Posts made by dondoolee

Personaly I like the feel that Africa should be the “crap, I have to devote resources here even though I don’t want to”.  But in order to promote it more, it would have to be easier for the UK, US, and Germany to hit it/re enforce it.  Perhaps a few more units in South Africa and an Egypt that won’t fall T1 could help this, along with maybe 2 transport ships in the Med for Germany.  Maybe an Indian IC.

I have yet to play a game where Both Germany and Russia are effectivly knocked out with no way of immediate recovery and all that is left is essentialy a UK/US vs Japan game.  Has anybody had this match up yet?  More importantly how frequently do you come across it, and what are the usual result?

Hell, I want to say maybe 1 out of 15 games it is over after G1.  I have seen the entire relevant Brit navy destroyed, Egy Taken, Ukraine, E Pol, Belussia, AND even Kar obliterated before Russia moves.  This is virtually impossible to recover from.

The real gambles for the axis seem to revolve around Egy mostly, along with balancing British fleet vs hitting Karalea or not.  I think that is THE KEY feature of the entire game right there.

@Subotai:

It seems like the game designers thought that if every axis attack goes as planned then they would win…and succed to conquer the world……which might have happened in the real WW2.

But for the game balance using NOs, just give the allies 2 units and place them in Egy and Karelia, from rnd2 the allies need to strike back, attack and repell, and keep the production advantage. If axis don’t get superior economy from rnd2 or rnd3, the allies will win, just like a typical Revised game w/o bids.

That is certainly the most irksome thing to me about this game.  The amount of high probablity attacks the Axis can make and win on T1.  If most succede the Allies are doomed.  This probably happens to the allies in my game 1/3 - 1/4 of the games.  Makeing that many games a virtual moot point after J1.  I wish there was a way to design an AA without being so T1 heavy (at least for opening moves, maybe not purchas), but I fear that may be an impossabilty due to the mechanics of the game.

Write down all your opening moves if you have the time for it.

Other than that off the top of my head things you can try, if you haven’t already if the problem is Russia falling to quickly.

1. Move all UK forces in India/Jordan/survivors in Egypt to Persia/maybe even UK bomber.  From here they have a chance to stall out Japan a little better in Asia, they can contest Africa, or they can bail out Russia.
2. Move Australian transport/ destroyer to NZ, have the US navy link up with it.  Fly two US fighters to Australia and as many bombers as you wish, move Pacific Destroyer/Transport (with Inf) towards Australia as well (if they survived).  Just look and think if an IC is a good and plausable buy on UK T1 or 2
3. Move 7 Rus Inf in Bury for 1st turn only.  Yes they can die, trust me though if Japan goes to kill them you screwed Japan up pretty bad.  This T1 Russian move will restrict Japans movements a little bit.  On RUS T2 you can withdraw/attack Man whatever you decide.
4. move 1-4 Russian Inf to China.  If you think you can, try to establish a 1 Inf per turn pipeline to China.

notice how all those moves (other than the suggestion of maybe the 1 inf per turn pipeline, and the possiblitiy of buying a UK IC) where done with pieces on the board at no IPC cost.  All these moves are done with restricting Japan as cheaply as plausable for the allies.

After this maybe you can send 1 ship a turn from the US pacific towards Australia and devote the rest to fighting Germany/Italy.

OR you can just send as many transports for the US at Africa/Europe (let the UK build the navy, unless the US absolutly HAS to) and ignore the pacific for probably about 2-3 turns.

OR just buy mostly/all bombers, perhaps not the best strat, but it can work (SBR ger/It to lower production than USSR)

That is just off the top of my head.  Send a common T1 move and let me look at it

Subs….What’s the point?

War…What is it good for?

good god y’all!

@Imperious:

Just have Germany as its VC is take Moscow, Japan takes X IPC, or X territories, or X income over a 3 turn period, or take what we got in AAP and give them victory points for every 10 IPC they have. This is not complicated or “unbalanced”

The western allies can win by either taking Berlin, or by turn X, or defeating Japan, The Soviets can win only by taking Berlin.

What is not balanced by assigning different victory conditions? If you want balance then give everybody 20 IPC a turn and the exact same military forces. The game is not balanced in that manner, so why do the VC all of a sudden have the be the same thing for everybody?

But I think map design coupled with The USSR and Japan as more independant and seperate entities greatly mitigates the need for actual VCs.  Still an open style of play where you wish for your team/ nation to figure out how to dominate the board as it exists and keep the rules uniform for all the nations. Perhaps something along the line of “Axis and Allies” with just a dash of “Diplomacy” thrown in, and somehow still find a way to make it viable for two players.  I admit it is a tall order, and at the moment I am not clever enough to figure out how it could be done in an elegant manner, but that would be closer to my ideal I think.

It has never been about VC’s for me, just finding a way to dominate and win the board.  This usually goes with the fall of Russia or Germany.  Play to the point where you can only lose supremecy of the board if you have a MAJOR MAJOR oversight or some of the worst luck in the world.

@DarthMaximus:

I’d rather have playability over realism.  That’s not to say you can’t have both, but if you tie things to closely to the realism side you end up with a boring one sided game.

On the flip side, if we go too far it would be equally as bad to have a game that is always decided in the Pac instead of Europe.

I don’t like the idea of VCs and I think most players like to take Capitals.  Call it an old M84 bias, but people like marching into Capitals and building big armies to win, not playing to build a few trans to sneak a few Island VCs that may take 2 turns to get back but you only have the current US turn to do so.

I am probably more in agreement with you.  I hate special rules.  I would much rather have a look at the board and figure out how to take command of it, rather than everyone having a different goal.  If it is someway possable to have Japan and Russia be somewhat seperate style players though, that would be very intriguing.  To me it feels like victory when one achieves tactical and economic superiority over the board to such an advantage that the only way to lose is by a MAJOR oversight or “beyond” bad luck with the dice.

That being said, even with VC’s if it is more effective to shut down a capital, I would pursue that path anyway. My guess is it probably would be.

Just go to the triple a website and download the unstable version.

I like the idea of promoting a multi player game with different objectives.  You can still have somewhat of a “sandbox” format and it can curtail a lot of “gimmicky” rules for those who like to see a more historical game.

My guess is it would be divided as such: UK/USA would have virtually the same goals, Russia, Germany/Italy, Japan, China

But here are the problems I see:

1. Is it a race?  Would Japan getting to her goal 1st put a stop to everyone else and that would mean Japan would win?
2. Most importantly can it still be a two player game?  As a practicle matter, how many people can expect 3-7 players everytime.  2 is much simpler, allows (in a way) more people to be willing to play.  And most importantly more marketable.  If multi-player is to be designed, it still has to be able to fit 2 player play.

Think about it like this: location, location, location.  You want to be as lazy as plausable in order to increase your odds of winning.

1. you can send cheaper units and more numerous units to the Western theatre.
2. 3 Capitals are already in that direction
3. You are more focused on a land battle
4. Russia is more immediatly threated by Germany than Japan
5. Japan requires a lot of money spent on a navy, PLUS is in an awkward location for anyone other than the US to build
6. Japan is an island that is more that 1 turn away from an IC: a tactical freaking nightmare to capture (barring an idiotic oversight or awful luck)
7. Land units are always more attractive to build than navies (navies are simply a means to an end; land units are the end).

Even if the pacific cost more than Europe, it would still not be worth it. Russia is to much in peril and Europe is just far too convienent to pass up.

@jim010:

But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?

I agree, but I doubt we’ll get that.

Perhaps not, but I still think it is fun to think about how it could theoreticaly happen

@Imperious:

The point here is what constitutes a victory for each axis power based generally on what they had planed to do and also based on realistic capabilities of these times also treating it somewhat lightly.

Japan had never any intention or capability to take Moscow for its own victory. The game should focus on what in general terms on what was realistic given that it is based on WW2. Otherwise you might as well add the D$D map and bust out miniatures because thats candyland to bind Japanese victory on helping Germany take Moscow.

But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?  The way I am kind of imagining it now is the Allies focusing on Germany but they HAVE to send some income to the pacific or else they are in a world of hurt. This can all be done with a manipulation of IPC’s and placing a UK IC or two on the map.  My guess would be more IPC vale on Australia, India, Phil, Hawaii, Hong Kong, Singapore/Indonesia.

It has to be set up to where if the Allies don’t put up a balancing act effectivly (probably like 70/30 in favour of Europe) they get smashed regardless of if they kill a power first.  Example:  If the allies were to throw EVERYTHING at Germany maybe that would be the cost of an India/Australia factory, China, a lot of IPC’s (perhaps effectivly crippling the UK), and maybe even the USA/Canada would be in dire straights if Japan was completly ignored.  Germany may be dead but ignoring Japan still would cost them the game.

@jim010:

Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.

I like the idea of a non- aggression pact.  Maybe with a time limit?  Expire in 4 turns or something.  Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.

Cheers

Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map.  Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.

Besides Russia and Japan did fight each other in the beggining and the end of the war.

@Imperious:

I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?

Well i look at it like this:

Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.

Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.

Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.

I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.

What I wonder is, if you can just set the map up in a way to where there is no need for VC’s so you can have more streamlined open ended play with less “special rules”.  For Example: set the map up so in most games if Japan has taken over Hawaii, Aus, India, etc and germany is still in decent shape (whatever that means), it would pretty much be game over in all but name only (the axis would have a tactical/ economic advantage that could only be lost through very bad luck or incredible stupidy/oversights).

While I still don’t like the Idea of VC’s at the moment, I do like the potential they present for balanced multi theater warfare (something I have always wanted in AA) and a more interesting multi player system.  I just think they should look into ways that should have one set of rules before going into a VC mentality.

One of the main reasons why I think Japan should have the very real option of threatening the WUSA if left with poor defense by the US is to force multi theater play.  The WUSA should be a far easier and more realistic option for Japan to attack than Russia because the way the board would be set up.

@jim010:

So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?

So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.

I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’.  In a global war, they are a significant - but separate -  power.  I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres.  No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.

Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides.  What would you peg the number of turns needed?

If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?

:roll:

My opinion on victory conditions is fairly low.  I am not a fan of having them dictate the way I play my game.  I would rather look at the board and see what is the superior way to dominate it. Let me set my own victory conditions, so to speak.  Seperate and loosley linked theaters may be somewaht achievable though, as I think this thread has shown some other great ideas other than VC’s or gimmicky nation specific rules (things that I happen not to like).

@jim010:

In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.

This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical.  But I do want it to feel historical.  Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.

So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.  If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?

@Rammstein:

The Russians helped take out Germany but let’s not forget the 8th air force which bombed Germany into submission! Without the strategic bombing from the US, Germany’s factory’s would still be producing full force and there wouldn’t have been a 2nd front. Without these, I don’t think the Russians would have been able to push into Germany.

More like the US “helped” Russia take out Germany. 20 million Russians dead to what, 400,000 Americans? I don’t recall that Germany ever “submitted” to the US bombing attacks. I’ve read that German production actually peaked in 1944, but it didn’t really matter as they were horribly outnumbered at that point. By the time the British/American bombing campaign was in high gear, sometime in 43, the war was already lost in the east. Stalingrad and Kursk lost the war, plus by 1943 Russia was outproducing Germany. I’m not saying the Allied effort had no effect, but it certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in the war. I’m not trying to be a dick, but you Americans give yourselves way too much credit IMO.

perhaps that conversation should be taken to the WWII forum, while this thread should keep a focus on killing the UK first strats.

@axis_roll:

@dondoolee:

I think the real question is how negligible is the difference both with and w/o NO’s

One poll at a time  :wink:  8-)

point taken