese kill). It might make more sense to just send the bomber to Yakut along with one of the Russian fighters, so that the two Russian planes are in a position to make a decisive kill on R2 if Japan leaves any transports lightly guarded. You could also send one Russian tank to Evenki to assist with retaking Buryatia – if you’re going to send that much of a force to the east, you need to make sure it’s capable of sustained effective attacks, and one extra tank won’t stop you from holding West Russia on R2.

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.

Really, UK Pacific still has 10-15 income on turn 3-4 after a J1 DoW? Can’t the Japanese manage to take Hong Kong and Borneo by turn 3? And if they do, doesn’t that drop UK Pacific income down to a maximum of 8 IPCs/turn, or down to 5 IPCs/turn if the Japanese also grab Singapore?

I must be missing something.

Well, there’s something in what you say. If we’re willing to re-write the rules and not just the setup conditions, then it might make sense to have minor VCs (1 VP each) and major VCs (2 VPs each). If we go there, I would actually propose eliminating the concept of capitals. I’ve never liked them; I think the “lose all your production ability and all your cash” penalty is way too harsh as a matter of both theme and mechanics. Factoring in Black_Elk’s point that VCs need to have an in-game effect (other than triggering victory) so that people will remember to keep track of them, what if the rule were that capturing a minor VC lets you loot 3 IPC from your opponent’s treasury, and capturing a major VC lets you loot 10 IPC from your opponent’s treasury? This would make control of a VC have an impact beyond just straightforwardly counting up income; in psychological terms, you want the loss of the VC to hurt, so that it triggers loss aversion.

Applying this rule to the map, you might get a list something like this:

Axis Major (10 VP):
Berlin
Rome
Paris
Tokyo
Shanghai

Axis Minor (7 VP):
Warsaw
Algiers
Helsinki
Bucharest
Kiev
Manila
Singapore

Allied Major (10 VP):
London
Calcutta
Moscow
Washington
San Francisco

Allied Minor (8 VP):
Cairo
Capetown
Sydney
Leningrad
Stalingrad
Irkutsk
Honolulu
Chongqing

You’d wind up with a total of 35 VP, with initial totals of 17 Axis - 18 Allies. You could say that a Minor Victory is 21 VP, a Major Victory is 25 VP, and a Crushing Victory is 30 VP.

I’m not sure how I feel about that ruleset – it seems a little fiddly to me. There’s something about counting up victory points that feels more like a Eurogame to me than a wargame. Still, it might play better than the OOB rules – more flexibility, more historical accuracy, easier to remember the rules, and no permanent alterations to the map. I’d certainly be willing to give it a try if I had a willing opponent.

You make some good points, and I admire your determination to find a strong KJF opening.

The only thing I want to point out in response is that if, as you propose, you move the UK bomber to South Africa and the 2 London fighters to West Russia and then India, and you build 2 bmbr / 1 sub in India on B1, then you are leaving the English Channel completely unguarded, meaning that Germany can build 5 transports on G2 for a surprise Sea Lion (even if you wiped out the Baltic fleet on B1!) and you have nothing in place to kill them with. You could counter by moving some American planes to London on A1, but that reduces the strength of America’s attack on Japan, and Germany could still build something like 3 transports, 1 carrier on G2. London is going to be extremely weak with no air force and a mandatory infantry build in India on B2 – even with only 3 transports (and the Luftwaffe), Germany might be able to take London on G3, especially if Germany built a plane or two on G1.

Very interesting/creative idea! I honestly hadn’t seen the SZ 30 unification option, and I spent a while looking, too.

It sounds like a lot of fun, but I think the strategy can be countered. I don’t think forcing Japan to attack SZ 30 is as bad for Japan as you suggest – Japan can bring 5 units to Pearl Harbor if they want (including the Caroline islands carrier), which should be plenty, and the Japanese battleship isn’t all that out of position in SZ 30. It can still reach SZ 61 by J3, which is the earliest it’s really going to be needed in a KJF, and if the BB is going to assist with bombardments in India, then it can get back to SZ 35 by J2. Similarly, the lack of air is not a huge problem for Japan – Japan can buy, e.g., 1 ftr, 1 bmbr, 1 transport on J1, take 3 fighters as casualties, and still wind up with an air force of 4 fighters + 2 bombers, which is enough to make progress in China, Burma, and Siberia all at the same time.

Also, if you bring both British fighters to SZ 30, then you’re not attacking the Japanese starting transport off the coast of China, so the Japanese will get a head start on shipping troops onto the mainland. Japan should seriously consider stacking Burma on J1. India can be in big trouble very quickly if Britain doesn’t rapidly compensate for its no-defense purchase of 1 sub, 2 bombers. Even assuming you evacuate Egypt, Jordan, and Persia, Britain could wind up with something like 6 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 bmbr defending India on J2, which is not necessarily enough to hold the factory. You would probably need to reinforce with Russian tanks and/or the Flying Tiger. Doable, but scary.

Japan can also send one transport with 1 inf, 1 art with excellent odds to take both halves of a weakened Australia, probably followed by Madagascar and South Africa. It’s a minor concern, but those 5 ipc / turn can add up in a long game.

If your main goal as the UK is to kill and divert Japanese assets, I’m not sure this strategy is more effective than just attacking SZ 37 outright. If you win in SZ 37, you kill off a BB, CV, and 2 fighters. If you win by defending SZ 30, you kill off a CV and 3-4 fighters, and divert a BB for 1-2 turns. Stacking in SZ 30 also offers the Japanese the option of ignoring your gambit and consolidating the Japanese fleets off the coast of Burma. That forces the British to either build boats on B2 (which almost certainly concedes the Indian factory), retreat the fleet back to the coast of Africa (which almost certainly concedes the Indian factory, because the Japanese can bombard with 2 BB and 1 CA), or allow the Japanese to annihilate the unified British fleet with minimal losses (which is probably more profitable for the Japanese than Pearl Harbor anyway).

That said, I think this could be an excellent opening if you support it with an appropriate bid, or if you’re playing against a weak or overly cautious Japanese player. Thanks for sharing!

Good points, Barney. I didn’t know about the Stalingrad/Turkey connection; that’s interesting.

CWO_Marc, I admit that I chose Yakut/Irkutsk for its mechanical properties, rather than for maximum theme. Capturing Yakut, by itself, wouldn’t have any chance of causing a Soviet surrender. Why do I want to make it a victory city, then? Because I prefer to think of victory cities less in terms of “what would I have to capture to make my enemy surrender?” and more in terms of “what would I have to capture to convincingly demonstrate to an unbiased observer that I’m currently winning this war?” If the Japanese can capture Yakutsk, then that means they’ve penetrated beyond the coastline and are holding turf in the Soviet interior – which should surely be part of what it means for the Axis to be winning the war.

Out of the box, the Axis get zero credit (toward victory) for capturing the Soviet Far East, Buryatia, Yakutsk, Evenki, Archangel, Vologda, Novosibirsk, and Kazakhstan – the “victory meter” gives the exact same reading regardless of whether the Japanese are 3,000 miles from Moscow or 50 miles from Moscow. That’s not right – Siberia wasn’t the most valuable patch of terrain in the world, but part of what made the USSR mighty was that it was able to draw on vast reserves of manpower, food, and industry stretching out across millions of square miles of settled terrain. If the Japanese managed to take that away from Russia, then it would have been a very different war, and that should be reflected in the victory city list. You could argue for putting the VC in Evenki or even in Vladivostok if you prefer a theme-ier game, but there needs to be a VC somewhere in Soviet Asia.

Most of the rest of my VCs I’m willing to stand behind in terms of theme. Some cities, like Warsaw and Singapore, were of more psychological or administrative importance than industrial importance, but that’s why those territories get victory cities and not 4-IPC incomes – the point is to try to measure who is winning as accurately and fairly as we can, given the crude and imperfect tools at our disposal.

Black_Elk recently suggested a new list of victory cities, and CWO_Marc pointed out on another thread that changing victory cities is much easier than changing the map, because you can show victory cities with tokens that can be picked up and put down.

So, here’s my attempt at a list of victory cities:

Axis (9):
Berlin
Rome
Paris
Warsaw
Algiers
Tokyo
Manila
Shanghai
Singapore

Allies (12):
Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad
Yakut
London
Cairo
Capetown
Calcutta
Sydney
San Francisco
Honolulu
Chongqing

You can use this victory cities in a one-off game, with a Minor Victory achieved at 14 VCs, and a Major Victory achieved at 16 VCs.

Alternatively, the tournament rules are as follows:

1. FIXED BID – the Allies start with a fixed bid of 1 inf in Italian East Africa, 1 art in South Africa, 1 art in Eastern Australia, 1 art in Buryatia, and 1 IC and 1 AAA gun in Szechuan. The Axis start with a fixed bid of 1 inf in Algeria. If one player has played the Axis more times during this tournament than her opponent, that player will play the Allies. Otherwise, flip a coin to determine who will play the Allies.

2. LIMITED TIME – during each nation’s turn, the active player has 15 minutes (20 minutes on the first turn of the game) to complete all actions, including purchasing, combat, noncombat, and deployment. If the active player takes longer than that, he or she is fined 1 IPC for each minute she goes over (the money is returned to the bank). Defenders must select their casualties during each round of combat within 30 seconds after the hits are announced, or else the attacker will get the right to select casualties.

3. LIMITED ROUNDS – play continues for exactly 8 rounds, or until either player controls 16 or more VCs at the end of the American turn, whichever comes first.

4. OPTIONAL LOW LUCK – the attacker may choose, before rolling dice, whether to use regular luck or low luck for a given battle. You cannot switch methods between rounds of the same battle.

5. SCORING – at the end of the eighth round, whoever has the most victory cities scores points as follows:
   11 VCs – 1 point
   12 VCs – 2 points
   13 VCs – 3 points
   14 VCs – 5 points
   15 VCs – 6 points
   16 VCs or more – 10 points

The defeated player loses the same number of points, going into negative points if necessary. If a player forfeits a game by failing to participate, the game is scored as a 3-point win for the player who won by default and as a 3-point loss for the player who lost by default. A player who defaults twice in the same tournament is eliminated and removed from the tournament.

6. PAIRINGS – at the end of each game, players who have most nearly the same point total are matched up with each other, starting at the bottom and continuing up to the top. If there are an odd number of players left in the tournament, the player with the highest point total gets a bye, and is awarded 3 points for the round without having to play a game. If more than two players have the same point total, then if possible pair them so that a coin flip is not needed to determine who will play the Allies.

I like it very much! My only concern is that Trans-Jordan cannot be saved from a casual German assault on G1 – at setup, it starts with only 1 British infantry defending it. I think attacking Trans-Jordan G1 is already a good strategy, and now it would become mandatory. Even if (as the Germans) you don’t want your battleship to end up in SZ 16, you could still just send the undefended transport with an infantry and artillery.

The Allies wind up trying to defend Egypt, Trans-Jordan, and India on B1/B2 with only a single transport in the region and no starting tanks – seems too difficult. I would prefer to put the Trans-Jordan factory in either Rhodesia or French Equatorial Africa.

Good suggestions, everyone. I like the idea of putting something down on top of the board, instead of writing on the board. I don’t think that something has to be an enormous mylar transparency that covers the entire map – it could be as simple as using stickers, like the kind you’d use for return address labels. Also note that you don’t have to rename all of the territories if you don’t want to – I changed “Caucasus” into “Armenia” and “Volgograd” so that we’d have an easier time discussing the setup, but you could just as easily leave the 4 IPC circle and the Caucasus name in place, and then you’d only need a sticker for the 2 IPC circle and the Volgograd name.

I’ve occasionally used translucent, brightly colored glass beads for victory cities, with good results. You use, e.g., red beads for the Axis and blue beads for the Allies, and change the color of the bead when the city is captured. That way you can tell at a glance (a) where the VCs are, (b) who is winning, and © where a game-winning attack might be coming from.

Frederick, I’m not super-concerned about the Allies taking Tunis early, because the earliest the Americans can possibly attack it is turn 3, and even then the only ground forces available would probably be 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk. The Germans really ought to be able to hold Tunis until at least turn 4 even if Africa is going poorly for them. Note that because Germany goes after Russia, if Germany and Russia are trading Leningrad, then Leningrad will count as an Axis victory city. If, by turn 4, the Germans aren’t even in position to trade Leningrad or Stalingrad, and the Japanese haven’t captured Calcutta, Chongqing, Sydney, or Honolulu, and the war in Africa is going poorly for Germany, then I personally have no problem calling the game in favor of the Allies.

That said, if an early fall of Tunis worries you, you could drop Washington off the list of victory cities (if the Axis hold Washington at the end of the American turn, then the Axis are surely going to win anyway, regardless of the VC count), so that the Allies have to hold their initial VCs and conquer 2 Axis victory cities to win. I like this idea. Another option is to raise the VCs needed to win from 11 to 12, but that means the Axis can conquer Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, and Calcutta while holding their original territories, and still not win, which seems harsh, and seems likely to unnecessarily prolong a game after the winner is (or should be) fairly clear. I can imagine, e.g., that in the time it takes the Axis to batter down Chongqing, the Americans could land troops in Paris or Manila or Shanghai. That doesn’t mean the Allies are going to be able to stage a real comeback; that just means it will take time for the Axis, who now own essentially all of Eurasia, to re-position their troops to boot out the invaders.

Background

So, for those of you just tuning in, there’s a reasonably broad consensus about A&A 1942: 2nd Edition that it’s a fabulous game but that (a) it’s slightly unbalanced in favor of the Axis, and (b) it fails to break out of the increasingly tired rut where Russia immediately evacuates all of its Asian troops, China is a speed bump at best, and the optimal strategy is for the Axis to race for Moscow while the Allies race for Berlin.

We’ve talked about many potential solutions for these issues, most of which have involved adding additional units and/or changing the price of units. We’ve steered clear of changing the map, though, mostly because map changes disrupt game balance in ways that are hard to predict, and tend to damage the graphics – you don’t want to go around leaving permanent marks on your snazzy $60 game boards with a $2 sharpie.

A Modest Proposal

Keeping those risks in mind, I have a proposal for a very small set of changes to the 1942.2 map that could yield big payoffs in terms of creating additional game balance and strategic variety without ruining the aesthetic appeal of the game. It’s just a proposal, though, so I strongly recommend using a pencil…

1. Draw a vertical line from the northeast corner of Afghanistan to the center of the southern border of Sianking, dividing Szechuan into two territories: Qinghai (west) and Henan (east). Qinghai is worth 1 IPC and contains a new Victory City named Chongqing. Qinghai starts the game with 1 American infantry. Qinghai borders Kazakh, Sinkiang, and Henan. Henan is worth 2 IPC and starts the game with 2 American infantry, 1 American anti-aircraft gun, 1 American fighter, and 1 factory. Henan borders Sinkiang, Henan, Anhwei, Kwangtung, and Yunnan.

2. Draw a vertical line from the northwest corner of the Caspian Sea to the center of the southern border of West Russia, dividing the Caucasus into two territories: Armenia (west) and Volgograd (east). Armenia is worth 4 IPCs and starts the game with 3 infantry and 1 artillery. Armenia borders Ukraine, West Russia, Volgograd, Persia, and the Black Sea. Volgograd is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 tank, 1 anti-aircraft gun, and 1 factory. Volgograd contains a new Victory City named Stalingrad, and borders Armenia, West Russia, Russia, and Kazakh.

3. Draw a diagonal line that runs across the narrowest portion of Vologda, starting from the southeastern border of Archangel and finishing at the northwestern border of Novosibirsk. The line will split Vologda into two territories: Omsk (west) and Chelayabinsk (east). Omsk is worth 1 IPC and starts the game with 1 infantry. Omsk borders Russia, Archangel, Chelayabinsk, and Novosibirsk. Chelayabinsk is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 factory. Chelayabinsk borders Omsk, Archangel, Evenki, and Novosibirsk.

4. Draw a vertical line splitting Libya into two territories: Tunisia (west) and Cyrenaica (east). Tunisia is worth 2 IPCs and borders Algeria, Cyrenaica, and the Italian sea zone. Tunisia contains a new victory city named Tunis. Tunisia starts with 2 German infantry at setup. Cyrenaica is worth 1 IPC and borders Tunisia, Egypt, and the Italian sea zone. Cyrenaica starts with 1 German tank at setup.

5. Eastern Australia is now worth 2 IPCs instead of 1 IPC, and contains a victory city (Sydney).

New Starting IPCs:
USSR: 24 -> 27 IPCs (+3)
Germany: 40 -> 42 IPCs (+2)
Britain: 31 -> 32 IPCs (+1)
Japan: 30 -> 30 IPCs (no change)
USA: 42 -> 44 IPCs (+2)

New Victory City List:
Allies (10): Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, Chongqing, Honolulu, Sydney, San Francisco
Axis (7): Paris, Berlin, Rome, Tunis, Shanghai, Tokyo, Manila

There are 17 total victory cities. If either the Allies or the Axis control 11 or more Victory Cities at the end of the USA’s turn, then that team immediately wins.

New Russian Starting Factory List:
Karelia (2 units/turn), Volgograd (2 units/turn), Russia (8 units/turn), Chelayabinsk (2 units/turn).

Strategy Discussion

The point of these changes is to encourage the Russians to vigorously defend their Asian territories, to encourage Germany to vigorously defend north Africa, to allow the Americans to pump major resources into China if they so choose, to force the Allies to defend at least part of the Pacific, and to give both sides even chances at victory even without a bid.

The Russians now have a starting factory in the Ural mountains (Chelayabinsk). Holding that factory and the immediately adjacent territories is worth 6 IPCs, meaning that you can drop two infantry a turn into the Ural factory and have them pay for themselves. Russia may not have a good reason to defend Buryatia, Yakutsk, and the Soviet Far East, but now at least there is a Russian rallying point somewhere along the 3,000 miles between Vladivostok and Moscow. If the Japanese conquer Chelayabinsk, it will seriously improve the Japanese income and logistical situation, but it is not necessarily an immediate game over for Moscow, which is still two spaces away.

The Russians now have some room to trade in the south – Germany wants to capture Armenia because of the valuable oil worth 4 IPCs, and can do so relatively easily by swinging the Italian navy over to the northeast, but because Armenia does not come with a free factory, and because the USSR can still produce units in Volgograd, it is not necessarily worthwhile for the Axis to pull extreme stunts like flying the Japanese air force over to defend a captured Armenia.

The Americans now have a starting factory in China (Qinghai) that is guaranteed a chance to produce 2 units before the Japanese can even attack it. Because the Americans start with an extra infantry and extra AAA gun in the region, if the Americans use both builds and also consolidate all forces in Qinghai, they have some hope of holding it against the Japanese on turn 2 even if Japan sends all available forces and the Russians/British do not help reinforce it. With a coordinated Allied effort, China can now hold against a mid-strength Japanese attack until turn 5 or 6 without the need to strip Russia or India bare.

In north Africa, the Germans no longer have an attractive option to blow open Egypt on turn 1, because the ex-Libyan infantry is now out of position in Tunis. On the other hand, the Americans no longer have the option of defending all of Africa by ferrying troops to Morocco – once the Germans do crack Egypt on turn 2 or turn 3, the Allies will have to reinforce sub-Saharan Africa via West Africa and/or India, because Morocco is just too damn far away. On the third hand, if the Americans do choose to land in Morocco, the Germans will be less likely to just abandon north Africa in response, because now they have a 2 IPC territory with a victory city in it to defend. If the Germans let the Americans walk into Tunis, the Americans can build a factory there, and use it to seize Paris and Rome, setting up a European Allied victory even if the Allies never capture Berlin.

Meanwhile, most of the old strategies can still be used if desired – the sea zones are all the same, the navies and air forces are all the same, the capitals are all in the same places, the starting forces distribution is virtually unchanged, and most of the map is encouragingly free of pencil marks.

Let me know what you think!

PS Many thanks to Black_Elk for his thread on moving Russia’s factories to the east, which is what got me thinking about these map changes in the first place, and to everyone for your feedback on earlier articles I’ve posted, which have helped me push the ideas in this piece forward to (what I hope) is their logical conclusion.

1. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35964.0

2. Borneo and East Indies have high IPC values to reflect the astonishing importance of their crude oil to the Japanese war effort. Hitler’s tanks may not have run without gasoline, but at least his infantry could carry on shooting their submachine guns when the oil ran out. When Hirohito ran out of gas, what were the troop transports going to do, row with oars? I agree that China as a whole should be worth more than 4 IPC, but I’m not sure that Szechuan all by itself should be worth 3 IPC. Probably 2 IPC, from what I know of China’s economic history. I’m willing to be educated if you know the specifics.

I was wrong about the Japanese fleet placement – they do start with a transport and destroyer off the coast of China already, so I don’t feel the need to add more boats there. Instead I would say put the extra DD and transport in the Caroline Islands, where they will be nicely placed to help facilitate earlier attacks on Hawaii, Australia, or Alaska.

So I finally did a short playtest for this variant, on low luck, and most of the opening battles came out roughly the way I wanted. It was fun! As a result of the playtest, I’ve given Rome and Tokyo 1 extra infantry each, removed one Russian infantry and one Russian tank, and moved the Russian fighter from Buryatia to Yakutsk so it’s not such an easy target. I also switched the USA entry roll from 3d6 to 4d6. All these changes are now reflected in my (modified) original post.

I also tweaked the USA setup – instead of starting the USA factories with (double) maximum damage and full income, I’m starting the USA with (single) full damage and -20 IPC/turn income. The -20 IPC/turn penalty goes away when the USA enters the war. This change was necessary to avoid giving the USA a huge artificial incentive to drop a factory in the Philippines on A1 (which in turn would give the Japanese a huge artificial incentive to attack the Philippines on J1, screwing up the USA entry clock by directly attacking a US territory). The USA can still choose to build a factory in the Philippines, and it’s not a bad idea, but at least now it’s not strategically required. The changes also give the Axis a little more reason to avoid flagrantly attacking the Allies on G1 and G2. Under the old rules, the US did not accumulate enough TUV to even want to counter-attack the Axis anywhere until at least turn 3.

Hi Pike,

Your observations are very sharp for someone who’s been out of the game so long – glad to have you on the forum! Some thoughts on your China complaint, in no particular order:

1. I agree with you, China should be tougher. In the “House Rules” section I discuss some setups that could help fix this problem, including a slightly different setup that gives the Allies extra troops in east Asia (1 extra artillery in Buryatia goes a long way), and a radically different 1939 setup that cuts the starting Japanese forces in half and makes Chongqing a victory city.

2. If you want to make a stand in China using the out-of-the-box (“OOB”) rules, nobody can stop you. America can build an industrial complex in Sinkiang and is guaranteed to get at least one build there – usually more like three builds if you’re playing proper defense. Britain’s starting fighter off the coast of India can hit and will usually sink one of the two starting Japanese transports, which helps slow down the Japanese attack. If the British fighter survives, it can land in China (Yunnan) for extra defense, and Britain can stack 4 infantry in Burma on turn 1, which will have to either be killed by Japan or else they become extra Chinese reinforcements. Russia can bring 3 infantry, 2 tanks, and 1 fighters into China on the very first turn without throwing the game away. None of these strategies are considered optimal, because China is only worth 4 IPCs, but it’s worth keeping in mind that abandoning China is a choice, not a requirement. Perhaps in the real historical war, if Britain and the USA had spent fewer resources ferrying supplies to China, they would have been able to start Operation Torch a few months earlier, cutting short the war in Europe.

3. The OOB game is widely considered to be favorable to the Axis, so many players will give the Allies some units that they can choose to put where-ever they like at the start of the game, called a “bid.” If you want, you can use your bid to put extra units in China. I like to put an American artillery in Szechuan if I have the resources to spare.

4. If you want to have a house rule tweaking the starting setup, you could put several extra units in China without ruining the game. Be aware that no matter how much you buff up China, some players will pack it all up and send it straight to Moscow, abandoning China anyway. One way to deter such shameless cowardice would be to give Tokyo a couple extra starting tanks – that way if you leave the plains of east Asia vacant, the Japanese can sweep through them quickly to threaten Moscow. Another way is to avoid giving the American Chinese extra tanks/fighters and to put the extra American infantry mostly in Anhwei and Yunnan, so they start farther from Moscow.

In my opinion, the atom bombs that were available in 1945, 1946, and 1947 would not have caused a nuclear winter. The hydrogen bomb, which was invented in 1952, packs roughly 1,000 times the power of a simple atomic bomb, and the US and USSR tested a couple dozen hydrogen bombs over the years, with no significant cooling effect on the climate. So if your warring parties are dropping ten atom bombs a day for a year (significantly more than anybody really had the facilities or resources to produce), it still wouldn’t change the weather.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-tests-first-hydrogen-bomb

That said, I suppose people could theoretically have been horrified to the point where they stopped cooperating with their governments’ war campaigns. People thought that would happen with ‘normal’ incendiary bombing, and it didn’t really pan out, though. People will put up with all kinds of amazing awfulness rather than die.

As long as we’re going for radical change, what about swapping the relative prices of transports, destroyers, and subs? Something like:

Defenseless transports: 5 ipc
Destroyers: 6 ipc
Submarines: 7 ipc
Cruisers: 8 ipc
Carriers: 10 ipc
Battleships: 13 ipc?

My thought is that if what we really want to encourage is cheaper shipping of ground units across the ocean, then the cheapest naval unit should be the transport, followed by the defensive destroyer. That way, for 11 ipc, you can build a 1 trans + 1 DD combo that is not super-attractive to try to sink with a lone fighter – sure, you have decent odds of sinking 11 IPCs of ships, but you also have a significant chance of losing your 10 IPC fighter.

Hey, everyone. I live in Oakland, and would love to meet up with fast, experienced players for A&A 1942.2 or 1940 Global as often as once a month. Sundays are best, but I’m open to other options.

I like the idea – my main concerns are that (a) it appears to eliminate the threat of a Russian march to Berlin, and (b) it makes it impossible for Allied navies in the Atlantic to directly liberate a Russian factory.

Russia can defend Kazakh against Japan even though Kazakh is only three moves from Tokyo and the Japanese start with twice as many units in the region as Russia. The problem is that the Russians will have to siphon so many troops from the Barbarossa front that the Russians are not going to make any progress at all to the west even if Germany is weakened by, e.g., strategic bombing or by a failed Sea Lion or by over-investment in conquering British Africa. At most, Russia can trade Karelia and West Russia and the Caucasus – they’re not going to be able to build up any momentum to the west. So in that respect I see the setup change as forcing everybody to play a KJF-oriented strategy, rather than as giving people more options.

Also, in the endgame, it often happens that the Allies take Berlin and Japan takes Moscow. When that happens, I make it a priority to ferry troops from, e.g., Italy to the Caucasus, or from France to Karelia, so I can liberate a Russian factory and use it to produce Allied ground troops close to the front lines. With Russian factories all located east of the sea, though, my navies can’t reach – I have to unload in Karelia/Caucasus, and then march from there to Vologda (2 spaces away from the sea!) or Kazakh (where Japan surely already has the ability to recruit new troops).

I think there’s nothing wrong with moving the factories to Vologda/Kazakh as a kind of fun what-if alternate scenario, but I predict that it will not have the same complexity or replay value as the OOB setup.