Posts made by Lynxes

About China I tried to ask Larry about why China couldn’t be allowed to have the possibility of getting an IC build on www.harrisgamedesign.com and I just got an answer from Krieghund about China not being an industrial power etc.

I guess it all comes down to play-balance, which will be clear pretty quickly once the game comes out. Hopefully they have play-tested the game and China is needed to be this weak to not out-balance the game in Allied favour. For example, USA has 10 IPCs of bonuses now that can be held and two bombers at-start so a Pacific campaign can now jump-start quicker. Also, as I’ve written in '41 strats, Russia might be able to shield India with infantry until UK production starts up and then Japan will be busy fending off UK attacks and China might survive.

The simplest change would be to give the Chinese one inf/turn PER AREA rather than per two areas. If the game is unbalanced and you have a Chinese collapse in every game, I will propose this to my playing group, but we still haven’t got the game so its too early for that.

I’m not sure here, it all depends on how much help the Russians can afford to give India. If they can march enough infantry down to India, it will hold. And that in turn depends upon the Barbarossa campaign, how hard pressed the Russians will be by the Germans. So, here we clearly need the game to play these scenarios out…

/IL

My proposed attack is to go for India on J2. This way an IC will be blocked as UK won’t build in a defenceless area. China, Borneo and Solomons etc can be taken on turn 2 easily.

If Russians pour down into Persia on R1, well then I think you should postpone the attack and be ready for a heavy assault with shore bombardment on J3. In that case you of course can attack Yunnan, Borneo and even Wake Island on J1.

/03321

You’re right. I’ve adjusted the strategy. This means the Borneo invasion will be post-poned one turn but threatening India is worth it I think. You might have a different strategy though if Russia has moved heavy infantry reinforcement to Persia on turn 1. Then you might want to set-up a turn 3 attack on India.

/atlantikwall

I read this from the BGG pic, but it was kind of fuzzy so I’m not sure it’s completely correct. It could be “two out of…” or something like that.

Hey, you’re all talking about a push towards Moscow through China or Siberia. But a much quicker route is over India and Persia and going at Caucasus. That area can be attacked by all three Axis powers in the mid-game and once taken Russia is in very bad straits. Double ICs in India and FIC for Japan means it doesn’t have to ship units by sea. That 60 IPC Japan will then help Germany and Italy very directly, and not via any Alaskan invasion which I think is bullocks.

The Allies counter to this will of course be an IC in India, combined with aggressive US play in the Pacific. But if you look at the Japanese strategy I posted at '41 strategies, you see that to hold India, Russia has to move a lot of Infantry down to India right away. I suspect this will become a standard strategy.

Thanks, Krieghund. We are now 100% confirmed. Everyone: please feel free to join the discussion!

A few notes of mine on some of the techs to help start things up;

Improved production: a great one for Germany to get. Not only will SBR attacks be much reduced in damage, that Karelia factory will be getting 4 units/turn of production.

Mechanized infantry: another great tech for Germany, and also for the Soviets. We will now see some actually worthwhile tech investments by these two powers, which really was never the case in any earlier A&A editions.

Paratroopers: probably most useful for UK and US in Europe, to support invasions. Germany and Japan might also find it useful to get infantry to the front in Russia and China quicker.

Heavy bombers: enough said already. Decisive tech for UK and US, we’ll see how strong it will actually be.

Improved shipyards: US and Japan will be happy to get this, could really tilt the balance in the Pacific for a while.

Radar: a superb tech for Germany and the Soviet Union, but I’m worried they put it on the “Air/naval chart”. Will this mean that they will rarely get it? I’m assuming they will find the other chart much more worthwhile, being land-based powers.

Well, I’ll help IL out, this time with adjusting those IPC values for the National objectives that we know of. After all, we’re almost there and I do think we have all the objectives that would influence IPCs the first turn. So the new IPC values are (IL, feel free to take these and update the fact thread):

'41 scenario:
Germany 31  (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Soviet Union 30 (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Japan 17 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
UK 43 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Italy 10 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
US/China 40 (+15 IPC bonuses controlled at-start), China produces 1 free inf for each two Chinese territories controlled at the start of US turn.

IPC balance (bonuses included, 2 inf worth of China inf):
Axis: 73, Allies: 144.

'42 scenario:
Germany 37  (+ 10 IPC bonuses controlled at-start)
Soviet Union 24 (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Japan 31 (+10 IPC bonuses controlled at-start)
UK 31 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Italy 10 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
US/China 38 (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start), China produces 1 free inf for each two Chinese territories controlled at the start of US turn.

IPC balance (bonuses included, 2 inf worth of China inf):
Axis: 103, Allies: 114.

We now see even more clearly that the job of the Axis the first few turns is to tilt the balance when it comes the the National objectives (NOs). This clearly changes the game a lot since NOs specify areas such as Egypt and Gibraltar, Wake Island and Solomon Islands, Archangelsk. All are targets that now are decisive but in AAR wasn’t so much so. The game will be less focused on destroying units and more focused on territory, and this in my opinion makes it closer to the real war, where the historical tug between the generals wanting to destroy armies and politicians wanting to take symbolic locations will now be in the game!

Hey, IL, maybe you could edit out what I have edited out? Some of the National objectives you list have already been deleted by me because of corrections, and your fact sheet right now is a bit confusing.

The sooner we get the full picture, the sooner we could start discussing what the changes means for game-play!

Thanks, again! I’ll try to get Imperious Leaders attention so that he adds all these updates to the Fact sheet as well.

This one gives Japan an incentive to grab two of Wake, Midway and Solomons. They weren’t very valuable in resource terms but rather represented forward air bases that could keep the Americans farther from the homeland. Another thing that the game does to favour a Pacific strategy for Japan rather than a land one, I like it!

Objective: put pressure on India and take it as quickly as possible, thereby clearing the way for attacks vs. Caucasus and China.

Builds: 2 trs, 1 inf.

Combat moves:
Midway Sz- West coast: 2 ftr
Midway Sz- Hawaii Sz: 2 ftr
Car. I. Sz- Hawaii Sz: 1 DD
Car. I. Sz- East Indies Sz: 1 trs
Car. I. Sz- Okinawa-Phillippines Sz: 1 trs
Car. I. - Phillipines: 1 inf
Okinawa- Phillippines: 1 inf
Car. I. - East Indies 2 inf
Japan Sz- Phil. I. Sz: 1 trs
Formosa Sz- Phil. I. Sz: 1 BB
Formosa Sz- Burma Sz: 1 CV, 1 CA (bombard), 1 trs
Japan- Phil. I.: 1 inf, 1 arm.
Japan- Kwantung: 1 ftr
Kiangsu- Fukien: 2 inf
Manchuria-Fukien: 1 ftr
FIC-Kwangtung: 1 inf
Formosa-Kwangtung: 1 ftr
Formosa Sz-India Sz: 2 ftr
Formosa-Burma: 1 inf, 1 art
FIC-Burma: 2 inf

Non-combat moves:
India Sz-Burma Sz: 2 ftr
Midway Sz-Japan Sz: 2 CV
West coast Sz-Japan Sz: 2 ftr
Hawaii Sz- Japan Sz: 2 ftr
Fukien- FIC: 1 ftr
Kwangtung- FIC: 2 ftr
Manchuria-Kiangsu: 1 inf

Builds: Japan sea sz: 2 trs, Japan: 1 inf.

These moves pave the way for a turn 2 attack on India with 4-5 inf, 1 art and 5 ftr, as well as 1 CA bombarding. The only way to survive this attack is for the Allies to cooperate and the Soviets moving down at least 3-4 inf through Persia starting on turn 1. If they do this, UK may get a build in an Indian IC but the Japanese have a strong advantage in being able to get shore bombardment against India. An IC in FIC is also a good build on turn 2, and is well placed vs. India. After taking India, Japan can move vs. Russia from the South and/or against China. A lot of builds of course will be naval and air units to counter American offensives and later on put pressure vs. Australia and Hawaii. The possible draw-back to this strategy is that China will survive a little longer and also Hawaii, but the advantages of preventing an active UK IC in India I think are decisive.

Edit: changed the build now that we know of that US national objective involving Wake Island and Midway. Now grabbing those islands on turn 2 seem to be crucial to reduce US income. Of course, if you’re superstitious about deploying your carriers at Midway, you can grab Solomon Islands instead…

I’m not sure this is a bug. After all, Hong-kong and Shanghai can be entered by Chinese units and basically this would make it impossible for the Axis to win a VC Victory (these two are musts in almost any situation). Actually, I think this is the reason they went for that VC in Hong-Kong rather than Singapore which should have been more logical in other senses.

But maybe, yes, there should be a rule that the US would be able to utilize a CAPTURED IC, that would make sense. Then, if all of China was liberated, the Chinese would get American-designed but Chinese produced tanks and aircraft and still build Chinese infantry. Logically, however, this would imply that the US should be allowed to build an IC in a Chinese two or three value territory (Manchuria & Kiangsu), otherwise the mechanic is a bit strange.

I’m most concerned with the weak at-start forces of China, they look like push-overs. Perhaps Japan has to send troops into Burma to strike at India before builds are placed in an UK IC there, but I suspect Japan can wait another round and still take India and this would still make China very vulnerable on turn 1 as Burma can wait till turn 2!

/Rakeman

Read up the thread, it’s already established that 13 VCs will be one of the victory conditions in AA50 and we have already lined-up the probable actual cities this would involve and that list doesn’t have London or Moscow or Washington on it!

I think that unless control of those territories is backed up with some kind overwhelming cash advantage, or by a real gameplay mechanic (instead of just being a nominal victory) then, yes, I don’t think people will be satisfied with it.

Trust me, the last thing I want to see is a return to the Moscow centric game. Personally I wish Larry had done away with of the sea route to Karelia and closed the Panama canal altogether, but that was never going to happen. What I want is for the Capital dynamic to be altered in favor of a dynamic based on Victory cities, but that’s never going to work unless the VCs have some intrinsic value of their own (that goes beyond just the nominal one that they have right now).

I think the National objectives fill that role quite well. In that 13 VC situation, Germany has a basic IPC value of 43, but 10 IPCs of bonuses, Japan has basic value of 37 but 15 IPCs of bonuses. So instead of 80 IPCs, quite strong, they have 105, which is enough to win the game in the long run I would think.

As for historical realism, I think Stalin would be ready to sue for peace in that situation, as he would know that the Japanese would then be able to attack at full strength. So it’s historically correct AND shortens the game, good deal for me.

Actually, it might be Japan that decides if UK can build that IC in India. If you look at the '41 setup you see that Japan can grab Burma and set-up 2-3 transports within range of India, and it will be sure to fall on turn 2, before any builds can be placed. (The only way to defend it is to start marching Russian inf into Persia on turn 1, but then you need to be able to take this from the front vs. the Germans…) Of course, this move will mean China will be much stronger and harder to destroy in the long-run. So, Japan will have to choose if India or China is the first land target and already on turn 1 apply this strategy.

The other IC placement we will see I think is South Africa. It’s far off enough that it can’t be taken quickly, and those two units per turn could be crucial in the battle against the Italians (as well as the Japanese). Australia is really risky and I think only is a worthwhile buy after the US have already put the Japs on the defensive.

Again, thanks, Krieghund!

/Rakeman & Black Elk

So do you think winning with control of Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong-Kong, Manila, Calcutta, Honolulu and Sydney is a cheap win? Do you think that taking Moscow should still be a must? If so you would really not need VCs at all and choose to play with a minor victory condition of control of one enemy capital. But this would again streamline the game towards a Japanese anti-Soviet strategy. I don’t see what you’re getting at.

/Functioneta

But there’s no NEED to attack America. Take Hawaii, India and Australia and then aid Germany to take Leningrad and Stalingrad and then you WIN. After taking the Pacific VCs, Japan’s first target should be Caucasus, and not Siberia or Alaska or South Africa or some other remote part of the world. The VC system ensures you will be rewarded for reasonable play.

Edit: IL, bluestroke seems to be on your line as well, considering his player aid map. Well, at least it doesn’t change our strategy discussion in a wider sense. What do you think of taking Burma on turn 1, as per my idea above?

/Rakeman

You raise some valid points, that I’m sure the designers of this game were aware of. The question is if they fixed the problem.

The 13 VC play will be the standard one, and short of Moscow you then need all those Pacific VCs plus Leningrad & Stalingrad. I do think those two are much easier to take than Moscow, they are both accessible by sea invasions and at least for Stalingrad this is a real drawback since the Italians can invade with ample shore bombardment.

The question is time. I don’t think a Japanese invasion of California is what we should be discussing, and if so the game is a bit strange. The question is:

*) Given a KG/IF strategy by the US and the UK, will they be able to grab and hold France or Italy before the fall of those 13 VCs?

I’m pretty sure all those Pacific VCs will fall, so it would be a matter of the Germans being able to take Karelia and Caucasus and hold on to France and Italy. If the game is well tested and balanced, good German & Italians players will be able to do this against a KG/IF strategy, and so some Pacific offensive action by the UK and US will be forced to happen to at least contain the Japs. That’s the crux.