Regarding India, that is what the USA ic on China helps with. You can kill the odd unit if Japan ignores the USA, and you have to. If Japan comes after China, the roles are reversed.
I don’t think that an IC in China would ever produce a single American unit. Yunnan and Anhwei fall on J1. Szechwan and Sinkiang fall on J2, espacially if there is an IC on either one. Regardless of that, i don’t believe that an IC on a 1 IPC territory would ever be worthwile.
@Baron:
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.
I’m often tempted to capture and hold France or NWE if Germany allows me to do it. But I almost always regret it. I end up stacking France only to be in a stalemate with Germany while Japan takes down Moscow and there’s nothing I can do about it. Of course at some point I will take France to open up another front for Germany. But only after I have secured Russia and the surrounding territories. The problem with this is, when my opponent knows that I don’t like stacking France or NWE early, he can just leave those territories empty and throw everything toward Moscow.
Also Japan’s drive is actually more extreme than grapesoda’s analysis would suggest. The northern route now takes twice as long as previous editions (grapesoda forgot Evenki when giving the numbers, so the northern route is actually 5), but that doesnt matter, because the central route is now one turn faster relative to previous editions! The shuck out of sz61 from Japan to Yunnan is one move. And then it is only two spaces that separate Yunnan from Moscow!
You’re right! That happens when I count out the spaces in my head instead of actually looking at the map. :oops:
What’s more, sz 61 is in range of India as well (which in this version has the Achilles IC). So it’s a pretty bad scene as far as Center control goes for the Allies contra Japan.
I believe the creators gave the Allies the India IC for them to have a production point near the center, in order to mitigate their logistical disadvantage in the Atlantic. However to me it’s more of a liability than anything else. In previous editions, giving up India just meant + 3 IPCs to Japan. Now you’re handing them a free IC. India is also more difficult to reinforce for the allies, because the African route is also one space longer than in previous games.
Anyway sooner or later the Allies have to give up on India. My rule of thumb is to retreat once the Japanese can either take it with 2 transports + units from Burma, or when I anticipate the Axis can stack either Caucasus or Kazakh. When the Japanese need 3 or more transports to take India I’ll make a stand because I think it puts them too much out of position. I also don’t like trading Burma with Japan, cause it just wears down my units that I ultimately want to send to Russia so I just let them stack there.
Hi A&A community,
I’m new to this board and wanted to share my thoughts about the imbalance of this game. I believe it has less to do with the units and their placement on the board, but that it is rather a logistical problem. The general consesus seems to be, that everything revolves around capturing Moscow for the Axis and saving Moscow for the Allies. So from a logistical viewpoint, the goal for every power is to get units to Moscow.
I compared four A&A games with regard to the problem of achieving this goal for both the Axis and the Western Allies (UK & US): Classic, Revised, 1942 1st Ed, 1942 2nd Ed
The general perception is, that Classic greatly favors the Allies, 1942 2nd greatly favors the Axis while Revised and 1942 1st are largely balanced. When looking at the supply lines for each power from their main production facility to Moscow i noticed the following:
Classic:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Karelia-Russia = 3 turns
UK: Karelia-Russia = 2
Japan: Manchuria-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Karelia-Moscow = 3
Revised & 1942 1st:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Archangel-Russia = 2
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-UK-Archangel-Russia = 4
1942 2nd:
Germany: Poland-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 4
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 5
What can be easily seen is, that the most balanced games are the ones where the supply line to Moscow for Germany, Japan and USA are all the same. The game where the supply line for the Americans is shorter than one of the Axis powers heavily favors the Allies. The game where the supply line for the Americans is longer than for both Axis powers heavily favors the Axis.
In 1942 2nd Edition the Americans could cut their supply line by one turn by dropping units from Finland or Norway directly into Archangel through transports. But that would require another large fleet of warships and transports on part of the Allies, which they cannot afford. So for me the solution to the imbalance seems to be, instead of pre placing several units across the board, to give the Americans the means to build such a fleet through either more income or a larger starting navy.
A better solution in my opinion would be, to have Iceland touch both SZ 2 and 3. Then the main Allied fleet could sit in SZ 4 and the American supply line would go: Eastern Canada-Iceland-Archangel-Moscow = 4. This would however require a reprint of the map. But other than that, i believe there is nothing else that can balance this game other than a large bid that completely alters the starting setup.