I’d say the West has a bigger window of opportunity, but I don’t buy Minnesota. What the heck, the Blackhawks will be back in the Finals again.
Yeah, what the heck. Wait, it’s the other year in the every other year cycle the Hawks have been on lately, so I guess we’re due!
You almost need to break out house rules into the sub-forums for all the different rules set(s).
IMHOÂ Axis and Allies Anniversary 1942, with NO’s, out of the box, was one of the best games for balance.
Not to break into a strategic discussion, but I wondered if using the Russian bomber into SZ13 on the Germany tpt & DD was worth the gambit. Big risk, big reward. Russia can go on w/o the bomber….
way back when typing (especially ON a typewriter), the standard was two spaces.
Today’s font’s are not always True Types, so you may need two spaces to help get a nice break between sentences.
The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:
Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.
However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:
(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.
Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side. I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.
what is the bid level that you usually see used? For example, what do the allies usually get?
Briefly commenting on your ideas for OOB strategies, I think the idea of going after Italy immediately is interesting. I could see how it would be hard/impossible for Italy to simultaneously defend the Balkans and North Africa, and once you’ve liberated one of those, you’ve got a solid economic advantage that lets you overwhelm Italy in a few turns unless Germany pulls out of eastern europe altogether to babysit Rome. I’ve always wanted to invade the Balkans, but I’ve never been able to until the game is basically decided anyway. Maybe I’ll try it next game.
I dunno that a Russian stack supported by US/UK fighters is really going to be able to “advance” on German troops. I’ve seen fighters help a Russian stack stand its ground, and maybe even deadzone the adjacent territory to the west, but I’ve never seen fighters turn the territory to the west into a safe territory for the Russian infantry to move into. How would that work, exactly?
with enough ftrs, the russians (as you point out) can dead zone some key territories on the eastern front. Once you have taken out the German threat to break out into Russia, then you have contained them (i.e. their growth is then limited), and things become easier for the allies in the sense that more resources can be used elsewhere (weapons, africa recapture, Italy pressure, D-Day)
Also, more importantly, I’m still not seeing a viable KJF strategy, let alone off-the-wall strategies like focusing on the Middle East or China or the Southern Hemisphere, but I’ll talk with you more about that in our e-mail chain.
I never said that there was a viable KJF in OOB rules. There is not, unfortunately, even with a moderate bid. The only way might be to give UK an IC in India in conjunction with a bid.
We typically use a flat bid of IPCs to balance the game, like you would in a game on the TripleA server. I have no complaints about how that bid works; with a reasonable bid (10 to 20 IPCs) for the Allies, I think the 1941 scenario is very nicely balanced. I’m just disappointed with the lack of variety / replayability.
What are those bid rules? we use these
Bids under Chicago Rules
Add units before game play begins. Only one additional unit per territory/sea zone. The territory/sea zone must already contain at least one unit to permit a bid unit to be added. No Bombers, Battleships, or Aircraft Carriers can be placed as part of any bid.
Russia may not place more than $10 worth of units (no tanks may be bid) in the following combination of territories:
Karelia, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Archangelsk, Urals, Russia, Caucasus, Kazakh, Novosibirsk or Evenki National Okrug.
Chinese inf may be also be bid units, at a cost of $2. Other Chinese bid units are regular cost.
Bidding Rules:
1. Allies may bid $28, with a maximum of $25 being placed as instant units, remaining $3 can be split amongst the allies, being added to their first round IPC bank. Dardanelles straight is closed.
2. The allies can bid to Open the Dardanelles straight, with the resulting bid increasing to $30. Same restrictions apply.
3. If the allies have not opened the Dardanelles straight (bid option #2), the axis can ‘force open’ the Dardanelles Straight, but the bid level is now $36 (as a penalty for forcing open the canal). $4 of that bid must be an artillery for Russia in the Caucasus. The Caucasus artillery must be included in the $10 limit of Russian bid units. The $25 unit limitation is still in effect. In other words, the bid is $25 in units, $4 (Russian artillery in Caucasus), and $7 in cash to be split amongst the allied countries as the allies deem fit.
What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.
If you have thoughts on some of the interesting choices (or even just a list of some of those choices) that the Allies have in the mid-game / end-game under OOB Anniversary '41 rules or Chicago Anniversary '41 rules, I’d be very curious to hear them.
The pregame bid helps to give the allies more strategic options.
Other things than can be done strategically in OOB rules are:
2) Russian advances against Germany covered by allied air support. A stack of Russian infantry and art can be hard to kill if 3,4,5 etc UK/USA fighters are adding to their defense.
I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.
SOVIET UNION
Murmansk Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Norway, Finland, Karelia, and Archangel if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 3 and 4.
@axis_roll:
Relatively easy to achieve and maintain. No penalty for allied units in russia.
Persian Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 34.
@axis_roll:
Like that the axis can stop a very easy to achieve NA for Russia
Vladivostok Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Buryatia SSR, Stanovoj Chebet, and Soviet Far East if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 63.
@axis_roll:
Like that there is some goals to holding the line against Japan.
Russian NA’s a good, a bit more attainable
UNITED KINGDOM
Defense of the Commonwealth: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of W. Canada, E. Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
@axis_roll:
Substituted New Zealand for Egypt, good swap
Mediterranean Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Gibraltar, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.
@axis_roll:
Very difficult to attain, not a good swap for the UK Pacific theatre OOB NA. I like that USA can help UK via the pacific
China-Burma-India Campaign: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of India, Burma, French Indo-China Thailand, Kwangtung, and the East Indies.
@axis_roll:
Hard to achieve except for round 1
why remove the NA for France / Balkans? Mixed overall on these
UNITED STATES
Monroe Doctrine: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Alaska, Hawaii, W. Canada, E. Canada, Mexico, Western US, Central US, Eastern US, West Indies, Panama, and Brazil.
@axis_roll:
Encourages Axis attacks on the Americas, I like it
Pacific Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of Philippines or Manchuria
@axis_roll:
Adding Manchuria is fine, why not Kiangsu as well?
European Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of France, Italy, or Balkans
@axis_roll:
Does USA need to have an extra bonus for taking Italy
South Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Hawaii, Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Caroline Islands.
@axis_roll:
original is still good
USA NO’s are ok
GERMANY
Atlantik Wall: 5 IPCs if Germany has at least one land unit in each of Norway, Northwestern Europe, and France.
@axis_roll:
Hard to achieve except for round 1 & 2. Norway should fall after that
Lebensraum: 5 IPCs if Germany controls three or more of Poland, East Poland, Ukraine, and East Ukraine.
@axis_roll:
neither like nor dislike
Mideast Oil: 5 IPCs if Germany controls two or more of Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR.
@axis_roll:
So if Italy controls Trans-Jordan, that does not count for Germany? Should be axis powers… Like otherwise
Removed northernly pressure on Russia (Karelia no longer a target, neither is Baltic States or Belorussia), overall hard to like or dislike all changes
ITALY
New Roman Empire: 5 IPCs for Italian control of three or more of Balkans, Libya, Egypt, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Italian East Africa, and Rhodesia
@axis_roll:
too restrictive to only Italian Control
Mare Nostrum: 5 IPCs if Axis control Gibraltar and France, and there are no Allied ships in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.
@axis_roll:
swapped Gibraltar for Algeria, not needed to be swapped
Prefer original Italian NOs, These are too hard for Italy to achieve
JAPAN
Barrier Islands: 5 IPCs for Axis control of three or more of Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, and Okinawa.
@axis_roll:
Encourage Japanese Pacific battles, I like
Strategic Resources: 5 IPCs for Axis control of Borneo and Kiangsu if there are no Allied ships in sea zones 49, 50, 61, and 62.
@axis_roll:
The sea zone addition is intriguing, but not very likely to keep Japan from achieving this easily
East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 5 IPCs for Japanese control of India, Australia, or Hawaii
@axis_roll:
Not too often will India fall to anyone other than Japan, insignificant change to OOB
overall hard to like or dislike all changes
CHINA
Over the Hump: If the Allies have at least one fighter or bomber in India, then you may place one Chinese artillery unit in Chinghai or Sikang or Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. You cannot place the artillery in a territory China does not control.
@axis_roll:
OK
Burma Road: If the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, you may place one additional Chinese infantry in Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements.
Seems good.
Seem like nice additions. Hard for me to judge these too well since Chicago Rules treat China very differently
Not sure these changes are going to drastically alter the game play. I know when I play, I will forgo some extra IPCs to maintain a better position on the board, as it is a better long term affect than having an additional $5 IPCs (IMHO).
What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.
yes, avoiding the ‘boring’ is the goal, as there is presently no real way for there to be a viable pacific campaign in the OOB rules, IMHO. Actually, our play group found that the axis should win the game 80% of the time (OOB). Basically the axis has to roll poorly round 1 or the allies get favorable weapons (ASAP) to make it a game. If I wanted a dice game, I’d play Yahtzee, the set up time is much shorter!
In order to enable more strategic outcomes, the allies need to be able to not focus on ‘staying’ alive in the game (forced early defensive moves), so they need to be stronger. In our rules, these additions are ‘phased in/delayed’ by the mechanism in which they can be deployed. In essence, stronger weapons/National Advantages are more costly/take longer to get in the game. It is all not one sided, the axis have new options as well, encouraging them to play outside the same old game plans.
Regarding allied OOB rules options, I can post some thoughts when I have more time. Perhaps tonight. In the Summer, my A&A time is reduced cause I love the outdoors.
That seems kind of boring, axis_roll. I mean, I love the look and feel of Anniversary Edition, but what’s the point of the extra territories and extra rules if the game still winds up as a traditional tug-of-war where the whole game boils down to whether Germany can dump infantry into France (or Italy) faster than the USA and UK can stockpile infantry in London (or Algeria)? Why not just play Revised?
Agreed with the ‘boring’ aspect, especially since the opening rounds are pretty standard, and only mid/late game are there new moves/strategies that can be employed.
There are several ways to try to balance this game. It is a great base with much potential.
With a few modifications the game can be much more than it currently is. We’ve done so with our own set of house rules (“Chicago Rules”). If you shoot me your email (PM or here), I can send you our base rules, our tech system (I loath the current unbalanced/random tech in the OOB rules) and our National Advantages. I would say that we have over 100 games played as we’ve fined tuned ou rules for AA50. You can see in the revision history of each document what the changes were as we went along.
Some more simple ways to make the game better are:
An Allied bid of pre-game units or cash, or a mix of both
No island complexes (slows Japan somewhat)
Close the dardenelles straight (really helps Russia)
Beef up China in some fashion (more infantry to start?)
I got so mad about this that I drafted an alternate set of National Objectives for the 1941 scenario – I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.
When I have more time I will offer some feedback on your NOs. Want to give them proper consideration instead of a quick response after a single read thru. HAve you game play tested any of these? In our book, that is the best way to see how good/bad house rules are….
yes it’s a little more work, but in the end, the end result (better playability) is worth the extra effort.
I’m looking at UK strategy on the 1941 scenario for A&A: 50th Anniversary edition, and the more I look at the map, the more I’m convinced that a UK attack on France is basically mandatory. That would be kind of boring, so I’d love for someone to prove me wrong! Let me know what you think.
–-------------------------------
So why fight for the colonies? Why go toe-to-toe with an absurdly overpowered Japanese navy to defend a dozen IPCs’ worth of UK colonies that are doomed to fall anyway when you can abandon the colonies, concentrate in the Channel / North Sea, and get rich by conquering France?
You are 100% correct. This is why a KGF is the most employed Allied strategy and a massive German infantry buy G1 (and afterwards…) is mostly employed by the Axis.
When there are too many Axis units in France, UK/USA should go to Africa (Algeria) as a plan B. That would be the only other logical move versus D-Day landings.
such great hockey, sad to see it end. :-(
Maybe next year I will put some real skin into the game (pool) since I have a good feeling how it works now.
Looks like SJ and Pitts are starting to hit their groove(s)…
That would be a pretty good Finals Series
@SS:
Axis roll looks like are Hawks are done. But we know they seem to like being down 3 to 1 first round. :x
Nice move by Shaw. :x :x :x :x
Will be a tough climb back, if at all possible since St Louis looks to be a different team than in past seasons. Tarasenko is tough with that wrister.
In other news… How have I not realized until now how dirty a d-bag Duncan Keith is? What a colossal idiot:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/chicago-blackhawks-duncan-keith-another-high-sticking-intent-to-injureThat is beyond irresponsibility. It is fully deliberate and there is an established pattern of this ass-hattery. And talk about selfish play… getting suspended does no favors to a Chicago team that is wallowing in mediocrity of late with multiple star players out of commission. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/ct-blackhawks-duncan-keith-ejection-rosenbloom-20160330-column.html
I hope he gets rest of the season, plus two playoff games.
All very true, and I agree, that his actions were below my awareness radar as well. Sick when you look at his ‘body of work’ WRT cheap <retaliatory>shots.
Maybe the Hawks deserve to lose this year. Their play lately certainly indicates it is lacking ‘something’….</retaliatory>
I’m excited about my Dallas Stars, but it is going to be tough, being in the same division as Chicago, St. Louis, as well as others, but I can hope. :-D
I love the Central Division, but am kinda glad Detroit is no longer in that buzzsaw.
Yeah, just when my Hawks started to kick their butt consistently, they get moved out of our division.
I recall being on the wrong side of those games for many years, and the NHL took our chance for payback away :oops:
It’s about that time of year again… Only a month until the show begins.
Maybe a little early to start the discussion…
Not really. Teams need to start turning it up, getting in the groove for the playoffs.
Hell of a race in the Central Division. I like the Hawks additions at the trading deadline. If Crawford continues his excellent play this year, Chicago will have a great shot at being the first team to repeat in the salary cap era.
Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.
I am glad I was able to clarify the Italian National Objectives. The $5 NO is very big for ‘little brother’ as that’s a 50% increase from their base income of 10 IPCs.
Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16). That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.
I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.
Along the lines of your summary below:
strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio”
If the allies do not move units into Algeria (or are not set up to do so), then the Axis do not need more than 2 turns of transports (Germany round 1, Italy round 1, Germany round 2, Italy round 2… maybe, maybe not)
I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.
I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat.
A safe Axis retreat is not as difficult as you may deem. If the odds are against you holding, play safe, fall back either into Africa further or into Trans-Jordan on the way to pressuring Russia thru Persia. At the very least, you will now force Russian units to kill your African units. Not a good thing for the allies (or Russia).
It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything. There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.
I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.
Hence it is very hard to accurately tally these costs/value of these units. When we think of the Med fleet, we look at how much damage it will do when it is destroyed. Will it cost the allies 3 planes? Perhaps a couple of destroyers and a plane? As the Axis, we want to make it as costly as possible, sometimes even moving a Japanese carrier into SZ15/SZ16 to help protect that fleet.
What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa? A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.
True. You are describing the main issue that the allies are forced to overcome. How to help the Russians as quickly and efficiently as possible. Bringing the fight to the short lines of supply in western Europe might tie up some units, but are short term gains that the Germans can usually absorb moreso that the allies. If Japan flies some planes (2-4 fighters) to Europe by round 3 and 4, this greatly helps German fend off the usual KGF allies strategy employed.
My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early. It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.
That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.
There are many variables at play, so strategic discussions on a grander scale often overlook some of the details you are bringing into the discussion.
WWII (and this game) was won based on mobility and reusability of resources. So tanks and planes are better than artillery and infantry. But you need some infantry to take the hits, so you can’t just buy all tanks and planes. So fighting Africa with tanks, fighters and transports are the most efficient way (for both sides). Why was Africa lost for Germany? Lack of resources, mainly due to no control of the Med. The European axis lost many, many men by NOT falling back via a safe retreat. Don’t make that mistake.
Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)
You’re welcome. I love talking strategy
I’m not convinced it is a solid return. Look at what the Axis are investing to get control of Africa: you’re tying up the Italian transport and battleship for three turns or so, after which they’ll probably be killed.
Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16). That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.
Let’s be generous and cost that out as only half the price of a transport and battleship: ($7 + $20) / 2 = $13. You’ll probably send about two fighters (one German, one Italian) south to fight and die; that’s another $20
I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made. What costs are there to the allies for sinking the Italian med navy?
Instead of using the transport to evacuate a Italian inf and tank from Africa (to, e.g., Ukraine) on turn 1, you’ll use it to send a new Italian inf and tank from Europe to Africa; that’s a swing of 2 inf, 2 tnk = $16. So a fairly ordinary African campaign already costs the Axis $49 – more than the $45 they can expect to earn from a decisive African victory.
It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything. There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.
Insisting that an Allied response is “necessary” begs the question of whether a cost-effective Allied response is possible. Suppose a thief is going to break into your house next week while you’re asleep and steal your $50 television. …
You are overlooking the economic cost. What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa? A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds. And then you are only putting units right next to Germany’s IC. very short supply lines. Unless Russia is bleeding Germany dry out east, the allies will eventually run out of inf they can throw at Germany due to low IPC income that will have been lost from Africa and the south Pacific.
I’d argue that the situation in Africa is set up so that neither side can stop the other from making gains without investing more resources than they’ll get back out of a regional victory. Africa is a strange game…the only way to win is not to play.
My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early. It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.
