Posts made by Lynxes

/Twigley

Interesting points. What do you think of a 12 VC victory condition? That would mean Allies would suffer a political defeat if the Japs take all of Pacific plus Germany holding Leningrad, going well with your analysis of Japan’s limited war aims.

On the other hand, maybe a total Japan/Soviet Union anti-aggression pact would be necessary to effect the changes you’re talking about. Say, Japan can only attack Russia once India, Australia and Hawaii are controlled, and Russia can only attack Japan once Berlin or Rome has been taken. But I doubt if Larry would like to introduce such political rules, it would go pretty much against all of A&A history?

/bugoo

Another idea I’ve been thinking about but not having the time to try it out in actual play, is to have a 12 VC victory condition. In a typical AA50 KGF-playout, Japan will grab IND, HAW and AUS in 3 turns, max 4, and Germany will be able to hold at-start VCs and also KAR in that period of time. Only turns 4-6 will the real crunch happen in Europe. So if you go with 12 VCs, Allies won’t be able to ignore Japan if they don’t want to lose the game. Together with a small to medium bid to the Allies that might work quite well to create a more balanced game Europe/Pacific-wise, which I see as the goal of many of the changes of AA50.

/bugoo

What do you think of bidding for China inf or bidding for Allied units bordering Japanese at-start units, topics in the balance thread? Or do you think this will only make KGF an even more potent strategy?

I don’t think we have to be guided by Larry on this topic. Optional rules are his first choice to balance the game, it seems, probably due to the vulnerability of Caucasus and the power of SBR, yet people don’t seem to want to use the Optionals as a balancing device. We could opt to go for the spirit of AA50, which is to have a balanced Europe/Pacific boardgame, and then create a bid system that goes in that direction. Democratic, too…  :wink:

Maybe unlimited unit bids, but only on territories or in sea zones bordering those with Japanese units, call it the anti-Japan bidding system, A-JAP? Hot candidates: Yunnan, Burma, West Coast. China, only having infantry, could only get inf bids, but it wouldn’t be so tied up just to China and create more variety.

Actually, I started the thread because the number of Victory cities and the victory conditions as well as the IPC value of Pacific territories DID change from AAR to AA50, so I think maybe that will might be possible in AA42 as well. There might not be as many VCs as in AA50, but if Warsaw, Hongkong, Ottawa and Sydney don’t make it into the game that’s not much of a problem. Honolulu and Stalingrad are essential, though, as well as a VC condition where both Leningrad and Stalingrad doesn’t have to be included, since that usually is the same as Moscow.

I get your idea, Imperious leader, and maybe you could have a combination of IPCs and VCs? Something like the A&A 2nd ed IPC increase condition together with a VC condition for your side. Then you do win together but one power can win more than the other, so to speak, creating some interesting tension if you have a multiplayer game.

/Imperious leader

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?

The speculation about possible scenarios in the actual war need to be tempered by the fact that the Allied condition of “unconditional surrender” could have been forgone by the Russians if they got pressured enough. I’m sure Stalin would have agreed to a peace if Moscow was taken and Caucasus oil wells cut off. And Hitler didn’t have the idea of conquering all of Russia, the goal was Arkhangelsk to the Volga. The war could have temporarily ended there, to be sure only to be taken up again when France would revolt and Russia been bolstered for a new war, but Axis being able to win a peace isn’t a fantasy scenario. Had the Germans armed for a three year campaign in Russia with cautious advances and a strategy of not alienating the Soviet satellites they invaded and instead got Estonian, Ukrainian etc troops to support them, they could have won. Soviet manpower reserves were not endless and were getting exhausted towards the end of the war, and Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until 1944.

If China gets say 4 inf placed in Yunnan, Japan will have a choice between committing all they got against that space (3 inf, 4 fig) or else go for Burma and bypass Yunnan. Most likely they will lose some fighters in Yunnan, and UK can reinforce India with 2 inf from transjordan. In that scenario, throwing a lot into India, Russian inf and arm, UK and US fighters transferred via Russia and Australia, could be a viable strat together with an IC. On the other hand, if Japan forgo Yunnan, Allies can go heavy into Africa, aiming for 2 ICs in Saf and Egy and stopping the Japanese later around Persia. Russian reinforcements will then go into China which will become a tough nut to crack for the Japs. We should see if considerations like these would change the game before just saying, well, this favours KGF even more!

DM, your math is off. With a Egypt attack with the bomber, you have the following percentages for surviving attackers:

zip 25%
at least 1 bomber 75%
at least 1 arm, 1 bomber 60%
at least 2 arm, 1 bomber 40%

Some players might actually sacrifice the bomber to take EGY, but that’s debatable. The sz2 attack is a bit flaky, but not as important as EGY. If you attack sz12 to safe against a survival of the fighter in Egypt, you would in most cases retreat after 1 round, you don’t want both fighters to be downed.

I largely agree with this.  I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings.  Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly.  Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific).  You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.

But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…

The actual involvement you want to have with the US in Europe depends on how you play UK. If you buy a Saf IC, for example, you might need to use US bombers+1CV+2DDs or something like that to sink Italy navy while UK navy is tied up around Karelia. Or if you don’t build a Saf IC, early invasions into Algeria with tanks + sinking of Italian navy is paramount. What you describe sounds like a too weak US Europe involvement, unless Germany got really unlucky on G1.

But back to the main question: what kind of bid? How would China inf bids change the game? Guessing, without having tried it, I would think the other Allies would be tempted to play more offensively vs. Japan, esp. Russia on the mainland and USA off West coast, so that Japan won’t just be able to build up for the kill vs. China at leisure. UK has a hard time reaching Japan, probably having to go the long way through Africa. Or maybe an India IC would be worth the commitment? Maybe we’re reaching the point where we need to test it out… Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!

Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.

That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!

Axis should have around 60-70% chance of victory with NOs if they play the following moves:

Germany: G1: Attack egypt with all land+bomber, sea zone 2 with 2 subs+fighter, take baltics with enough to hold off russian counterattack, take Karelia on turn 2 or 3. Build France IC on turn 2, build inf+arm only, don’t bother with air, continue sending troops east while also protect France from any invasion w. heavy inf defences.
Japan: J1: Attack Yunnan, clear fighter, invade Burma with 1inf+1art, take India on turn 2. Build 2-3 ICs in the Southeast Asia region, pump out Armor and go for Caucasus. Build bombers to use against Russia and some DDs+subs if USA threatens your back door.

How do you come to that conclusion? Remember that NOs are optional, and yes NOs are what we’re discussing, but even with NOs KGIF is still more effective than KJF. In the real WW2 KGF was more effective than KJF.

For me KGF in A&A terms means all US and UK IPCs vs. Europe. In real terms in the war, the “Europe first” strategy still involved substantial construction and involvement in the Pacific war. My impression is that the best Allied strategy for AA50 involves at least some naval builds off the West coast, in order to prevent any “Polar express” attempts or the elimination of the US Pacific fleet altogether. A pure KGF AAR-style doesn’t seem to be as effective, and that’s thanks to NOs since Japan becomes too strong if they don’t have any opposition on the Pacific part of the board. KJF is a weird strategy if it involves invading Japan, I’ve never seen an invasion of Japan in all my games of Axis & Allies…  :wink:  All US builds vs. Japan I don’t believe in either, there must be some extra land units vs. Europe at least, and maybe help in killing the Italian fleet, UK & Russia can’t handle a well played European Axis alone.

PS. In the real war, sending forces against the Japs was more of a political consideration, not to prolong the Pacific war too much due to home morale, stand-up to Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor, etc. You can simulate this with individual victory conditions, but I think Japan getting too big if ignored is an OK game simulation since A&A always seems to boil down to world domination, that’s what people want it seems. DS.

That doesn’t promote the Pacific theatre at all.  Allies play KGF, Europe falls, Russia holds, Japan is toast and the concedes.

Well, if AA42 is like AA50 in rough terms Germany should be able to hold off the Allies for something the three turns Japan needs to gobble up India, Aus and Hawaii. Then Allies would be forced to defend those places and we would have a more balanced game. A problem with VCs though is that people don’t seem to like a victory being made by counting VCs, the A&A tradition is to grab capitals and then the IPC-change idea is better suited.

I think Africa can be merged into 4 territories (Sudan-East Africa, French West Africa and Congo/Rhodesia, South Africa) below Egypt and Madagascar made into a 0 IPC island like Greenland. That’s 4 IPCs to put in Pacific theatre (1 for India, 1 for Burma, 1 for Australia, 1 for Solomons). Mexico at 1, Panama at 1, Central US at 5 and Brazil at 2 is 4 more (2 at Hawaii, 1 each Midway and Wake). 8 IPCs should be enough for a major effect on the game.

Then you want to change the game itself, not the side balance.

AA50 is the way it is designed. AA50 is supposed to have Europe balanced and Asia unbalanced, if that is your perception of AA50. What you’re really saying is that you don’t like the game, or only a part of it.

Also, AA50 is designed so that w/o NOs KGF is more efficent than KJF. If you don’t like it this way, you want another game, or an AA50 mode, like China mod. Then play the China mod if you don’t like AA50.

Subotai, I think you are in the wrong here. NOs were added in order to give Axis more of fighting chance (and of course the bidding for Axis in Revised contributed to this decision), and give the Pacific more of a role in the game. And it has succeeded, but not as good as it could have. Going for China inf bids is MORE in the line of how AA50 is designed, not less. Unlimited unit bids will be EGY inf bids and KAR art bids and Germany will be weaker -> back to AAR strategies. Do you want to turn AA50 into AAR?  :?

/Telamon

I agree totally with you, I prefer ICs in FIC, BUR and IND, and once you get started Russia is in trouble. Why don’t you jump in on the bids thread (‘part 2’)? Bids of China inf are right now in lead for what kind of bid people prefer, and I’ve been arguing for that myself. If China gets say 4 extra inf at the front, Japan will be more stretched and it will be easier for Russia to help out both China and India. However, you could argue that UK inf in India would be even better, but that might be harder, to limit bids to just one territory is a bit difficult (free bids will probably be EGY-bound). Also those China rules are a big part of the rulebook and I think people are intrigued by the idea of them getting in use more. Since AA50 did many things to avoid the KGF as the single game-winning strat, a bid system going further in that direction is logical.

And it’s not sure that if India and Hawaii and Australia was lost to the Japs that FDR and Churchill would resign, or be dismissed from office, not if they started full war production and said to the people that “we are still strong” “we will take back any acre that was stolen”.
That is what happened when Japan captured Phillipines.
I strongly disagree that the A&A global war games can be decided by losing/winning theaters instead of world domination.
Most industrial production at the timeline of WW1-WW2 was in Europe, from Moscow in the East, to Spain/France in the west, and Italy in the south, not forgetting England. US had higher production than any other single nation, but the US was not threatened by other nations, as in Europe, no power could invade US.

Well, political considerations were also factored in for both UK and USA. If Hawaii would have been lost, actually retaking it and forcing the Japanese back would have made Operation Overlord look like a logistical beginners operation. UK still wanted to keep its commonwealth together, and abandoning India and Australia probably would make Canada and South Africa less than enthusiastic about helping Britain. Simulating this is what they tried to do in AA50 with the NOs.

For a truly historical game, Japan would have such a weak economy that only a tactical victory would ever have been possible for them, but A&A is not the game for that scenario!

Why cant the axis catch up the way they have always done? Take pacific IPC and africa IPC to reduce UK and USA income? I also dont understand how a game without NO is suddenly “inferior”

'41 scenario starts before any of the old games and due to that the Axis are at a disadvantage. Germany gets stopped quite quickly and runs out of infantry. Without NOs they will probably not be able to mount any serious offensive vs. the Soviets if you play the russkies well. Of course you can bid to get extra units as Germany but the problem is better taken care with NOs where Germany actually gets IPCs enough to both hold off UK invasions and go to the offensive against Russia. The game usually turns around if US forces arrive strong enough to start to tip the balance (alternatively if USA attacks Japan so strongly that the Soviets can focus all resources vs. Germany). That’s my experience anyways, but maybe you have some other secret strategy that work in different ways?

The only problem with NOs is that they are somewhat too good for Japan especially and that’s why we have the balance discussion. NOs as a whole really improves the game and almost nobody plays without them.

I’ve been intrigued by a shorter and quicker A&A game with AA50 rules and quality, but one question is without answer so far. I guess everybody (or almost everybody) can agree that AAR main problem was the lack of a meaningful Pacific theater. Assuming NOs are too complex for a game of AA42’s scope, how will Larry & co. promote a Pacific theater in AA42?

1. A victory condition stipulating that Axis wins if they control all at-start European and Pacific VC plus Leningrad, Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu.
2. A changed IPC allocation: take IPCs from Africa in UK’s case and Latin America in America’s and put them in the Pacific. For example: India & Australia at ‘4’, Burma at ‘3’, Phillippines at ‘4’, Hawaii at ‘3’ and Wake+Midway+Solomons at ‘1’ each should really change things. Africa could have fewer territories and Mexico, Panama and Brazil be reduced in value.

IPCs in case 2) here would represent morale & political factors rather than raw materials etc, but that’s OK for me. I’m sure the British and American war effort would have been less effective if Australian, Indian and Hawaiian citizens would have been hauled into Japanese POW camps while Churchill and Roosevelt did nothing… Basically 2) does the same thing as NOs with less complexity, which should be what AA42 needs.

If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.

NO tech
NO objectives
NO bids

See how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.

Squirecam, I think people don’t play without NOs because it’s a cakewalk for the Allies. I mean, you have that weak Japan build and strong UK & Russian builds round 1 but then ALSO the fact that Axis won’t be catching up economically later in the game. NOs also promotes Pacific action, so it corrects many of the problems of AAR. Why should people want to play an inferior set of rules?

Great to see we have a debate catching up already!  :wink:

OK, bids won the last poll on balance. It’s democratic in that people can play with or without tech and optionals for different tourneys and games and still agree on bids. Also, it allows us to pinpoint empirically what the balance actually is, so flexible as well.

But how do people think bids should be constructed? All of the above should be self-explanatory, except maybe the concept of a bid to lower NOs (unit bids are as in AAR, you only bid to units in territories where you already have units at-start). The idea for NO bids is that for each IPC bid to one side, one of the NOs of the other side are lowered in value of 1 IPC, starting from the first NO collected. So if you bid 3 IPCs for Allies, two German and one Japanese NO (if those are the first three in the round) will be worth 4 IPCs instead of 5. So much for explanation, now debate!  :-D

PS. Voting is open in this poll, so you can change your vote if you want to. DS.