Posts made by Lynxes

Hear, hear! I like idea of China unit bids. It would have several ripple effects I think:

*Russians wouldn’t need to send units to China, and can rather send these to India. Maybe even an India IC could be viable in some games: going heavy into India might just be worth it if China will hold its own and Japan would run out of units.
*Japan’s economic advantage would decrease, for example building transports rather than an IC first turn might be necessary to get units into China and to assault India at the same time, delaying the JTDTM even if Japan plans to bypass/contain China.
*Strategically, putting early pressure on Japs by USA could be more effective since Japan would be more tied up with land units builds and be less likely to have IPCs left to buy air and sea units.

This can also be used in any combination with optionals and tech, as I realize these two are not in flavour of everyone. Free Allied bids would almost certainly end up in KAR or EGY, making Germany weaker and probably making KGF a more attractive strategy.

DM, don’t really agree ignoring China would work. If the fighter survives, the Chinese could get troublesome since 6-8 inf attacking with a fighter is a handful and Japan doesn’t want to lose their home NO. I think Japan will in any case be forced to attack China full force, at least initially in order to push them from border territories threatening MAN and KIA.

One problem though is if we arrive at an Allied advantage, for example in '42 or '41 without NOs. Bid Italian units perhaps? Being from Sweden where we practise social welfare I propose we could call this giving the weakest citizen a social benefit…  :wink:

Subotai, I agree in what you say with regards to major rule changes, China becoming a new power etc. But what do you think of bidding to lower NOs? What about the optional rules?

The poll is still lead by bids. We have a tech tourney coming up and I think we should also try to persuade people to start with an “optional rule tourney”. We can then compare these three tourneys, pick some typical games with regards to strategy and dice and then perhaps we could get to the gist of things. Telamon, tech and optionals are the only “official” changes that might get to the question of balance… Bids don’t bother me really, I’ve played a lot with those in AAR, but I still think they make the game more predictable, especially unit bids. Of course people will be bidding inf in Egypt and it will boil down to if one or two inf is the correct bid. YAWN  :-P

The point right now about building in the Pacific is not to grab IPC-rich island but to:

A) Protect your Pacific NO
B) Meet the Japanese before they get to invade the North American continent with impunity (it’s actually quite hard to defend against a US counterattack from the West coast since CVs can strike at Sea of Japan OR your Alaskan invasion fleet)
C) Keep Jap air and naval units off Africa and mainland Asia, facing you.

Only if Japs fail to do C) you might be able to sneak in and grab say Borneo. I agree it would be nice to have a more game-deciding Pacific theater but short of a redesign of the entire game playing for 12 VCs seem to be the best way. Pacific has no capitals to capture (realistically), that’s what this game is about and you need a VC win to fight for if the Pacific should be as important as Europe.

Bugoo, DarthMaximus and Soul beat you to it and have just started games as Axis against them! Your next in line when I’m obliterated by them…  :wink:

What about a 12 VC game without NOs? A victory would represent a tactical victory for the Axis rather than a total war victory, but I think it could be good for the game and much more balanced and closer to the war as it was. Allies would be forced to defend India or Hawaii heavy early on, or else Leningrad+all Pacific VCs means Axis wins. The Allied economic advantage would kick in if the Allies make it the first three rounds, turning the tide of the game. I think the game would be very tense and exciting from the start, and we would avoid transportation stages of the game, just moving units forward.

We could think of Churchill and Roosevelt as the players rather than the countries UK & USA, and if either of them lost India or Hawaii, I’m sure they could have been evicted from office…  :wink:

Well, having started this thread I shouldn’t be afraid to jump in. I’ll play Axis against you, Bugoo, or anyone still claiming Allies are a par with Axis in a '41, NOs, no tech game.

I just thought of a completely other idea for balance: playing to 12 VCs. I know most people like to play until the “natural” victory occurs, which for Axis tends to be Moscow and for Allies Rome or a French IC. But the problem is that this almost always leads to JTDTM games (this basic pattern doesn’t change even if we now spend some in the Pacific as USA and a pure KGF isn’t viable). A 12 VC game would be able to force the Allies to go Pacific offensively, not to defeat Japan outright but to hinder a victory for the Axis, and it should be ideally balanced for playing without NOs. Is it a good or horrible idea?  :?

PS. Remember Victory determination is only after the US turn, so even if the Allies start with 12 VCs the Japanese would need to fail to capture BOTH Manila and Hong-kong for a turn 1 Allied victory to occur… DS.

Right now the leading answers to the poll is 42% bids, 23% NO tweaks, 19% China Mod. I like axis_roll’s idea of tweaking NOs but also the flexibility of bids, in that you could have a change from game to game following how strategies change. Tech & opt rules change the game in many ways, but don’t strike as directly at balance as the other concepts (except Dardanelles-rule). Maybe bidding could be linked to NOs in some ways? My idea in my post earlier to bid for number of territory changes could be seen as too complex. What if bids are still in IPCs but go towards reducing NO-bonuses for the other side? An Allied bid of 6 IPCs would then mean that you could reduce 6 Axis NOs to 4 IPCs each. My 0.02$!  :-)

/axis roll

I took the easy way and just listed the alternatives. How did you change NOs in your group? We can set-up a larger poll if people want after this one.

Another possibility for bidding would be to say: we bid number of territory changes to NOs. So if Allies win the bid with 2 territories, they might choose to make the third German NO need both KAR and CAU and then make the UK home NO count with 5 of 6 territories (i.e. Egypt can be lost and still get it).

Fantastic article, Kavik Kang!  :-D  Really nice to see a level of analysis that means something for the game. If we look at the ships actually built during the war, we see destroyers and submarines being extremely dominant, so AA50 really corresponds to reality.

I myself have lamented the sub block rule, my idea was just to drop the DDs block sub move rule altogether. Your idea is more elegant, albeit slightly more complex. Something for the FAQ? I think most players would love Germany being a sub user, it would add another dimension to the game and make it much more difficult for the Allies to calculate the defence of an invasion navy.

PS. Beerbelly, subs cost 3 IPCs per attack point and 6 IPCs per hit point, superior to any naval or air unit. Those cheap hit points mean subs are good to buy even on defence. DS.

It’s early to see what people want to do, but bids seem to be the most popular choice so far. Cash-only bids are better than unit bids I would say but it doesn’t add much historical flair or any more game-play value.

The optional rules are historically grounded and makes good sense I think. They also have the advantage that they can be used with tech to balance Heavy bombers (interceptors). Tech is unlikely to be a dominant playing-style online since most people want less random play it seems. So on that note I favour opt rules and they also seem to be Larry Harris’ choice in that he added them on his site. Yes, even less house-ruly than bids, which, after all, are NOT mentioned in the rules at all…  :wink:

We have a balance poll and we seem to have a growing discussion on how to tweak balance, but how, if we agree on what it is, should it be adressed. The options:

1. Bids, simple and can be adjusted in detail, but takes away the beauty of a fixed set-up and can turn the game into a more predictable affair. For example, everyone might come to a consensus an infantry in Egypt and an artillery in Karelia is what is needed to balance the game and then some German openings become impossible, removing choices.

2. Tech, as I’ve argued, should give the Allies more of a chance due to the fact that they’re less pressed for constant land unit buys and also have more air and naval units on the map to use techs. Of course, tech is more random and not appreciated by all due to that fact.

3. Opt rules, should overall be negative to Axis since shielding Caucasus is really good for Russia. Interceptors goes both ways since a lot of players bomb Russia in AA50, Germany is no longer the only obvious SBR target in the game. Overall Allied-biased, but some think these rules eliminates some interesting strats from the game.

4. China mod, from the making of China into a full power with IC and IPCs to just giving them the -42 setup or boosting their production or moving that fighter, a lot of people are thinking this is what to do to add balance in mainland Asia where Japan now reigns supreme. Sceptics, on the other hand, claim that the problem is Japan’s production and not China’s, and making China a full power might just give Japan an IC to grab.

5. Tweak NOs, these are simple to change, and seems to be the main reason Axis has an advantage. Ideas might be to demand two of Karelia+Caucasus and Hawaii+India+Australia for the third NO, or change conditions to at-start NOs such as Japan’s home NO being void if Japanese units enter Soviet territory, or giving UK its at-start NO with 4 out of 6 of Wca, Eca, Gib, Egy, Saf and Aus instead of all. Allows for even more precise adjustments than bids, but getting people to agree could be troublesome!

Germany has indeed money for techs (all countries saving Italy and Sparrings of the Far East have enough). Air/naval tech is not so bad for germans (roll 1 tech team round one and even supersubs and improved shipyards can be used), and anyway 4 usable of 6 means some people will still try it for HBs. Also Germans could simply ignore HBs tech and buy normal bombers for SBR London and soviet ICs

As for USA, it’s not them who japs will bomb, it’s soviets as I said, and soviets will have 15-20 less IPCs to spend in repairings and units than germans. Also, nothing prevents a japanese bomber SBR cau, landing at ger and then start merry SBRs on London also  wink In fact, Japan, being the richer country of the game (15+ economic advantage over the richer allied nation), can invest both in tech and bombers

Ok, let’s list what techs each power can use, I list each power if the investment is worth it:

Improved arty: Ger, Sov
Rockets: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita
Paratroopers: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
Increased fact: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK
War bonds: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Mech inf: Ger, Sov, Jap

Super subs: Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Jet fighters: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
Improved shipyards: Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Radar: Ger, Sov, Ita
LRA: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
H Bombers: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita, USA

Germany has 6/6 on land table and 4/6 on air/naval, and shouldn’t choose air/naval in most cases. All in all, Allies have a much higher chance of getting Heavy Bombers and turning the tide of the game with them. Even if Allies miss H Bombers they will get good enough techs to make the tech IPCs worth it, but Germany can’t put IPCs into Air/naval table without a high risk of wasting valuable IPCs. With UK and US going for air/naval table and Japan going for it as well, you still have a 50-100% higher chance for Allies, enough to say tech favours allies.

Sure? Moscow seems a good target for jap HBs or even normal jap bombers. Even London can be a good target against german or even jap HBs

Well, Allies has three bombers at-start, Axis one. USA is the only power (maybe UK if they don’t build an IC) that doesn’t have a land front they must supply with units, so they are the one power which can put most money into research. Germany won’t choose air/naval table. Basically Japan is the only axis power likely to get Heavy bombers, but their main opponent USA is hard to bomb with SBR unlike Germany which has a nice air base in Britain next door. I’ve played with tech only a few games, but Heavy bombers led to Germany falling before Japan had time to get to Moscow in one game I remember.

We shouldn’t forget the alternatives to bids:

1. Play without NOs, better for Allies. In this case I think you need to play with interceptors opt rule to give Axis a chance.
2. Play with tech, usually favours Allies due to Heavy bombers.
3. Play with Dardanelles rule, shields Caucasus from Italian invasions.

Personally I think all of the above would be more fun than bids, which are a bit “gamey”.

30 units turn 4 seems to be over the top, but yes, Japan can do something like you’re saying and it’s something of a standard opening to the game. But if we look at it from new things in AA50 you must take into account:

1. Russia builds for 30 IPCs for several rounds and rarely falls below 25 the first five turns. That means they are much stronger than in any earlier A&A edition.
2. Getting Africa is not very difficult for the Allies, Italy is slow to build up and by turn 3 or 4 at the latest the Italian fleet should be sunk. You shouldn’t be caught out with all three Axis powers against Caucasus as a competent Allied player, by the time Japan is in striking distance Italy shouldn’t be. And from Africa you can threaten India.
3. USA has a much stronger position in the Pacific than in AAR (see my “Those pacific builds…” thread). 4-6 fighters against Caucasus is something you can avoid if you force Japan to park fighters on carriers. If Japan ignores you, grab Phillippines, Borneo and East Indies and the Allied IPCs will be skyrocketing.

All the same, the set-up might be too much for the Allies in the end, and some people think a bid is needed for them. India, Egypt and Yunnan are all crying out for some infantry if you allow bids. Maybe those tournaments will show more of how balanced the game is?

/Kavik Kang

Most players I’ve heard of are wary about building an IC in India in the '41 scenario. Japan can easily set-up an attack of 6-7 land units and 5 fighters on turn 2 before UK even gets to build in their IC. I’ve myself toyed with idea of deploying fighters or tanks from Russia but that’s very risky since Russia usually gets very involved with stopping Germany from holding one of its ICs. I’ve never heard of flying fighters via Australia to India, nice idea, but in many games India won’t be there to land in after Japan’s second turn!

Most players try to stop Japan on the mainland in Russia and in the Middle East, in the latter case with constant landings in Algeria and an IC in South Africa or Egypt, forming a chain of units that meet Japan around Persia. In that case keeping the Japanese navy on guard against USA is necessary, otherwise your Allied land offensive in Africa and Middle East will be blown away by superior Japanese air and navy. I suspect the same even if you do hold India early on, I can’t see how can you hold vs. all Japanese air force AND shore bombardment AND infantry and tanks from ICs and transports. Japan has to be split into two fronts just as Germany!

We’ve heard all about why National Objectives where added, it was to give the Pacific theater extra weight and force the Allies to pay attention to Japan rather than try to knock out Germany ASAP. And now we’re indeed seeing most players spending a significant portion of US money in the Pacific theater. So, at last we seem to have confirmed the success of the National objectives! Or have we?

Consider the following comparisons:

Distance from Manchuria or French Indo-China to Moscow in AAR/AA50:
Siberian route: 4/6
China route: 4/5
India route: 4/5

Number of at-start Japanese aircraft (AAR/AA50-41):
7/9

Typical surviving US Pacific navy after Japanese first turn:
Revised: 1 battleship, 1 transport
AA50-41: 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer

Compare this to the IPC ratio Japan vs. USA with NOs:
Revised at-start:
Japan 30, USA 42: ratio 1,4 in US favour.
'41 after one turn w. 2 Jap NOs, Burma and three Chinese territories:
Japan: 43, USA: 48+6 IPC worth of China inf: ratio 1,26 in US favour.
Revised after expansion to China, three Siberian terr., India, Australia:
Japan 42 IPCs, USA 38 IPCs, ratio 1,11 in Japanese favour
'41 after three turn expansion 3 NOs, India, six Chinese terr., three Siberian terr., Australia:
Japan 59 IPCs, USA 48 IPCs, ratio 1,23 in Japanese favour

So we see there’s a slightly better Japanese ratio of IPC expansion, and especially if they negate the US NO for Pacific islands which I haven’t factored in here. But in AAR, too, Japan became very strong economically by expanding unhindered. And in AA50 the first Japanese turn production at 17 IPCs is very weak, so USA has some head start the first turn to build a navy.

My impression is that the first three changes really makes the more difference to the game, in the following ways:
*The bigger Asian continent slows down the Japanese advance, giving more time for the Allies to improve their situation in Europe without immediate 100% US involvement. It also means keeping Japanese air force at sea on carriers really helps more now, since it’s more difficult to switch forces. For example a Japanese fighter on a carrier off the Carolines can’t even attack Mosow the turn AFTER it’s redeployed towards the mainland, unlike in AAR.
*The larger number of Japanese aircraft, together with the cheaper bombers, makes Japanese air a very decisive factor in the game. If all at-start fighters are deployed on the mainland, it’s a whopping attack force with 27 in attacking value.
*The surviving carrier means USA can quickly get a Pacific fleet together that can both survive attack and keep significant Japanese forces on guard against it. This avoids the difficulty of building a fleet from scratch which you often were forced to do in AAR, you can build a fleet a little at a time by adding to a core of your carrier and then you don’t need to sacrifice your whole production but can still build bombers, transports and invasion forces against Germany. In AAR, you often had to choose either/or between Europe and Pacific and of course most chose Europe since it’s there you’ll win the final victory in most games.

/Funcioneta

Well, it’s a nice mod but you need a new set of units to play it. Also Japan will be severely boosted if they get China and we really should be careful about boosting that evil imperial economy more than it already is.

Even my idea is to good for Japan, a free IC if captured. Maybe you could have a partisan rule so that Japan gets NO IPCS WHATSOEVER from any China territory (and no builds in ICs allowed). Manchuria would be considered a Jap territory but just as Kwangtung belong to China’s sphere of interest. With this rule you could have a 3 or even 4 IPC capital area for China without adverse effects for game balance.

(Realizing the possibility that the thread will be exported to house rules, maybe we should get back to how the 1942 edition will look… )  :wink:

/Craig Yope

Of course you would adjust the number and placement of VCs. If we start from the AA50 set of VCs, Ottawa, Warsaw, Leningrad, Hong-Kong, Sydney would have to go. Capital would be exceptions to the 5 IPC bonus since you get that instant bonus anyway if you capture them. The at-start bonuses would be: Germany 5 (Paris), Russia 5 (Stalingrad), Japan 10 (Shanghai, Manila), UK 5 (Calcutta), USA 10 (Hawaii, San Fransisco), equalling the NO bonuses in AA50 except Germany but they would still be up to 47 IPCs with Italian territories and almost equal to USA at 48 IPCs. Leningrad as a 2 IPC IC but not a VC is fairly balanced and gives an area to fight for in Eastern Europe.

/Funcioneta

With the slowing down of the JTDTM I refer mainly to the geographic changes, that makes marching ground units over Asia cumbersome (appropriately). Also only one 3 IPC territory to place an IC in instead of three as before. China can sometimes be kept alive a few turns, but I agree the Chinese production is insignificant in most games.

With the change I propose you would have one Capital territory at 2 IPCs away from the front, a China income of around 8-9 IPCs so you could build one infantry and one artillery or tank per turn. The low IPC value of the capital territory is because the Japs shouldn’t get too much of an advantage by grabbing it. Giving the Chinese a fair amount of infantry at the set-up and availability of reinforcements from Russia and USA could make this type of Chinese minor power a viable thing. For example, if you by sending some Russian inf shielded the Chinese from Jap attacks you could transfer american air to China and really boost them.

The problem with minor powers and splitting income is which power gets extra areas and to what bag of income that adds. Maybe Africa to Italy and the rest to Germany, and for China only home areas? A simpler rule would be to keep all income together, but then you would probably have to still have some popping China infantry rule and Rome would be a non-capital VC with maybe 4 IPC map income.

If we think more on the lines that someone serious about game design will be involved in the development of the game, and that they think on the lines of a shorter but still well balanced game, let’s see how they can replace some of the complicated but good changes in AA50:

NOs, advantage: makes for a more historical game with a stronger Pacific theater, disadvantage: high learning curve, complicates and prolongs the game. Alternate way of doing the same thing: simply make each VC count for 5 IPCs of income, gets the same effect and this change can be balanced by adjustment to the IPC value of territories.

Italy, adv.: more fun Mediterranean campaign, disadv.: a power no-one wants to play, problems balance-wise (Caucasus invasions). Alternative: make Italy into a minor power, controlled by Germany but with money separate, close the Dardanelles.

China, adv.: more historical Pacific campaign, slows down JTDTM, disadv.: a whole page of extra rules, still of marginal effect. Alternative: make China into a minor power, controlled by USA but with separate IPCs and an IC.