Posts made by The Janus

Back in the day, I had been reading up on all sorts of A&A stuff: some of the “limited” scenarios (where not all nations were used/played) on thrasher’s A&A site, as well as World at War and its use of an “impulse” turn for the Axis.

I kind of wanted to combine some of those ideas, with a setting earlier than Classic’s “Spring 1942” which Larry Harris described (in a video during the credits of Iron Blitz) as the “high-water mark of the Axis expansion.” My knowledge of WWII kind of suggested that the highest mark prior to that, would be 1941 – specifically when most of France’s colonies were still collaborationist, or had not yet been captured by the British, and when Italy still controlled east Africa.

I can recall sharing this with a friend back in 2007, so this sort of comes after the original Europe and Pacific games, but prior to Global. As you might guess, this kind of shared the mindset that would go on to create that game. Essentially, the game is broken into 3 theatres – one Axis power for each. If that Axis power is either defeated, or achieves their objectives, then their theatre merges with at least one other. (i.e. Italy must be defeated in Africa before the western Allies can start to attack Germany)

For simplicity, I kept the starting unit setup the same, with units changing nationality if their territory also changed. For balance, the Axis were given some early bonuses, and (also for historical reasoning) the USA and USSR both had restrictions in the first round. I also included some further clarification to the 2nd Edition rules, as well as some changes (such as adding some complexes, but all complexes being limited in the number of units they can produce.)

Anyways, I have most of the documentation saved, it probably just needs some updated formatting; I wanted to post here first, so as to gauge interest and see if I should go through with the process of cleaning up what I have.

Thanks for reading :) hopefully there are some enthusiastic responses!

Not location-specific, but I’m just hoping to get in touch with anyone who owns or has play-experience with this game. I own a copy myself, and am just looking for anyone knowledgeable, who would like to discuss strategies for the game – and possibly play in some electronic format or another. :)

The official site has long since gone offline, but a bit of info still exists here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

I’m not sure if it’s bad form to be posting in this thread after February ;) but anyway…

My name is Janus (also known on other parts of the internet as P.d0t)
I got into A&A with the MB version, back in about 1997 or so(?)
However, the biggest chunk of my A&A play experience is/was with the Imp Games expansion “East & West”: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

That company seems to have gone defunct (and their forums went down long before that) so I joined the A&A .org forums a while ago – somewhat passively – but have been following the site’s news via Facebook. When the announcement for A&A Online came through on that channel, it rekindled my interest in E&W. As such, I’ve been trying to track down anyone who owns the game or has played it, and have been working on honing strategies for the USSR.

One such strategy can be found here on the forums, which I ran just as a playtest against myself:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19172/east-west-by-imp-games-soviet-strategy-playtest

If you’re a fan of E&W, please get ahold of me here on the forums/PMs; it would be much appreciated :)

Imp Games’ East & West technically came out in 2001, but is closer mechanically to MB A&A, than it is to the A&A:Europe or A&A:Pacific games that came out around the same time (or anything since.) AFAICT the map specifically is derivative of Xeno Game’s World at War.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

NATO Counter-offensive

So what would be the strategy for NATO, in the scenario of southeast Asia falling to the USSR?

Well, one method I have found successful in the past is for the UK to move their transports from around India all the way up to Western Canada. With the factory in Ontario, you can be consistently producing 4 infantry to send over to Kamchatka; essentially UK forces in the Siberian theatre just serve to absorb hits from Soviet counter-attacks, meaning the main NATO attack (US forces) remains strong and intact, and can continue to push.

Generally the US needs to hold all the territory in the area (North Korea, South Korea, Kamchatka, East Siberia) in order to have the income to sustain this land-grab; if they gain the Heavy Armor tech, it makes this easier – by building heavy tanks from the factory in East Siberia; their extra movement lets you do a “2 steps forward, 1 step back” move from a fortified position in East Siberia, into the territories bordering West Siberia. The UK can potentially snipe a few territories in this same manner, but the US really needs that extra income more; generally the Heavy Armor tech helps the UK more by allowing them to do “2 steps forward, 1 step back” from a factory built in India, through Pakistan, and into Turkmenistan.

The other place that NATO should look for openings is Turkey or Greece. Typically the US naval units from the Mediterranean will move to the Atlantic, but the WE and UK ships may stick around, if they aren’t destroyed by the Soviets. The US would have to extend themselves pretty far in order to be of any help in this theatre, so it’s best left to the WE and UK allies – assuming that US forces alone are strong enough to hold France, and that using NATO forces in the Mediterranean doesn’t compromise Italy in the process.

Soviet strategy

I think the biggest threat that this Soviet strategy presents, is that it forces NATO to choose between defending India, and attacking Siberia – and may still cause them to lose on both fronts. The presence of Soviet air power in China means that the US cannot leave their transports in the Pacific undefended, forcing the US fleet to make some hard choices:
1. sit off the coast of East Siberia, and watch the rest of Asia fall;
2. split, trying to defend the sea zone around Indochina as well as either the sea zone around Japan or off East Siberia, while trying to move infantry to both theatres every round, or;
3. try to keep all your transports covered, while moving infantry from the Philippines to Indochina every round, and from Japan to Indochina every other round.

Now, if China stops giving aid to the USSR, then this strategy is completely shut down. However, I would argue that this is the always case in this game, regardless of the particular strategy used – and in particular, when the US is prepared to attack heavily into Asia. In this game, the result of the nuclear attack was a Global Outrage, which helped cement China’s alliance with the Soviets; it should be noted that “Chinese Outrage” is also statistically more likely than outraging either of the other 2 neutral alliances, so all in all, the Soviets really need only to fear NATO spies swaying China away – until the Soviets start slinging nukes of their own.  :wink:

In terms of technology, the most pivotal advancement for the USSR is to get ballistic missiles. Fusion weapons are nice to have, but not entirely necessary. With the placement of Soviet factories and AA guns as they are, ballistic missiles can easily threaten any place where NATO would be expected to mass their navies – effectively shutting down the shuck-shuck almost permanently, via nuclear deterrence. By contrast, amassing snorkel submarines is too costly, and self-propelled artillery (to win the land war) can take a long time to acquire – and anti-tank guns can prove devastating against them. Long-range aircraft can help expand the umbrella of a Soviet nuclear threat, but generally games will be over before helicopters come into play; they can be helpful for quickly spreading into an undefended Africa, if you for some reason don’t go the tried-and-tested route of treading over the Arab League, to get there.

I was thinking about E&W again recently, so I decided to look over this playtest one more time.

I think clearly the tactic of not trying to heavily reinforce West Germany sealed the Soviets’ fate, but I noticed a few smaller moves that may have also changed the game:

1. Attacking the North Sea (S1):
I think this ultimately caused the problem of having the UK navy at Moscow’s doorstep. It’s always tempting to get those US transports out of the game (and slow down the shuck-shuck), and I don’t think the USSR can take on the British navy on S1 – but the better move is probably to strafe the North Sea with all your naval units (maybe with your bomber, maybe not) and retreat back to the Komi SZ, to defend against amphibious assaults. This also would likely tie up UK bombers in the counter-attack, meaning they could not be used to shuttle paratroopers to France or Norway. Overall I think this is a more sound tactic.

I think lending the Soviet bomber to the European theatre for round 1 worked out ok, since it really wouldn’t be needed until round 3 – when it can be be well within range of both India and Indochina.

If the Soviets aren’t having to defend Karelia/Komi, it frees up more infantry to shuttle towards West Germany. I don’t think it is valuable for the Soviets to conquer Norway, so long as they can keep NATO out, by distracting them elsewhere. If they let too many NATO reinforcements into the area, it becomes a distraction that forces the Soviets to spread too thin.

2. Recapturing South Korea (S2):
On S1, I think it is important to take out the US armor and fighter on South Korea (ideally with as few casualties as possible.) But while the little extra income is nice, I don’t think it is strategically important enough that the Soviets hold the territory in the long run; it only helps if/when the Chinese withdraw their troops from North Korea, because then you don’t have to worry about the US placing there and walking in, for free.

I think the push towards Indochina did a decent enough job of distracting US forces away from Kamchatka/East Siberia. This keeps the Soviets from losing income in that area, but also causes the US to divert their support towards India. Had the Soviets not attacked South Korea a second time, the 2 armor units used in that attack would have been in position to bolster a strafe of Indochina on S3 – with very good chances of wiping out the defenders completely, and only sacrificing a few Soviet infantry in the process.

This would effectively knock WE out of that theatre, stymie the US, and set up the USSR to push heavily into Indochina on S4, with an infantry stack rivalling the one in India (5 infantry in Inner Mongolia, 8 infantry in Sinkiang, at the end of round 2.) If the UK turtles in India, then the rest of the theatre falls like dominos to the Soviets; if they move their force from India into Burma to salvage the situation in Indochina, the Soviet infantry filtering through Sinkiang can potentially crush India itself.

Ultimately the goal of this strategy in Asia is to try and get exactly this result: to make the UK uncomfortable in the Indian theatre, expand the Soviet economy, and keep the US out of Siberia.

So for anyone who’s played E&W, what did you like about the game?

For me, what it comes down to is managing equipment. Like, it’s very much an IPM-style game, so keeping your tanks and aircraft safe while at the same time exerting force as effectively as possible, is the whole puzzle of E&W. The early attacks made by the Soviets are usually about reducing the number of front lines they have to fight on, but also destroying NATO’s equipment (particularly transports, but also armor and fighters.)

@Imperious:

Hey you. Miss all the Imp peeps. Seems we all drifted apart.

Imp forums are down! Did you notice that? I checked it a while back and it’s 404’d

But yeah, I’ve become more of a D&D geek than a boardgame geek in the interim.
The other thing is E&W has stagnated while the A&A brand has reinvented itself a few times since the early 2000s.

I kind of wonder what an updated E&W would look like? Like, with the naval rules where transports are hit last and just die automatically if unguarded, for example.

Hey, I’m in Calgary, but I haven’t played any A&A regularly in probably a decade.
PM me!

Well, it’s been over a year. I figured I might as well ask if anyone is still around?

A bit of thread necromancy here, but with regards to pieces, E&W is meant to be played with the supplied pieces + the set from the original (1984) Axis&Allies. However, you can pretty much play it perfectly with the pieces from A&A:Revised, although having a ton of extra mini poker chips helps.

I’m in the process of moving/finding a new place, so I can’t really commit to gaming right now.
Maybe once that gets all sorted out (hopefully by August) I can get back into the swing of things.

Games I own:
Original (1984)
Revised (2004)
50th Anniversary (2008, I think?)
D-Day
Battle of the Bulge
East & West (cold war expansion by www.ImpGames.com)

Anyone familiar with/wanting to play this game?
http://www.impgames.com/EWinfo.html

Haven’t been on this board in ages; mostly I’m playing Dungeons & Dragons (4th Edition) lately.

I haven’t kept up with A&A over the years, but every now and then I get the itch to try out a new strategy for East & West; that’s still a game that hasn’t really been “solved” but it also was a niche game with a small community, so I guess that’s why.

Are the more recent games particularly complicated? It seems like sub/cruiser/destroyer rules get completely rewritten with each new game…

Are there any gamers on this forum who play any sort of roleplaying games?
I’m big into 4th Edition D&D, but I’ve also been working on designing my own original game system that I would love to test out, if I can find some interested players.

Rolls: 3@1 1@3; Total Hits: 13@1: (2, 6, 5)1@3: (2)

;dice 3 1;
;dice 3@1 1@3;

Rolling 3 1:
(4)

:dice 3@1 1@3:

The rule that Imp Games’ “East & West” uses is:

• Each territory that you have controlled since the start of your turn can produce 1 infantry per IPC value

• ICs can produce a number of additional units (including more infantry) equal to the IPC value of the territory

So for example, a 2 IPC territory with an IC can produce 2 inf + 2 arm, or 4 inf.
The problem with that game is that it is IPM as all hell to begin with, and producing infantry in captured territories is basically a necessity for the USSR, but seems kinda like BS for NATO to be able to do, IMHO.

I made a 1941 limited scenario for Classic; basically divides the map into 3 parts you can play separately, and runs fairly quickly. I can try and give you a quick rundown, or dig up & post the full rules if you’re interested.

Commentary:

As is often the case in E&W, diplomacy has played a big role in this game.
The global outrage at the nuclear attack by the US has dramatically changed the face of the game.

My initial strategy for the UK was to rally their fleets in the Red Sea on turn 1, but then to return to the Mediterranean and begin shuttling troops from Africa to Italy, Turkey, or maybe Greece, then to eventually link up near the UK to attack Karelia.

With the Suez Canal closed to NATO, this became no longer possible; all the units in Africa that had been perfectly choreographed for the UK navy steaming across the Mediterranean are now going to be sent to India via Pakistan. This isn’t so bad, since Pakistan is being ignored by the USSR in this strategy (which is generally uncharacteristic in E&W).

As Western Europe, I often rally my fleet in the Mediterranean to keep the Soviets occupied with probing attacks at Greece or Turkey. I decided in this game to instead put as much force behind Norway as possible, knowing that I was planning to send UK ships in that direction anyway. The complete lack of any NATO ships in the Mediterranean has allowed the USSR to keep Turkey and Greece with minimal forces, despite their not being able to gain ground anywhere else.

If the UK or US spies are successful on this coming round, it will be interesting to see what they do. Opening the Suez is a possibility, as is lowering the Chinese contribution to the Soviet war effort. Another option is to steal heavy armor technology from the USSR; in most games, I eventually want the US and UK to both have this tech. Influencing a minor neutral is also an intriguing option; in this game in particular, Thailand would be a good choice for the US, and Sweden is almost always a solid option for the UK.

The US is at a bit of a conundrum in the Pacific; the Soviet air forces are placed in such a way that they threaten the Burma SZ and the Japan SZ. Ideally, as the US I would like to be able to leave 1 transport unguarded in either of these zones to facilitate the shuck-shuck, but if the Soviet forces stay where they are, the US fleet may have to split.

Typically when I play the US, my strategy is to attack heavily into Siberia; this allows you to place directly into Asia, and makes it a lot easier to maximize the number of units you can put on the front lines. With this game, the decision to direct forces towards Indochina means that the US does not have this “release valve,” leading to a weird, unmanageably high income. The US has too many forces currently (more than their transports can carry) but they can’t afford to build more transports, since 1) their income is not expected to increase, and; 2) they already have enough of them for their current unit output. This is why I decided to build an IC in Japan; I’m hoping the US can use this to build Heavy Armor or possibly Fusion Weapons, once they get those technologies, and direct them immediately against the brunt of Soviet forces.

Similarly, it seems clear that the Yugoslavia stack isn’t working for the USSR; it will have to be split so that they can take and hold West Germany. It’s looking like it will be a cat-and-mouse game, with both sides shifting forces back and forth between the France/West Germany border and the Italy/Yugoslavia border. My fear as the Soviets is that the clock is ticking; it’s only a matter of time before the US can start heavily reinforcing Europe. The USSR needs to either crush Indochina before then, or hope for some key diplomatic or technological successes.