Topics created by Black_Elk

I noticed this question posted by Black Elk in a couple of threads, so I sketched out the following answer which I’ll post in both threads.

I’d be in favour of using the term “Commonwealth” (“the Commonwealth”, “the Commonwealth nations”, etc.).  For the period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII (thus in a time frame which works for A&A 1940), the term “Commonwealth” can be interpreted as referring more or less just to the six self-governing Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire (originally the Irish Free State) and Newfoundland (which, it should be noted, voluntarily agreed to go back to being ruled from London during the Great Depression).

The phrase “(British) Commonwealth of Nations” originated – at first with unofficial status – in the late 19th century, resurfaced (still unofficially) in 1917, and finally received official recognition in 1921.  It was intended to be used in parallel with (or in some cases as an alternative to) the phrase “British Empire”, an example being Churchill’s famous statement that “if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour.”  The “Commonwealth” usage arose in recognition of the fact that a number of British territories had become self-governing – the first such case being Canada, the original “Dominion” – and that therefore they had a greater degree of sovereignty than the Britain’s colonies, protectorates and mandates.

Dominion status was granted to Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907, South Africa in 1910 and the Irish Free State in 1922 (it became Eire in 1937).  Via the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, it was recognized that these six Dominions were equal in status with the UK and that they were “freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  Strictly speaking, it could be argued that the UK was also an equal-status “member” of the Commonwealth rather than its head, but this would be a bit like arguing that the Augustus was basically an ordinary Roman Senator who simply happened to be “first among equals” in the Senate rather than the Emperor (an argument which Augustus himself liked to make).  A similar dynamic existed within the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact that the UK’s (resident) Sovereign was recognized by the Dominions as their (absentee) Head of Statec – so Churchill’s phrase “the British Empire and its Commonwealth” is actually a good description of the asymmetrical relationship that existed at the time.

The phrase “Commonwealth” as it is used today has important differences with what it meant in 1940, since it now covers more than 50 entities.  Back in the 1930s, it essentially referred just to Britain and its self-governing Dominions, of which there were six.  The list started growing after WWII, when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were granted Dominion status, but the only British territories to achieve Dominion status prior to WWII were the six so-called “white colonies” whose population was preponderantly of European ancestry.  So all in all, I think it’s historically justifiable to refer to the A&A 1940 “grey sculpt” block as simply “the Commonwealth,” which is certainly more convenient than the convoluted phrase “the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  “The Commonwealth Dominions” (perhaps “the CDs” in shorthand?)  would be my second choice: it’s longer than just “the Commonwealth” but it’s a trifle more accurate since it excludes the UK and thus refers only to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland.

This is why I interpret IPCs in A&A as abstract and flexible. Lets looks at some examples by Region from Revised up to G40…

Canada: from 4 ipcs up to 7 ipcs
America (the continental USA): from 28 ipcs up to 45 ipcs
Africa: from 11 ipcs up to 20
China (unoccupied): from 4 ipcs up to 12 ipcs
Western Europe (France/Holland/Denmark): from 6 ipcs to 14 ipcs
Germany: from 10 ipcs to 14 ipcs
Australia: from 2 ipcs to 8 ipcs

United Kingdom: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs
Japan: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs
Hawai: from 1 ipc to 1 ipc

Philippines: from 3 ipcs down to 2 ipcs

I could go on, but the point here is that there is no hard and fast relative scale for how these values are being worked out over successive boards. Sometimes the same region nearly doubles in value, sometimes it triples, sometimes it stays roughly the same.

This is a very strong indication to me that IPCs are not the iron values sometimes suggested, or that IPC values in A&A are somehow set in stone. They have been changing to suit the gameplay for a while now.

I want to point this out because I think it speaks to a more general feeling I get, that money/production should be flexible, to suite the needs of the gameplay, rather than something highly rigid or that must somehow retain consistency along historical lines, or to match up with previous boards. It just seems arbitrary for the most part, and more so when you look at the values side by side for successive boards. Clearly IPCs are there for the gameplay. They are distributed in the way they are for gameplay purposes, not in some highly fine tuned or particularly accurate spread for historical or “real world” reasons.

If for example, China’s total value can increase by 300%, or Australia can go up by 400%, while Hawaii stays exactly the same, and Philippines is decreased by 33%, then why should we expect anything consistent out of IPCs anywhere on the gamemap?

To me this is encouraging, because it suggests that IPC value and “collect income” can be tweaked for game balance (on a regional basis) without upsetting some underlying foundation. The fact that these values have changed so much over time, indicates a high level of abstraction going on.

The thing to notice is that IPCs are already being counted differently (in terms of relative value) depending on where they are located on the gamemap. I think this is an important thing to bear in mind when considering what IPCs really represent, and to see why gameplay (and not necessarily historical production analogy) is the critical factor in determining how these should be distributed across the map on any given board.

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  :-D

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  :wink:

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

@Der:

I would add a level of strategy, which I’m all for. Love strategy.

Why not say everyone can transfer up to 25% of their income to an ally during their purchase unit phase?  The 2:1 loss of production would not motivate me to do it, ever. If I’m the UK and have 40 IPC’s, instead of sending them to Russia so they can have 2 Russian fighters, I’m going to still buy 4 UK fighters and fly them over there. But say I could just transfer 25% over there. (10 ipcs) I would do that and Russia would get the fighter faster because they could buy their own and put it out on Russia with the money, instead of waiting for UK to put out fighters, then fly them over next turn.

@toblerone77:

What about just charging a fee plus the unit cost? For example, the U.S. could build a British destroyer plus a fee of say +2/3 IPCs. The question would be where placement would be allowed. You could in the case of G40, that could be on territory adjacent to a convoy zone. In other versions it could be the nearest industrial complex.

Whether you loan IPCs or have an ally build the unit for you the principal is the same.

It may also be reasonable to implement a system where a die roll is made by the enemy to destroy the convoy shipment. Example: The U.S. builds two tanks to send to Russia. Germany then rolls two dice at 1. Germany rolls a one and a two. One tank is destroyed en route.

Either of those might work, and still be preferable to me, over a scheme that only encourages multination stacks on defense.

I’m open to finding new ways to get a real Loan phase going

Lots of thoughts on this. I think that before you can neutralize a player’s economy you must capture all of their victory cities. Frankly since I play rarely and never online we usually play for capitals anyway and ignore VCs except for a few recent games with new players I’m trying to teach OOB.

As for second Capitals, I’m all for it. I really don’t care for games where minor victory is a winning condition. The whole point of the war was domination of an ideology, submission of foes, or unconditional surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w

If we’re talking about just one ship in a sea zone carrying just one or two units, there’s not much potential for confusion.  If we’re dealing with a situation in which a large number of transports in a single sea zone are carrying a large number of units, the simplest solution would be to keep all the transported units physically off the board and to represent their presence on the board via one or more markers.  This is basically the principle of the task force markers that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.

There would be two basic approaches.  If you consider the transported units to be a single group, all you need to do is plunk the sculpts into a pile off the board and to put a small marker – anything would do – next to the group of ships transporting them.  If, on the other hand, you want to track in detail which-unit-is-aboard-what-ship (so you can figure out what troops and equipment get lost when ship X gets topedoed, for instance), then you’d need to put a little numbered (or lettered) marker next to (or under) each ship, and a corresponding marker off the board next to each unit or pair of units being transported.  Scrabble tiles could be pressed into service in that role, as one possible quick-and-dirty solution.  For a more elegant, you could use HBG’s cardboard naval task force markers, of which it has a wide selection.

In any case, this would fix the transportation problem without having to replace the ships themselves (or until replacement ships become available, if you want to look at it that way).

It makes sense, to me at least.

Also from a collecting standpoint, I think even a good set of Generics or Generics by side can be desirable. It was rather novel for example in 1941 how the sets were done, because many people have uses for certain units in certain colors which might not come standard in other national sets. For special forces units, or a lend lease feel, or to include minor nations somewhere. In the same way that some people enjoy getting their hands on Lime Green Brits, or the nice cool Grey germans from Revised, because they have a color scheme that works for whatever purpose; similarly, the units from 1941, because they are generics, could potentially be included in other scenarios.  Basically 41 gives you an incentive to pick it up just to grab a few of those special units for the arsenal in a nice color spread. The Japanese Tigers for example, or the nice Warhawks.

What you are discussing with ships is exactly on point. The sort of confusion that arises between cruisers destroyers and the like, because of the shapes/sizes used by different nations for the same basic type. I think you could do a lot just with size on the length dimension.

If for example all destroyers were exactly the same length, and there was a reasonable spread between the length of the types. For example, start with the cheapest combat capable units and develop some exact ratio that is consistent for all nations.

So, using normal A&A size units, maybe something like…

Subs are 1 inch
Destroyers 1 inch and a third
Cruisers 1 inch and two thirds
Carriers 2 inches
Battleships 2 inches, since its fairly easy to distinguish between the carrier and battleship by shape.

So the sub is the baseline (whatever its length is determined to be) and all other warships build off that.
Sub x 1, x 1.333, x 1.666, x 2 etc to keep it all visually simple and immediately recognizable.

Or in the case of micro, you could make the base sub length smaller by 25% or 33% or whatever seems to make it feel visibly more micro, when compared with the normal scale A&A. With the ships listed above, plugged into set length ratios by type, I think it would be pretty easy to tell them apart, whether generic or national in shape. I do agree, squared vs rounded is very important for differentiation of units (more than width in many cases) so I would try to use that to differentiate if I could. Likewise height features also help to differentiate units provided they are markedly different.

That just leaves you with the Transport unit, which should be generic for all players, and (critically!) should be able to “seat” any land unit capable of being transported. In other words the ship should break relative scale to be more in line with the land units it transports rather than other ships. Because this requires a flat topped transport (no smoke stacks!) I would suggest a very different visual shape from the carrier deck. So elliptical transports and squared carriers for example. The transport should likewise have a well balanced and flat bottom so that it “slides” easily with units aboard, or stacks well atop a chip in the case of large unloaded transport stacks. The Transport unit is highly abstract to begin with, and so I think its sculpt should be more functional rather than decorative.

Carriers, Transports, or any unit on which another unit can can be loaded or “parked”, should have a good center of gravity, flat bottom, and no wobble. Likewise, any unit which can rest on other units should have a good center of gravity and a flat bottom to minimize wobble while atop the other unit.

It would be nice for example if units like Mech, or Artillery were designed to sit more snugly on top, or alongside of units they are paired with. I think micro has the potential to do this, and provides a nice opportunity, since you’d have smaller infantry and fighters etc, but by introducing a really strong relative scale by ship type, you could still have pretty large Carriers and Transports. I think that with Tanks, as long as they were paired exactly by size, you could probably find a nice way to scale it using Nationals. But I do agree that if you wanted to do generic by side, the models knp mentioned sound pretty solid to me. I think I’d be happy with those.

The only unit that seems to really call out for Nationals is infantry, but this also has to do with how large the infantry currently are. At a smaller size helmet differentiation becomes a little less significant, and that is the main distinguishing characteristic of infantry. If you did do generic by side even for infantry, I think I would more readily accept German helmets on the Japanese, than I would all the same helmets for the Allies. You have to go down pretty small before the differences become negligible, I’d say something along the lines of the 40th anniversary Risk units, before people wouldn’t be all sad that the Brits and Americans and Russians look too similar with their helmets.

Do or die?  :-D haha

I guess it’d be rather like Classic then, where you had to save to invade neutrals, except in this case you’d be saving ipcs to have the option to retreat! Might be fun. I could see a way that might be worked in if the players were agreeable.

As for the standard bonus, depending on which board you wanted to try it on, the influx of cash can definitely make purchasing strategy more interesting out of the second round and on. I’ve tried it on Revised, 41, 42.2, AA50 etc as my most basic cash bonus and people seem to enjoy it. Makes the land grab and combats just that much more intense, since you always have the bonus buck in the back of your mind

@MidnightExpress:

I just saw two AA50 auctions on ebay sell for $185.02 and $201 plus shipping so it’s not an unattainable game.

Yeah…but did you notice that it was the same person that won each of those items?

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=231322439104&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2765
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=251630644174&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2765

k***y must have really wanted two copies @ a total cost of $410.32 (shipping included), or maybe they were just shill bids?  Who knows…but it was those two auctions that directly led me to simply purchase some HBG and FMG Italian units and augment my 1942.2 game  :-P

@Lozmoid:

I really like the idea of combining South Africa, Australia & New Zeleand, and Canada to form the Commonwealth playable nation. Can anyone please advise me exactly which territories would fall into this faction? […] Am I missing any others? Thank you!

For the answer that I worked out for my own customized version of the game map, have a look at the pictures I posted of my map table here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0

…and look for all the territories on which I put a customized blue-white-red roundel (the largest shot of which you’ll see on South West Africa and the Union of South Africa in the picture labeled “7 Europe Right Panel”).

Note that I tinkered with some of the British and ANZAC possessions in the Pacific, which are incorrectly attributed on the OOB map.

The main advantage for overall game balance in AA50 1942 (Allies v Axis) under these rules (with the non-com opening), is that the US gets to keep their Pacific carrier deck. This is fairly major in encouraging the dual theater war, and is one of the things we like most about the set up. The bonus structure also encourages a more effective Russian tank purchase under most set ups, which leads to a dramatic Kursk style scenerio on the eastern front under most openings. Japan alternatively has a much greater incentive to build air and naval, because the Allied position on the sea is stronger, requiring a more substantial counter.

Also, and this is just an aside, but having played quite a few alternative starts now, it has become much clearer to me why the gameplay on this mapboard is so centered around Moscow and Europe. It is a consequence of the basic map territory connections. 7 territories border Moscow which mean 7 ways in, a split 7 defense of the capital. Berlin is 5 territories and a sea zone, 6 ways in, 6 split defense. UK is 5 all from the sea. Compared to Eastern USA and Japan which can both be defended from a single sea zone, it is fairly clear to me why the board would favor KGF, regardless of the unit set up, or the starting income conditions. And why Moscow is the clear choice over London, for a conservative Axis warplan.

Still, that said, I do find that the bonus scheme outlined above helps to moderate the built-into-the-board drivers on Moscow and Berlin (and to a lesser extent London), and pushes it instead into a somewhat more “world” wide conflict. Plus the idea of a board which features 6 possible starts rather than just 1 seems to me a worthwhile thing to pursue. At least 6 times the replay, but much more in actuality, since the bonuses allow for so many potentially different purchasing strats.

I only see pros! With the same amount of plastic you could make like twice as many units, thus twice as much fodder for the pets to eat, or to get lost in the space-time vortex under the couch  :-D

Seriously though, I see the idea of micro-sizing as a major draw. Everyone loves micro-stuff. Just look at how micro-machines built a whole franchise out of shrinking hotwheels. Or how A&A itself, is basically a shrunk down version of classic plastic army men.

The technology is available. 3d printers are better now than ever, and everyone appreciates when something very tiny is well detailed. Why not go smaller?

Right now the infantry unit is pretty close to 1/72 scale, but I don’t think they need to be quite this large. Shorter ships would be helpful too. Smaller units based on a smaller chip size, and with a smaller chip-to-unit ratio, since more units could be made overall using the same amount of material/space.

The priorities should be to make units:
1. that are flat on the bottom (especially aircraft!) and well balanced so they don’t tip over.
2. with relative uniformity in scale by unit type.
3. that are more abundant, more units of each type, since they’re smaller! you could fit way more in the box.)
4. units that fit with others. Carriers and transports should be wide enough to be able to carry stuff without wobbling.

I think this would be successful as an expansion sold separately, or as a major incentive to get a new board (or micro -reprint of an old board.) I can’t help but feel that the franchise is wasting the brand on larger scale miniatures for the tactical hex board games. What I want is something that can be used in the traditional game, units that are smaller, not larger! :)

@CWO:

@EvenkiNatlOkrug:

A VC in South Africa could mean more Japanese and British involvement in the Indian or South Atlantic Ocean, and also prevent a large chunk of the map being relatively empty.

Madagascar might not rate having a VC, but it could potentially be a house rule National Objective for both the Allies and Japan.

I would agree - anything to make that theater more interesting would help.

My other idea was to potentially have Dakar (French West Africa) or Brazzaville (French Equatorial Africa) as a VC. This might be more applicable to Europe 1940, but Dakar was a significant objective for the Free French, and Brazzaville was their “capital” for a couple of years. The British made a significant attempt (Battle of Dakar) to take it from the Vichy forces.

Or even crazier…
what if we did all that other stuff and then just unsheltered Berlin back to normal? I guess I’d be interested in that as well hehe  :-D

It doesn’t exactly prevent amphibious into the Capital, but the balance on production might be interesting, in that it would allow more naval options for UK (or potentially G), and force the German player to defend across a broader front, as an offset to the increased production. Restricted at 6 on central Europe, I suspect German players would consider heavy hitter buys on the capital to cover against amphibious as well as to threaten counter attacks and gain the movement advantage on coverage of Western and Southern out of Eastern.

unsheltered Berlin 42 scale ideal.jpg

@theROCmonster:

I agree with you that LRA is pretty powerful, and possibly over powerful if your playing competitor got it for cheap. I don’t agree with replacing it with paratroopers. Simply for the reason that paratroopers are aweful. Maybe make LRA +1 to air movement.

the +1 on movement was also our solution to the way overpowered (compared to other techs) LRA weapon

Good looking out barney!

@Chicago:

China receives special treatment in the Chicago Rules Anniversary Edition.  China begins the game with an IC and has different rules while China controls the IC and different rules after the axis take control of and destroy the Chinese IC.

China and its units are controlled by the U.S. player, but for game purposes it is considered a separate power and its resources cannot be mixed.  Chinese combat and movement are done separately from the U.S. forces.

Chinese units have a limited range of occupation, displayed by the colored border.  They can also be moved into the Japanese occupied territories of Kiangsu and Manchuria.  China can take control of these territories and have them count toward their new infantry placements.  Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

Kwangtung is a special case.  While it is not a Chinese territory and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack Axis units there and occupy it, but the IPC’s generated, go to the United Kingdom.  This is the only non-Chinese territory that Chinese units may occupy.

Before the start of game play China places their IC in any Chinese controlled territory. The IC works like the mobile industry National Advantage (for Revised edition): the IC can move one territory per turn and place units there (no unit limits on placement of Chinese units).  Since, the IC has unlimited production it is not subject to axis strategic bombing.  
Before the start of game play China may also move their fighter to any Chinese controlled territory. The fighter represents the American volunteer group- the Flying Tigers. This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat.

While the IC is in play, China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country.  China starts the game with $7 IPC’s.  China may purchase infantry for $2, other unit costs are unchanged.  China can save unspent IPC’s and spend IPC’s on technology research if the optional rule is agreed upon.

After the Chinese IC has been captured  The Axis power that takes control of the Chinese IC must destroy it immediately.  The Chinese player must also surrender all of their IPC’s to that Axis power.  China no longer receives IPC’s for income and can no longer purchase units. China may never rebuild this IC.

Instead, China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Purchase Units phase of the U.S. player’s turn. The U.S. Player places the new Chinese units on any Chinese- controlled territories. However, those units cannot be placed on any territory that already contains three or more units.

Excuse my old eyes.  :wink:

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

Hello, Baron Munchhausen. Nice to hear from you!

You raise many interesting points, and I’ll try to respond to two of them. First, can a Southern Pacific strategy work for Japan even without assigning thematically ridiculous IPC values to tiny island chains? I think so. I agree that it would be off-putting to play a game where, e.g., the Solomon Islands plus the Caroline Islands were treated as more economically valuable than France. There are limits to how much you can edit the map without breaking the suspension of disbelief and ruining the theme.

That said, I don’t think the 1942.2 map would take all that much tweaking. On the 1942.2 board, players will occasionally send a transport to take Australia even though it’s not worth much, and there’s little or nothing to use as an encore. If you valued Australia at 4 IPCs, New Zealand at 2 IPCs, the Solomons and Carolines at 1 IPC each, and Hawaii at 2 IPCs, that’s 10 IPCs right there. It’s not hard to find another 8 IPCs in South America: 2 IPCs in Chile/Peru/Bolivia, 2 IPCs in Argentina, 3 IPCs in Brazil, and 1 IPC in Colombia/Venezuela. All together you’ve got 18 IPCs, which I think is very respectable.

You could compare that total to a Western Pacific strategy (India, Persia, Burma, Italian East Africa, Egypt, Transjordan, Kazakh, Yunnan, and Szechuan add up to only 13 IPCs) or to a Northern Asia strategy (Soviet Far East, Buryatia, Sinkiang, etc. all the way west to Archangelsk, Vologda, and Novosibirsk is worth about 13 IPCs). Either strategy plus Moscow is still only 21 IPCs. So the Southern Pacific strategy doesn’t strike me as hopelessly inefficient from an economic point of view.

Second, is a Southern Pacific campaign inherently too slow to be fun? I’ll readily admit that it’s less direct; if you head off toward southern Argentina, you are obviously not heading for the global epicenter of military power. You can’t force a British surrender by crushing Buenos Aires; that’s just not how that works. On the other hand, if the Axis controlled the entire southern hemisphere, with a sphere of influence stretching from Tokyo through Singapore, Basra, Addis Ababa, Capetown, Buenos Aires, and Sydney, isn’t that a kind of win for the Axis? I understand there used to be an “economic win condition” for the Axis where they could win by controlling 100 IPCs or so worth of territory, and although the victory city mechanic has never been well-executed, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be improved to the point where people actually prefer using a victory city win condition.

I think the whole “race to the capital” mechanic is unrealistic and less-than-fun anyway; if you sack one capital without wrecking the empire it rules, the people who live in the capital will just relocate the capital and keep ruling their empire. You’ll get some bragging rights and a few million barrels of oil, but nobody surrenders an intact superpower just because you squeeze into their capital – look at Napoleon in Moscow, or Robert Ross in Washington, or for that matter the British in World War II, who laid down supplies and trained secret army units in Worcester to protect Parliament, the royal family, and the BBC, with plans to continue retreating to Liverpool and then Canada if necessary.

So, yeah, if Japan just blitzes straight for San Francisco, then that’s foolish and the Axis will lose. Similarly, if the designers allow you to drive tanks straight over the Himalayas with no movement penalty, and you pass up that opportunity, then that’s foolish, and you deserve to lose. But if the designers tweak the map so that the trackless Himalayan Mountains and barren Gobi Desert and frozen Siberian tundra are harder to cross than the balmy, oil-rich South Pacific ocean – and if the Axis seize that opportunity to invade South America – then I think you’d get a really interesting game, where the players had to make gut-wrenching choices about what resources to invest in what theaters.