Posts made by Argothair

Wittmann, you seem to know a great deal about the history of the Russian/German front – do you want to take a crack at designing the starting unit roster for Europe in 1943? It’s beyond my expertise; I have no idea how many panzer divisions were in eastern Europe at all, let alone at some specific point in early 1943. it sounds like that’s not Black_Elk’s strong suit either.

Hi wittman! We’re re-drafting the national objectives from scratch, so giving Leningrad to Germany doesn’t necessarily mean that Germany will get a +5 IPC bonus. We could even flip that one around! Maybe Russia gets a +5 IPC bonus if Germany holds Leningrad. After all, the historical dynamic was that Germany deliberately avoided occupying Leningrad in part because Russia was spending a lot of resources to try to supply all the starving civilians under siege. A reverse NO would be wildly unorthodox; you might not like that. My main point is that we can change the NOs as we see fit. Whoever gets Leningrad, they should start with few or no troops in the area – it was hotly contested in 1943.

Similarly, whoever holds the Caucuses should hold them very lightly. I’m proposing a January 1943 start, so that we can honestly keep the ‘1943’ title while still maximizing the extent of Axis territorial holdings. So, yes, Germany’s armies in Stalingrad were destroyed, but the German retreat from the Caucuses was not yet complete. Part of the problem is that “the Caucuses” was a large area relative to the size of the campaigns. The Germans were driven back from Astrakhan and Baku well before January 1943, but the Russians didn’t get to Stavropol until January 21, 1943, and didn’t get to Krasnodar until February 1943. On January 1, 1943, I think the Germans still controlled the majority of the population and industry of the Caucuses. The Germans did not entirely abandon the peninsula until September 1943.

Great posts as always, Black_Elk. I agree with your agenda: let’s get the starting territories right first, then figure out some starting battles / national objectives to give the game a solid 1943 theme, and then we can tweak the starting unit balance.

I typed up a list of territories assigning France to the USA (rather than to Britain, which is already relatively income-rich in 1943), and splitting China between the USA and the USSR (which is surprisingly income-poor in 1943). These are mostly stylistic choices – obviously, you could give all those territories to Britain and it would not affect the overall Axis/Allied economic balance. I just think it’s fun to model the ongoing tension between the Brits and the French – if you give all the French colonies to Britain, then Britain winds up with this monolithic chunk of territories in Africa. It’s not as if the USA can build an IC in Algeria or Madagascar, anyway – they’re all 1-point territories.

Anyway, I show that the Axis start with 136 IPCs to the Allies’ 124 IPCs, even before adding in any national objectives. So unless my math is badly off or I’ve grossly misrepresented the Russian front, it should not be too hard to have the Axis starting off with a straightforward income advantage in 1943. I think this is the simplest way to force the Allies to race against the clock to defeat the Axis – if you let the Axis sit on their gains for too long, they’ll just start out-producing you.

I take your point about starting unit placement being more important than starting TUV and starting income. In games where the entire British and American navies get destroyed on turn 1, along with the bulk of the Russian tank corps, the “printed” Allied TUV is deeply inaccurate. The actual TUV that the Allies have to work with in 1940 or 1941 is much less than what they are shown as starting with on the setup cards, because most of it will be destroyed either before the Allies get a move, or after the Allies’ very first move.

However, I think this will be less true for the 1943 scenario. We agree that no Allied navies should be reliably sunk on turn 1. There is no Pearl Harbor, no Taranto, etc. We agree that Russia should have a tough, buff front line that is in position to advance and conquer, rather than in position to be shattered and forced to retreat. I envision that Allied China will fall more often than not in 1943, but there is not a lot of TUV there – maybe 50 points of infantry and 20 points of fighters. I do not see any big opportunities for the Axis to destroy Allied TUV in the first couple of moves. The Allies might choose to commit some of their TUV to try to make aggressive territorial gains, but that’s a different animal.

GERMANY
Western and Central Europe (including France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Sicily) – 49 IPCs
Tunisia, French West Africa, and French Central Africa – 3 IPCs
Norway, Finland, and Karelia – 6 IPCs
Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Novgorod, Smolensk – 6 IPCs
Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Rostov, Caucasus – 8 IPCs
German subtotal – 72 IPCs

JAPAN
Home Islands, Korea, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Formosa – 14 IPCs
Oceania (including Philippines) – 17 IPCs
Eastern China, from Hong Kong to Manchuria – 13 IPCs
Kwangsi, French Indo China, Siam, Malaya, Shan State, Burma – 9 IPCs
Central China (Chahar, Hopei, Anhwe, Kwichow, Hunan, Yunnan) – 6 IPCs
Eastern USSR (Soviet Far East, Siberia, Amur, Sakha, Buryatia) – 5 IPCs
Japanese subtotal – 64 IPCs

Axis Total – 136 IPCs

USSR
Europe (Archangel, Vologda, Russia, Bryansk, Volgograd, Urals, Novosibirsk, Tambov, Samara, Kazakhstan) – 13 IPCs
Asia (Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey, Yakut) – 4 IPCs
Communist China (Kansu, Suiyuan, Shensi) – 3 IPCs
Russian Subtotal – 20 IPCs

USA
North America  (including West Indies, Panama, Alaska, Hawaii) – 50 IPCs
Nationalist China (Tsinghai, Sikang, Szechwan) – 3 IPCs
Free France (Morocco, Algeria, French Equatorial Africa, Syria, Madagascar) – 5 IPCs
American Subtotal – 58 IPCs

BRITAIN
UK and Canada – 14 IPCs
British Africa (including Libya, Congo, Ethiopia) – 14 IPCs
Jordan, Iraq, and Persia – 5 IPCs
India – 3 IPCs
Australia – 8 IPCs
New Zealand – 2 IPCs
British Subtotal – 46 IPCs

Allied Total – 124 IPCs

PS: CWO Marc, in my opinion, the 1943 scenario will be a reasonably good vehicle for the kind of rebalancing that Black_Elk has in mind. By moving forward in history, the game length is naturally shortened. It also makes more sense to have fewer players in 1943 – the alliances had largely consolidated by then. Finally, Russian naval/air strength was much better in 1943 than at any time since 1939. If you want to apply strict historical accuracy to the territory distribution listed above, you would have to return 5 IPCs from Japan to Siberian Russia, plus 2 IPCs from Germany to the Western Allies for French West Africa and French Central Africa, which joined the Free French in December 1942. You might also have to give back one or two Chinese territories from Japan to the Nationalist Chinese, for another 1 or 2 IPCs. Leningrad is also debatable, for another 2 IPCs. If you shift all those territories over, the economic balance might shift from 136-124 in favor of the Axis, to 135-125 in favor of the Allies. Not necessarily fatal to good game play, since the USA still has no ICs or convenient IC sites anywhere near the action, and you can use national objectives to give the Axis an economic edge.

Does anyone have comments on the 1939 scenario?

I’m glad this thread helped gather some ideas for a 1943 scenario, which is being discussed at http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36048.0. I have been contributing to the 1943 thread and I will continue to do so. However, I am also very interested in comments on the 1939 scenario if anyone has them!

Thanks,
Argo

Lots of good ideas in this thread – this is shaping up to be a very interesting scenario. I am a little concerned that some of the goals Black_Elk is describing might conflict with each other.

On the one hand, if the Axis can reliably expand rapidly in the opening turns of 1943 by leveraging superior starting forces, then we have (a) a repeat of the strategic themes from the 1940 / 1941 setups, where the Axis also leverage superior starting units to expand rapidly, and (b) a big deviation from history – historically, 1943 was a year of rough parity, where it was not immediately clear who was going to expand or how far they would get.

On the other hand, if the Axis start out with 50 IPCs / turn less than the Allies, and the Allies, especially Russia, start out with more in the way of a navy / air force than they do in the 1940 or 1941 scenarios, then if the Axis don’t reliably and rapidly expand beyond their 1943 holdings, they are doomed.

I think I would prefer to see a scenario where the Axis begin the game with a mild economic advantage, but also with a mild deficit of troops. This would be both more unique (as compared to other A&A variants) and more accurate (as compared to history). Some places where the Axis could get more income without straining history too much include Tunisia, French West Africa (parts of which were Axis-controlled until very near the end of the war), Leningrad, Burma, central China, and new Guinea. The Axis could also have more national objectives (each of which is worth more on average) than the Allies.

My mistake – I was looking at the Europe 1940 rules, and didn’t see the 2 iPC restriction.

Right, Bulgaria is only worth 1 IPC, but with a minor factory there, you should still be able to build 3 units per turn there. Also, yes, this would be part of a neutral crush strategy. You have to conquer Turkey to get out of the Black Sea and into Egypt. On the bright side, this keeps Britain from attacking your fleet with boats until you’re ready for it to launch – the same Turks that keep you bottled in also keep the UK sealed out.

What about having Germany build a minor IC in Romania on G1 and then in Bulgaria on G2? If I’ve got the rules correctly, you can build 3 units a turn out of a minor IC whether the territory is worth big bucks or not. Bulgaria is very easy to take on G1 – you just walk right into it, and it comes with its own free defensive garrison. Like SZ 97 (Yugoslavia / Adriatic), SZ 100 (Bulgaria / Black Sea) is only two sea zones away from Egypt, so you can launch a direct attack on Cairo from transports built in Bulgaria. You can also launch a direct attack on the Caucuses via Bulgarian transports, or send mech. infantry and tanks north to support Barbarossa, or send infantry and artillery to invade Yugoslavia and Greece, both of which are immediately adjacent to Bulgaria.

Having ICs in both Romania and Bulgaria lets you drop six units a turn into the Black Sea – for example, a transport, a carrier, two destroyers, an infantry, and an artillery. You’re very close to Russian planes, but it’s not clear that the Russians can afford to take enough losses in the air to sink that fleet.

Bulgaria’s a weird gateway to Africa, but if you’re just looking to stick a German infantry in Cairo, it might be the best way to do that.

There aren’t any rules that simulate fighters landing and taking off from carriers; there’s no such thing in Axis & Allies as having one fighter “in the air” and another fighter “on the runway.”

It’s simpler than that: fighters can move over both land and sea zones. If a fighter is in a sea zone at the end of the turn, and there aren’t enough carriers to support it, then the fighter is dead. Otherwise, fighters hang out in sea zones just like any other sea-capable unit.

So, yeah, you don’t have to worry about what the setup charts say; there’s no subtle opportunity created by having fighters ‘off’ their carrier. There’s just fighters that start on land and fighters that start at sea.

Well, I like it, but I’m the kind of guy who hangs around the Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition forum hoping that someone will post something about one of my favorite games, so take that with a grain of salt!

More seriously, I think 1942.2 strikes a good balance between complexity and brevity – you can usually setup, play, and cleanup in about six hours. Those six hours might not get you all the way to the win conditions printed in the rulebook, but it will get you to a satisfying ending – it’ll either be pretty clear that someone is going to win, or it will be pretty clear that both sides have fought to a standstill and have earned a draw. There are enough plausible strategic choices for every player to make – even Russia and the USA – to keep things interesting for many, many games. Unlike Classic and Revised, in 1942.2 you can’t get very far by just buying stacks of infantry and turtling, or buying stacks of tanks and charging recklessly ahead. You can play a more defensive strategy or a more offensive strategy, but it has to be nuanced, and figuring out which nuances work and how to execute them is a lot of fun.

My biggest critique of the game is that there is some dodgy business where the US (and to a lesser extent the UK and Japan) are supposed to start launching supportive aircraft 2, 3, or even 4 turns in advance of when they are needed for defense. For example, the US might build a fighter on turn 1 with the idea of flying it to French West Africa on turn 2, flying it to India on turn 3, and then flying it to West Russia on turn 4. Failing to have the fighter in place in India on turn 3 can lead to the early loss of India against an expert Axis player, and failing to have the fighter in place in West Russia on turn 4 can lead to an early loss of Moscow. To me, this feels fussy and un-fun – it’s one thing to lend Russia some extra support because you want to or because you have the spare capacity; it’s another to be forced into calculating intricate multi-turn flight paths just to stay alive in the opening.

Another concern is that the UK, US, and Japan often spend the first two turns mainly purchasing units, the third turn getting those units into place, and then fight their first decisive battles on turn 4. If the German and Russian players suffer from analysis paralysis, or if the game has to be called off early due to a work/family situation, this can be a long and frustrating wait for the players controlling the UK/US or Japan.

Some other players have criticized changes made to the components for the 1942.2 edition – they miss having paper money to count their IPCs, or don’t like the exact cast of the plastic miniatures – but the 1942.2 chrome works just fine for me. The map is attractive and the pieces are fun to move around. Crowding is average for the Axis & Allies series – there are definitely some noticeable and annoying chokepoints in London and eastern Europe, but for the most part the units fit comfortably in their territories.

Game balance is above-average for Axis & Allies – it is pretty clear that the Axis have an advantage, but the advantage can be fully and easily neutralized by either adding a Russian bomber in Moscow or by giving the Allies a flexible one-time bid of 6 to 12 IPCs at game start. The only major opening battles that get disrupted by the bid are Egypt and the Indian Ocean. The Allies will usually use part of their bid to put an extra infantry in Egypt, dropping German odds of taking Egypt on G1 from 70% to 50%, but unless the Allies make heroic efforts to bring in reinforcements, Germany can still take Egypt on G2 if it really wants to, and a G2 Egypt attack is arguably the stronger play in any event. Another common Allied bid is to put a British submarine in the Indian Ocean, boosting the odds that Britain will be able to trade its eastern fleets to sink a Japanese battleship and a fully loaded Japanese carrier from around 55% to about 80%. In my opinion, this is still a marginal play – the British don’t get to sink any Japanese transports this way, and the British need the two fighters that they would bring into that attack more than the Japanese need an extra pair of capital ships in the Indian Ocean.

One startling feature of the 1942 setup is that the Axis begin the game with almost total naval dominance – the Axis can sink the entire British navy in both the Atlantic and the Pacific if they want to, without even suffering heavy casualties. This is ahistorical, but makes for interesting choices – the British can save up to rebuild their navy from scratch, or they can focus on sending fighters to Russia, or on sending bombers to Berlin, or even build a second industrial complex in Africa (they start with one in India) and become a land power. The Russians also start with excellent counter-play opportunities compared to most versions of Axis & Allies – if the Germans allow themselves to become distracted, the Russians can easily hold the line or even move into German territory early in the game, even without an Allied invasion of the European mainland.

Overall, I think 1942.2 is an excellent edition of Axis & Allies. This is the company’s fourth attempt (five if you count Milton Bradley) at a mainline Axis & Allies product, and I think they finally got it right, or at least so close to right that you can easily patch over any annoyances with minor house rules and careful player-assignment.

You have some flexibility, Young Grasshopper, but not much. Let’s say you try a January 1, 1943 start date.

At that point, the Americans had already gained naval dominance in the Pacific at the Battle of Midway back in the summer of 1942, and the Americans were massively outproducing the Japanese all through the summer and fall of 1942, so the Imperial Japanese Navy is going to be outnumbered roughly 2:1 vs. the US Pacific Fleet if you want any kind of historical realism. What the Japanese still had going for them was control of a middle and inner layer of defensive islands – you could give Japan some infantry and some land-based fighters on Iwo Jima, the Mariana Islands, Palau, and New Guinea, and you could leave the American transports back in Hawaii or even San Francisco, to show the difficulty in transporting troops over the entire Pacific Ocean.

In Africa, the Allies have seized Morocco, Algeria, and Libya. You can leave Tunisia in German hands, but it wasn’t held very strongly – it’s not really a useful beachhead; the Germans couldn’t afford to reinforce it, much less counterattack, without dangerously draining forces needed to occupy France or occupy the Balkans. Even if you leave the Germans in Tunisia, with American, British, and French forces all converging on Tunis, it’s only a matter of time until Germany gets pushed out of Africa.

On the eastern front, the Germans were crushed at the battle of Stalingrad, but they still held Rostov and the Caucuses in force, which makes for an interesting opportunity for the Germans to push forward. In real life, the Germans sensibly retreated from the Caucuses, but they could have doubled down with their last remaining reserves on the eastern front to try for Round 2 in Stalingrad, or to try to break into Persia and Iraq. The German front line at the time would have been something like Baltics - Belarus - Bryansk - Rostov - Caucuses. It’s a good front line, but the Russians are mustering a very large counterattack that will almost certainly break that line. The Germans could plausibly take Leningrad, Stalingrad, and maybe even Persia, but even if all of those battles went well, they would not have any realistic opportunities for breaking through to Moscow for at least another 4-6 turns, by which point the Allies are almost certainly sitting in Paris and Rome and threatening Warsaw.

The Japanese could plausibly have crushed the Chinese resistance in 1943 if they had poured additional tanks into the region instead of reinforcing their barrier island chains; it’s unclear if that would have had any serious effect on the defense of Moscow. As accurately reflected on the 1940 Pacific map, Moscow is 7 turns away from the Japanese industrial complexes on the eastern coast of china – even if China were totally undefended, it’s hard for Japan to move significant forces all the way through China and into Russia.

So, long story short, I think you could make an interesting game out of a January 1, 1943 starting setup, but you would need different victory conditions to give the Axis a chance at winning – maybe an economic victory condition, like the Axis win if they control 100 IPCs (I have no idea of the proper number), or something like that. The Axis could have made some major economic gains against the allies if they had a good year in 19432, but they just aren’t in a position to realistically assault more than a couple of victory cities in January 1, 1943, let alone in a position to conquer any Allied capitals.

Young Grasshopper, thanks for the kind words, and good luck with your renovations!

When you have time, I’m curious to hear what kinds of game-play and strategies you are looking to get out of your 1943 scenario. Where do you see the game going, and what interests you about it? I’ve seen 1944 “fall of the Reich” scenarios where the Axis players ‘win’ if they stave off defeat longer than their historical counterparts, but I’ve never seen a 1943 scenario. If the game setup starts in spring 1943, after the surrender of Tunisia, after the German defeat at Kursk, and after the defeat of the Japanese navy at Midway, then how can the Axis hope to win? If the Axis are not supposed to win, will people really enjoy roleplaying that many turns of the Axis being pushed back to Berlin and Tokyo? What is it that you want the 1943 scenario to offer to players? (Evidently wittmann thinks he’s figured that out – you’ve got at least one loyal fan of your idea!)

Frederick, you do not need any special pieces for the French / Dutch / true neutrals, because they have no effect on play until someone invades, and then you can immediately put down, e.g., British units, or German units, as appropriate. However, if you have another color handy, like Blue or Brown or Purple, then you can use that color for the neutrals, and it is a nice bit of chrome that helps avoid the need to reference a setup card during the game.

Overview

This is a scenario beginning in 1939, using the map and pieces from Axis & Allies: 1942 Second Edition. At the start of the game, many territories are considered neutral, including France and its colonies, the Netherlands and their colonies, the USA, Poland, and southern Europe. Germany and Japan start the game with a reduced set of core territories, but they are in a position to expand very, very rapidly – the Axis player will get to choose which direction(s) to expand in, and whether to risk trying to expand on 5-6 fronts simultaneously, or whether to choose a more conservative strategy. The USA begins the game with the ability to send ‘volunteers’ to help defend friendly territories, and will fully enter the war in about 2 to 6 turns, depending on how aggressively the Axis conduct their initial invasions. Most of the impassible neutral territories, such as Sweden and Argentina, have been activated in this scenario, the penalties for losing your capitol have been reduced, and there is a new list of victory cities and new starting factory locations. Otherwise, the rules are virtually identical to OOB Axis & Allies 1942: Second Edition.

Victory Conditions

At the start of the game, the Axis have 5 VCs (Berlin, Rome, Addis Ababa, Tokyo, Shanghai), and the Allies have 10 VCs (London, Ottawa, Szechuan, Honolulu, Manila, Calcutta, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Vladivostok). There are 3 starting neutral VCs (Paris, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro). The game lasts for a minimum of 2 turns. At the end of turns 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, if either the Allies or the Axis control 12 or more of the 18 available VCs, then that team automatically wins. Otherwise, at the end of turn 10, whoever controls the most Victory Cities wins. If both players control an equal number of victory cities at the end of turn 10, then the game is a draw.

Modified Turn Order

The turn order is Germany - Britain - USA - Japan - Russia.

Invading Neutral Territories

The Sahara, Afghanistan, the Himalayas, and Mongolia are still considered impassible. All other territories marked as impassible start the game as ‘neutral’ territories, which can be invaded if you have the troops to spare. Each neutral territory has an economic value as marked on the setup chart at the bottom of this post.

Any player can invade a neutral territory. If successful, the neutral territory becomes conquered by the invader, and is treated just like any other conquered territory. However, if you begin the invasion of a true neutral territory but do not conquer it on the same turn, the neutral falls under the control of the enemy with the closest territory (e.g. 1 space away, 2 spaces away, etc.) Sea zones count as 1 space each. For example, at the start of the game, a failed German invasion of Sweden would result in Sweden being controlled by the Russians, whereas a failed British invasion of Sweden would result in Sweden being controlled by the Germans. In case of a tie, the team that will receive the territory can decide which nation to assign it to. If the team cannot decide, the player whose invasion failed may decide which enemy nation to assign it to. For example, a failed German invasion of Turkey would allow the Allies to assign control of Turkey to either Britain or Russia, since both the Russians and the British have territories that are adjacent to Turkey. If the British and Russian players cannot agree, then Germany would get to decide whether Turkey goes to Britain or to Russia.

Neutral countries do not �remember� who they were controlled by, and they can be liberated (and thereafter controlled and used) by any enemy of the current occupying power.

If you invade a French neutral territory, regardless of whether your invasion is successful, there is a 50% chance that each of the uninvaded French neutral territories will defect to your opponents at the end of your turn, using the rules described above. There is also a 16% chance that the unconquered French neutral territories will defect to the Germans. For example, suppose Germany attacks France, Morocco, and Algeria on turn 1. The French and Moroccan invasions are successful, but the Algerian invasion fails. Germany will control France and Morocco, and Britain will control Algeria, but Madagascar, French West Africa, and French Equatorial Africa will each have a 50% chance of defecting to the British. Roll 1d6 for each unconquered territory. On a roll of 1, 2, or 3, it joins the British. On a roll of 4 or 5, it stays neutral. On a roll of 6, it joins the Germans (or, in the case of Madagascar, the Japanese). Note that when the USA joins the war, then after the end of the entire USA turn (including income collection and unit placement), any French territories that are still neutral become owned by the USA.

Similarly, if you invade a Dutch neutral territory, there is a 50% chance that uninvaded Dutch neutral territories will defect to your opponents at the end of your turn, and a 16% chance that the territories will defect to you. For example, if Japan launches a failed invasion of Borneo, then Borneo automatically defects to the British, and then on a roll of 1, 2, or 3, the West Indies, the Congo, and Northwestern Europe will each defect to the British, and on a roll of 6 each of those three territories will defect to the Axis (Germany would control Northwest Europe and Congo; Japan would control the West Indies and Borneo).

If you invade a true neutral territory, nothing special happens other than that you either conquer it or activate it for your opponents.

Modified capital capture rules

If your capital is captured, the captor loots half your total treasury, rounded down – e.g., if you have 11 IPCs, the captor steals 5 IPCs, and you keep 6 IPCs. On subsequent turns, you collect income as normal, although obviously you do not collect income from your capital while the capital is occupied. Losing your capital obviously prevents you from building units at your capital, but it does not completely shut down your production abilities. Instead, you may continue to build units at ICs outside your capital as normal. If you can afford it, you may even build a new IC outside your capital.

Turkish Straits

The Turkish straits are closed by default to all players at the start of the game. You must control Turkey (either by conquering it or by having it survive an enemy attack) in order to freely move ships between the central Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Planes may freely fly over the Turkish straits as normal.

If you wish, you may defy Turkish neutrality and cross the straits without permission. Each time you do so, for each boat (including transports) that you move through the straits, roll 1d6. A ship that rolls a “5” or “6” is considered to be sunk by fire from Turkish coastal guns, and is immediately destroyed, along with (for transports) any of its cargo. In addition, if you rolled at least one “6”, then Turks align with your enemies at the end of your turn, as if you had invaded Turkey by land.

You may not cross the Turkish straits at all if Turkey is controlled by an enemy power.

US entry counter

The USA starts the game with a -20 IPCs/turn income penalty, which represents the economic effects of a peacetime economy. On turn 1, the USA controls 39 IPCs’ worth of territory, so it will collect 39 - 20 = 19 IPCs. The USA also starts the game unable to initiate combat against the Axis. The USA may still send troops to defend Allied-occupied territories (�volunteers�) and/or attack neutral territories. Each time the Axis powers invade a true neutral, French, Dutch, or Chinese territory, add 1 chip to the �US Entry� zone. Each time the Axis powers invade a British or Russian territory, add 2 chips to the �US Entry� zone. For example, if on turn one, Germany invades Karelia, Poland, and Egypt, you would add 5 chips to the US entry zone – 2 for Karelia, 1 for Poland, and 2 for Egypt. If later on turn 1, Japan invades Anhwei and Kwangtung, you would add 3 more chips to the US entry zone, for a total of 8 chips – 1 for Anhwei (a Chinese territory) and 2 for Kwangtung (a British-controlled territory). If at the start of turn 2, Germany also invades Northwest Europe and Sudan, you would add 3 more chips to the US entry zone, for a total of 11 chips (1 for neutral NW Europe, and 2 for British-controlled Sudan).

At the end of each USA turn, roll 4d6. If the result is less than the number of chips in the US Entry zone, the USA enters the war, and may thereafter initiate combat against the Axis. For example, based on the game described above, there would be 5 chips in the US entry zone on the first roll, so it would be very unlikely for the US to enter the war – the US would have to roll quadruple ones on four dice. At the end of turn 2, the US would have about a 15% chance of entering the war – there would be 11 chips in the pot, so the US needs to roll an 10 or less on four dice. The odds that the US will enter the war on any given turn keep going up over time as the Axis make more invasions, and the cumulative odds that the US will have entered the war by a certain turn go up even faster.

Also, if either Axis player invades or bombs any American-controlled territory (other than China) or attacks any purely American fleet, then the USA enters the war, and may thereafter initiate combat against the Axis. For example, if Japan attacks the Philippines, then the US will automatically enter the war at the beginning of its next turn, without the need to roll any dice. Because the US already paid the ‘peacetime penalty’ of -20 IPC at the end of its last turn, it will have a reduced income during its first turn at war in response to a direct attack.

Note that attacking a mixed group of ships, or attacking a territory where there happen to be some American troops, does not have any effect on when the USA enters the war – what matters is the owner of the invaded territory, not the owner of the defending troops.

Damaged Starting Factories

Many of the Allied powers begin with one or more damaged industrial centers (factories). This represents the Axis powers’ successful surprise attack, and the need for the Allies to ‘gear up’ for war before they can recruit significant troops for the war effort. As the Allied player, you are not required to remove this damage, but normal damage rules apply, and may prevent you from deploying troops, so you may find it necessary to remove some or all of the damage as part of your strategy.

The French factory also begins with maximum strategic damage. This primarily represents the need for the Germans to engage in costly pacification and occupation efforts before the Vichy regime can begin to contribute useful resources to the Axis war effort. If the Axis attack on France fails, the strategic damage can also represent the French reluctance to raise a large army, since the French are still reeling from World War I.

Setup

GERMANY (17 IPCs with 0 damage)

Germany: 6 inf, 2 art, 4 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 bmb, 1 AAA, 1 IC
Italy: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 IC
Libya: 2 inf
Rumania: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 IC
Finland: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr
Italian East Africa: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr

Baltic Sea (SZ 5): 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 submarine
Central Med (SZ 15): 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
West Indian (SZ 33): 1 submarine
Norwegian Sea (SZ 3): 1 submarine
East Atlantic (SZ 13): 1 submarine
West Altantic (SZ 22): 1 cruiser
South Atlantic (SZ 25): 1 submarine

BRITAIN (30 IPCs with 20 damage)

United Kingdom: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 6 damage
(Iceland)
Eastern Canada: 1 inf, 1 IC with 6 damage
Western Canada: 1 inf
(Gibraltar)
Egypt: 3 inf
Sudan: 1 inf, 1 art
Rhodesia: 1 inf
South Africa: 2 inf, 1 IC with 4 damage
Trans-Jordan: 1 inf, 1 ftr
India: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 4 damage
Burma: 1 inf
Malaya: 1 inf
Kwangtung: 1 inf
New Guinea: 1 inf
Eastern Australia: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 2 damage
Western Australia: 1 inf
(Solomon Islands)
New Zealand: 1 inf

English Channel (SZ 8): 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 transport
North Sea (SZ 6): 1 cruiser
Nova Scotia (SZ 10): 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
East Mediterranean (SZ 17): 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
South Atlantic (SZ 21): 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine
Indian Ocean (SZ 35): 1 carrier with 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
Tasmanian Sea (SZ 39): 1 submarine
Australian Sea (SZ 45): 1 cruiser, 1 transport

USA (19 IPCs with 24 damage)

Eastern US: 1 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 12 damage
Central US: 1 inf
Western US: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 10 damage
Alaska: 1 inf
Hawaii: 1 inf
Panama: 1 inf
(Midway)
Phillipines: 1 inf, 1 art
Szchewan: 2 inf, 1 ftr, 1 IC with 2 damage
Anhui: 1 inf
Yunnan: 1 inf
Sinkiang: 1 inf
(Greenland)

West Atlantic (SZ 11): 1 cruiser, 2 destroyer, 1 transport
East Pacific (SZ 56): 1 carrier w/ 1 fighter, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
Panama Canal (SZ 19): 1 cruiser, 1 transport

JAPAN (15 IPCs with 0 damage)

Japan: 2 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 1 bmb, 1 AAA, 1 IC
Manchuria: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr
Shanghai: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr
Thailand: 2 inf, 1 art
Okinawa: 1 inf
Caroline Islands: 1 inf
(Iwo Jima)
(Wake)
(Formosa)

Sea of Japan (SZ 60): 1 battleship, 1 carrier w/ 2 ftrs, 2 destroyers, 1 transport
Yellow Sea (SZ 61): 1 cruiser, 1 carrier w/ 1 ftr, 1 destroyer, 2 transports

USSR (29 IPCs with 14 damage)

Karelia: 2 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 2 damage
Archangel: 1 inf
West Russia: 2 inf, 1 art
Belorussia: 2 inf
Moscow: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 6 damage
Ukraine: 1 inf, 1 tnk
Caucuses: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 4 damage
Kazakhstan: 1 inf
Vologda: 1 inf
(Novosibirsk)
Evenki: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 IC with 2 damage
Yakutsk: 1 inf, 1 ftr
Soviet Far East: 1 inf
Buryatia: 4 inf

White Sea (SZ 4): 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 transport
Black Sea (SZ 16): 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Northwest Pacific (SZ 63): 1 submarine

NEUTRAL (36)

French
!France: 3 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, 1 IC with 12 damage
Morocco: 1 inf
Algeria: 1 inf, 1 art
French West Africa: 1 inf
French Equatorial Africa: 1 inf
French Madagascar: 1 inf

Dutch
Northwest Europe: 2 inf, 1 IC with 4 damage
Belgian Congo: 1 inf
Borneo: 1 inf
Dutch East Indies: 1 inf

True Neutral
Norway: 3 inf
Sweden: 3 inf, 1 ftr (2 IPCs)
!Poland: 2 inf, 1 ftr
Baltic States: 1 inf
Southern Europe: 2 inf, 1 art
Persia: 1 inf
Saudi Arabia: 2 inf (1 IPC)
Mexico: 2 inf
West Indies: 1 inf
Brazil: 2 inf
Argentina: 1 inf (2 IPCs)
Colombia: 1 inf (1 IPC)
Venezuela: 1 inf (1 IPC)
Spain: 5 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr (3 IPC)
Turkey: 6 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr (3 IPC)
Eire: 3 inf (1 IPC)

EDIT: Tweaked USA-entry rules based on second solo playtest. Invading Chinese territories now only adds 1 USA-entry chip (not 2), but if France is still neutral when USA enters war, then all French territories become owned by USA. This puts a clock on Germany’s conquest of France…you don’t have to attack France right away, but if you leave them alone for turns and turns, eventually France will manage to get an offensive together.

I like it! I think it gets at some important problems of realism and fun with a very simple rule change.

I think the size of the IPC bonus will have to depend on which game board you’re using – 6 IPC might make sense for the 1940 boards, but you might want to limit it to 3 IPC for the 1942.2 map.

I lean toward making activated neutrals fully operational, with no restrictions, because it can be cumbersome trying to remember who has attacked whom. If Italy invades Yugoslavia, and then Yugoslavia counter-attacks Italian Albania, and then Germany ‘liberates’ Albania, is Yugoslavia at war with Germany? I don’t want to have to keep track of that. If you must have a restriction, you might say that activated neutral armies can’t be brought more than 3 spaces from their capital – that way you avoid weird situations like Argentina sending troops to invade London.

I apologize if this topic has come up before – but what do people think about having Britain strafe Sea Zone 37 (the Indian Ocean) on B1? If you bring in the carrier, fighter, and destroyer from the Indian coast along with the sub, cruiser, and destroyer from Australia and the fighter from Egypt, then you are rolling 13 pips of offense, so you should expect to inflict two hits – one of them gets covered by the Japanese BB, and the other costs the Japanese a fighter. Meanwhile, the Japanese are rolling 14 pips on defense, so you should expect to take 2-3 hits, losing both fighters and maybe the submarine. You then retreat after the first round of battle, bringing the combined fleet back to the coast of India, where you re-equip it with two new fighters that you build directly on the carrier. Use the transport to offload 2 Australian infantry into India, and use your third build in India for an artillery.

Now you’re playing with 6 inf, 1 art on land, and a fleet of 2 ftr, 1 CV, 1 CA, and 1 DD. If you want to play KJF, this forces Japan to either abandon the attack on India or bring essentially the entire Japanese fleet to cover Burma, leaving Tokyo and Manila vulnerable to attacks from the USA. If you want to play KGF, this maximizes the number of British boats that survive – the fleet can move to re-take Egypt on B2, and invade Italy on B3.

Thoughts? How would you counter this as the Axis?

The Manchurian IC is not going to help you take China on J2 – you have to build the IC on J1, and then you can drop tanks in Manchuria on J2, but the tanks can’t attack Anhwei or Sinkiang until J3 – they don’t attack on the same turn they’re built.

The transports are scarce because you only start with two of them – only one of them if the British fighter sinks the destroyer off the coast of Manchuria. There are lots of good places for the transports to go – they can go to Burma for a strong anti-India push, to Buryatia for a strong anti-Moscow push, to Hawaii for an early VC grab, to Alaska for a diversionary attack on the US (as early as J1! It works!), to the Pacific islands to pick up idle Japanese infantry, or to retake Borneo or New Guinea after a British attack. Any of these places can easily make use of both Japanese transports – you’ve got good uses for about eleven or twelve transports, and you only start with one or two. That’s why they’re scarce.

My point is not that Japan needs to send more fighters to China. My point is that Japan is likely to lose a fighter or two in combat if they insist on conquering a reinforced Sinkiang on J2.

You can put 2 Russian infantry in Sinkiang if you want – it’s not going to break the game. I have to ask you, though: by your own logic, if you had 2 Russian infantry in Sinkiang, wouldn’t you be tempted to move them west toward Moscow to fight the Germans?

knp7765, I agree with you that you usually shouldn’t put all of those units into China. As you say, Japan can just choose to attack somewhere else, and then you’ve over-committed to a region that’s only worth 4 IPCs per turn. My point is that the Allies have the option of choosing from any of those units, and that if you want to hold China, you can and should bring in 2 or 3 units as reinforcements. If you would prefer to have every available Allied unit head directly for eastern Europe, that’s fine too, but then don’t complain too loudly if you lose China; you evacuated China on purpose as part of your strategy.

Frederick, the British go before the Japanese on turn 1, so Britain can move the Burmese infantry to Yunnan before the Japanese get to go. One simple plan for reinforcing China is to bring in the Burmese infantry to Yunnan and the Kazakh Russian infantry to Szechuan. At a cost of only 2 infantry, this forces Japan to take the Chinese defenders seriously – if the Japanese aren’t willing to sacrifice fighters or bring in (scarce) troop transports, then Sinkiang will usually hold until J3.

Well, for starters, I think that if all four Chinese territories are falling by J2, then you’re either making a deliberate choice to abandon China early, or you’re using some poor tactics in the Pacific. There are many Allied units that are capable of reinforcing Sinkiang and/or Szechuan before J2 – you’ve got 5 Russian infantry in Siberia, 1 British infantry in Burma, the British fighter in the Indian Ocean, the British fighter in Egypt, and you can also spend part or all of the Allied bid in China if you want to make a stand there. 1 American artillery in Szechuan can work very nicely to both save the Flying Tigers (the Chinese-American fighter unit) and to help provide some counter-attacking capability. If you’re feeling really aggressive, you can even bring a Soviet tank from the Caucasus to either Sinkaing or Szechuan. If you throw all that stuff into China, there’s no way it falls before J4, probably more like J5/J6 unless Japan makes taking China a real priority.

On the other hand, if you evacuate the Flying Tigers and then never add any reinforcements to China, of course it’s going to fall quickly – you’re trying to hold three territories with nothing but 6 infantry, which is less than you would use even to keep up a little bit of light trading.

That said, the way I would prefer to strengthen China is by giving the Russians (!) an artillery unit in Yakutsk, and possibly by giving the Americans an artillery unit in Sinkiang. That way the Japanese have to worry about counter-attacks, and can’t just keep marching forward with nothing but infantry and fighters, because the Japanese infantry can get creamed when the Japanese fighters land in the rear. At the very least, this might force Japan to pick and choose some of its goals – they wouldn’t be able to attack Russia, China, India, and Hawaii all in J1/J2.

This is slightly off-topic, but I think one of the biggest trade-offs A&A makes, especially in 1942.1 and 1942.2, is to allow Japan to rapidly and reliably grow into a monster superpower for the sake of dynamic gameplay, even though this outcome is not historically plausible.

I think as a matter of history, Japan could have conquered territory as far deep as Yakutsk OR Sinkiang OR India by mid-1943 (roughly corresponding to turn 4 or turn 5) if Japan had focused solely on a single front – but in the game, Japan routinely makes extreme progress on ALL THREE of those fronts, while also simultaneously building up a navy that can keep pace with the US Pacific Fleet.

In my experience playing the board game, Japan’s progress westward into central Asia is limited primarily by the fact that they can only conquer one territory per front per turn because the Allies can keep placing a single infantry to block the Japanese tank advances. The strength of the Allied defenses have very little to do with the speed of Japanese advancement – maybe you can slow them down by one turn, maybe you can’t. It would not be much fun for a player to have overall command of the Allied Pacific front, because that front is going to crumble pretty much no matter what you do.

On the other hand, having a continuously expanding Japan keeps things very interesting in terms of global gameplay. Instead of just a one-dimensional race to see if Germany can conquer Moscow before it is inevitably pushed back and destroyed, there is a dynamic give-and-take, where Germany needs to weaken the Russians, but then has a real choice between trying to capture Moscow itself and trying to provide a steady defense of Europe so that the Japanese have more time to take Moscow. Analogously, the Americans have a real choice as to whether to try to capture Tokyo, lopping the head off of the Japanese dragon, or to race for Berlin, or even to just focus on reinforcing its allies’ defense and living to fight another day. There are meaningful ‘grand strategic’ decisions to made in Axis & Allies, which I like.

If you do too much to bottle up Japan back into its historical sphere of influence, by, e.g., making China a costly, wearisome slog for the Axis, then this grand strategic flexibility disappears, and the game is reduced to a series of questions about what unit types to buy and whether to invade Moscow via the northern route or the southern route. You also run the risk that Japan will simply ignore China – if conquering China requires more investment than it’s worth, because it’s artificially strong on defense compared to its IPC value, then a smart Japanese player will ignore China, and then you’ve got a whole section of the map (and extra house rules) that are not contributing anything to the game.

I think any house rules about China have to be based at least in part on a clear vision for what role Japan is supposed to play in the global game. Is Japan a nuisance power, that is there primarily to force the British to spend a few IPCs in India and the Americans to spend a few IPCs in San Francisco? (If so, will Japan be any fun to play?) Is Japan a ticking time bomb, that is harmless for the first six turns or so but then can become a monster if left unattended for too long? (If so, will the Allies typically just surrender once Japan starts blossoming?) Is Japan the dominant Axis nation, responsible for controlling shipping lanes and posing the biggest threat to Moscow? (If so, is China going to be anything more than a doormat?)

I don’t see any easy answers, but I think there are many reasonable approaches, depending on what kind of game you’re looking to build.

Thanks, Black_Elk. That’s a pretty strong counter! I agree with you that American bombers are the way to go against KBF. I would not bother with the submarine purchase, though – I think those 6 IPC would be better spent on 2 inf for Western US. Japan doesn’t necessarily have to wait until J4 to start attacking Alaska – they  can drop off two loaded transports in Alaska on J1 if they want. If I saw the US put 3 bombers and 1 sub in the Atlantic on A1, then I’d be invading Alaska on J2. And, yeah, Japan definitely has to hit SZ 53 on J1.

That said, even 4 bombers and 3 fighters in London on A2 is a real problem for Germany – as you say, if you stick the combined German fleet in the Channel or the North Sea on G3, then the US Air Force can probably trade with the Kriegsmarine, which is not good for the Axis. I’m not sure what to recommend on G3 if there’s a big US air force in London. One option is to turn east for Moscow after the A1 air build, maybe try to take Belorussia, Archangel, and West Russia before the US can return the fighters, so that the US air force will be out of position. Another (admittedly wacky) idea is to sacrifice the German naval groups to take Brazil and Eastern Canada, and transition into a Kill America First strategy – those bombers will be awkward for defending the US homeland.