Posts made by The Janus

House Rule/Discussion Topic: Unit Modifications

One thing I’ve thought about on occasion is whether tanks in E&W should just flatout cost 4 IPCs instead of 5.

1. The USSR still has almost no incentive to build anything other than infantry, even with the change
2. Western Europe needs all the “hit points” it can get, meaning… also no incentive to build anything other than infantry
3. UK would need to build transports, or else a new industry in India in order to add tanks
4. US (similarly) finds itself in the position of always needing to use transports to move tanks (or transports and new industry, in the case of Japan or the Philippines.)

So I think it’s pertinent to breakdown the economics, for the UK and US in particular.

As said many times before, the UK can rely on an income of 32, and the US can rely on 41. (This is where an India IC would be handy, since for the cost of 2 transports, it can “transport” 3 tanks.)

Now, comparing 4-IPC tanks vs. infantry:

• 32 IPCs = 10 infantry, requiring 5 transports
• 32 IPCs = 8 tanks, requiring 8 transports (or an IC in India + 5 transports)
• 41 IPCs = 13 infantry, requiring 6.5 transports
• 41 IPCS = 10 tanks, requiring 10 transports

The obvious conclusion is still(!) that infantry are cheaper (in terms of transports) and add more “hit points” – the only place where tanks start to pull ahead is in attack power:

• UK: (infantry) 10 attack power vs. (tanks) 24 attack power
• US: (infantry) 13 attack power vs. (tanks) 30 attack power

Again, keep in mind that the tanks still require more transports while providing fewer HP – it’s one thing to go “all tank” armies as Germany or the USSR, but for US or UK it’s a completely different thing altogether.

If a tank costs 4, it still takes 8 IPCs to ship it – meaning you’re spending 12 IPCs to get 3 attack power, and 1 HP
Compare that with 2 infantry + 1 transport – spending 14 IPCs for 2 attack power, and 2 HP

So let’s say we want to “spend it all” every round (just to narrow things down) and examine the possible combinations of tanks and infantry:

32 IPCs:

• 8 tanks (8 transports) – 24 attack power, 8 HP
• 5 tanks, 4 infantry (7 transports) – 19 attack power, 9 HP
• 2 tanks, 8 infantry (6 transports) – 14 attack power, 10 HP

41 IPCs:

• 8 tanks, 3 infantry (9.5 transports) – 27 attack power, 11 HP
• 5 tanks, 7 infantry (8.5 transports) – 22 attack power, 12 HP
• 2 tanks, 11 infantry (7.5 transports) – 19 attack power, 13 HP

So what we’re finding is that reducing the number of tanks significantly reduces the attack power, but does not significantly reduce the HP or number of transports. Now, I would argue that we cannot reduce the infantry to zero, but the mid-point option in each of these examples is certainly a lot more viable.

This leads into my other point of discussion: does the USSR have too much defense power?

What I’m finding is that the number of ground units that the Soviets have (on land, in the Eurasian continent) tends to be about 1 full round’s worth of production more than NATO (about 30 infantry.) This seems to be a deficit that NATO simply can’t make up.

If this assertion holds, then something would need to be done about a) increasing NATO’s attack power (such as decreasing the cost of tanks), or; b) decreasing the USSR’s defense power.

I’d argue that the 2-IPC infantry mechanic is necessary for the USSR to function as a global superpower – and leaning on E&W’s supposed origins in World at War, I’d offer that it is a simple, quality-of-life improvement over the model of having cheap partisans available to the USSR, in addition to regular infantry. If the price isn’t going to be changed, then perhaps the defense value should be. Since infantry currently defend at 2, that would mean a decrease down to 1.

The other thing to consider with this, is the fact that the US and UK are basically locked into their supply pipelines – effectively capping the maximum possible amount of attack power they can project into any given theatre, lest they have to rebuild the pipeline from scratch. The USSR simply doesn’t have this problem; they can place infantry anywhere, anytime. There aren’t many theatres where they cannot out-produce NATO simply by choosing do to so – their supply lines are not at all complex.

So, this begs a third question: Should the placement rules be changed?

Perhaps territories with industrial complexes would follow the current rules, but other territories with an IPC value could only produce 1 infantry (regardless of IPC value.)

Typically, I’ve seen the USSR place 12 infantry in Europe (and a further 4 in Karelia) pretty reliably every round. With this rule in place, the USSR would need to spread those 12 infantry around to:

• 1 each in West Germany, East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Romania
• 6 infantry in Ukraine

Effectively, this would add one whole round of movement to the USSR’s supply lines, meaning NATO would have a more meaningful chance of contesting the border territories in Europe. In Karelia and East Siberia, the USSR would still be at a distinct advantage – but an advance towards India would be slowed much like Europe, perhaps even making China (finally) a worthwhile vector of attack for the Soviets.

I’ve gotta admit, I’m genuinely baffled by the constant suggestion to add more and more unit types.

Especially when you get to the point of suggestions being literally just [(adjective) (unit that already exists)]

Like… submarines have a niche, destroyers have a job, cruisers have a job (i.e. being battleships, except cheap enough to actually purchase), carriers have a job – What are all these added unit types going to do, that would make them worthwhile? Furthermore, if you don’t perfectly balance them, you’re going to end up with the IPM problem, where there’s one correct purchase and everything else is just a bunch of useless cruft/chrome.

If anything the closest I would go in that direction is to make the same types of units weaker/stronger/cheaper/different (i.e. unique abilities) depending on the country – and not all units need to be available to all countries, necessarily! The utility of having units function the same from one power to another is so that you can learn the game one power at a time, and the lessons all carry over.

I’m not unwilling to sacrifice that quality of life design (particularly for such an advanced game as G40) and I think it could be really interesting. Maybe some countries just fart out submarines that are basically just bath tubs, maybe another country can do the same with tanks. Particularly if you’re keeping to d6, you can’t just go cramming in half a dozen new unit types, especially if they don’t have a job to do.

Investigating this further, what I’m finding is that it is extremely difficult for WE and UK to both be doing offensives in the Mediterranean; this creates too much of a drain on the defense, requiring the US the bail out the situation.

So I’m finding myself re-evaluating the distribution of NATO’s purchases.
After rd1, their income should pretty reliably be (at least) these numbers:

• WE: 21 IPCs (7 inf)
• UK: 32 IPCs (9 inf, 1 arm)
• US: 41 IPCs (12 inf, 1 arm)

WE is always going to be putting everything into Italy or France. I would suggest that the UK should always be putting at least 3 infantry towards India. With the US having 3 starting transports in the Pacific, and Japan having an IPC value of 6, I would also contend that they should be putting at least 6 infantry toward that theatre. I would also argue that at a minimum, the US should use Iceland to send 2 infantry to Europe every round.

So what kind of wiggle room does this leave?

The UK would have 6 inf and 1 arm to play around with; the US would be left with 4 inf and 1 arm.

With the UK, you’re probably going to want to add an even number of infantry towards India (if any) to keep your transports around the UK full. The obvious options are:

• 1 inf Burma, 1 inf Pakistan (assuming the USSR doesn’t take the territory)
• 2 inf Singapore
• 2 inf South Africa (assuming there is a reasonable possibility of landing them in Iran or Pakistan every round; otherwise they can only reach India every other round.)

This is why I like the idea of keeping at least 1 transport around the Indian Ocean. I’m also tempted to leave a 2nd transport in the area, to maintain the threat of amphibious landings in the Persian Gulf. This would mean that of your starting 4 transports, 2 would end up in the Mediterranean – any new transports would be purchased for use around the UK. Really the question is whether 2 transport loads of infantry is enough to do any damage in the Mediterranean.

For the US, if you’re moving your transport from the Mediterranean out to the Atlantic, the obvious option is to at least use that to send the 1 arm per rd to Europe, via the standard shuck-shuck. If you’re producing 2 inf in Iceland and 6 inf in Japan, that leaves 4 inf (2 transport loads) per round, which can be flexed to either the Atlantic or the Pacific. It is important to decide immediately where to put your transports, and to get them moving units ASAP.

If you’re going for any sort of floating bridge strategy as the US, you’re going to need more transports than just the minimum needed to ship units to Eurasia. In the Pacific, you probably need to think about landing in South Korea, and then in the next round, having enough transports to move your units from both South Korea and Japan, into either Kamchatka or Eastern Siberia. In the Atlantic, you need to set up a couple transports to move your units from France to the Barents Sea – IMO, the number of transports should be less than the number already supplying France, so that you’re still leaving some units for defense.

As much as I would like to avoid the “fruity pebbles” I am realizing that Europe really needs all 3 NATO powers contributing to defense. Also, if you’re having the UK moving through the Mediterranean into Turkey, that means UK units will be in both France and Italy at all times. To balance this out, you’re probably shifting WE’s placement to Italy instead of France – letting the US and UK defend France instead. The big, big downside with this is that it leaves WE out of position to counter-attack West Germany (a nice income boost) but the tradeoff is they can attack Turkey OR Greece every round, helping facilitate the UK’s moves in the area.

Part of the thinking with all of this, is to eliminate what @The_Good_Captain commonly refers to (in his 1914 series of videos) as “fruity pebbles” – in other words, multi-national forces – which are good for defense, but no good for offense.

At the start of the game, you have the following naval distribution, in terms of transports:
North Atlantic: WE, UK, and US
Mediterranean: WE, UK, and US
Indian Ocean: WE, UK
Pacific: UK and US

By rd3, we want this tightened up to something more like:
North Atlantic: UK and US
Mediterranean: WE, UK
Indian Ocean: UK
Pacific: US

Since the US and UK are basically always going to be landing their troops in France, you’re still going to have a rainbow coalition defending that territory. But, by requiring WE to only be responsible for defending France (and not Italy) this means their attack power can be concentrated. Since the US won’t have any transports in the Mediterranean, it likewise makes sense for them to focus on defending France, rather than splitting their forces between Italy as well.

WE will likely want to put their fighters in Italy, to be used against Greece – but otherwise, I’m thinking the defense of Italy should be left entirely to the pipeline of UK forces.

This means that all 3 members of NATO each have their own jobs, but that they can still help each other out as well:

• WE is responsible for West Germany and Greece, but can also hit Switzerland and Turkey (if they have units in Greece)
• UK is responsible for Yugoslavia and Turkey, but can also hit Switzerland and Greece (and forces in France or UK can hit West Germany)
• US is responsible for Switzerland, but can also hit West Germany

By having the UK as the sole actor in India, and the US likewise in Siberia and the Koreas, we avoid having the diluted attack power of the “fruity pebbles” approach.

Since the US is going to have the smallest amount of responsibility in the European theatre, any strafing attack against France should eliminate US infantry first – so that the WE attack can be kept strong, and the UK pipeline kept intact.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

I’m thinking that probably the best way to break into “Middle Earth” as NATO is by applying pressure through the Mediterranean; essentially you want WE defending Italy and attacking Turkey, with the UK defending France and attacking Greece. Probably any US units need to be in a position to attack Switzerland, or possibly Yugoslavia. The hope being that by going through Turkey, you can eventually take back Iran, to punish the Soviets for invading neutrals.
[…]
Overall, the heaviest blows need to be landed in/around Scandinavia (UK) and Siberia (US) in order for NATO to really put Moscow in a vice. Drawing Soviet troops down to Greece can be a useful diversionary tactic. But I think the main responsibility for the UK is to invert the current meta, by turning Scandinavia into contested territory, rather than secure income for the Soviets.

Upon further consideration, I think it makes more sense to have the UK contesting Turkey, with the hopes of eventually linking together their forces coming from India.
This requires UK troops to be landed in France, walk to Italy, and then be transported over to Turkey; in order to ensure a continuous supply of troops, you can’t really ever divert forces to Scandinavia, unfortunately.

This means that WE should focus on defending France, and either counter-attacking West Germany over land, or liberating Greece via amphibious assault. I’m strongly leaning towards a heavy investment in tanks on WE1 to facilitate this. NATO attacks into Greece and Turkey can begin as early as round 2.

It is important to not fritter away the starting US forces in Italy. Once UK forces arrive en masse in Italy, US forces should marshal in France for defense, and should counter-attack Switzerland, if possible; UK tanks landed in Europe (and infantry not being sent to Turkey) should be used to attack Yugoslavia.

The US should have a lone transport around Iceland to keep Europe supplied, particularly if the UK can do a ‘can-opener’ somewhere in Scandinavia. But by and large, I’m convinced that the US needs to purchase 3-5 additional transports in the Pacific on US1, and must position themselves to hit Kamchatka on US2, using their scattered island units.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

IMO the new meta is one of the Soviets overrunning all of Scandinavia; a UK with lots of transports in the Atlantic is probably the best counter/deterrence to this.

units transported from the UK could land in Komi, Karelia, Norway, West Germany, France, or even Portugal.

And the pipeline from South Africa into Pakistan or Iran is a lot less of a sure thing than you would expect.

I’m thinking that probably the best way to break into “Middle Earth” as NATO is by applying pressure through the Mediterranean; essentially you want WE defending Italy and attacking Turkey, with the UK defending France and attacking Greece. Probably any US units need to be in a position to attack Switzerland, or possibly Yugoslavia. The hope being that by going through Turkey, you can eventually take back Iran, to punish the Soviets for invading neutrals.

The UK should probably be moving 3 or 2 transports to the Mediterranean, and building 3 or 4 transports in the North Atlantic; it depends if you choose to move the starting Quebec transport into the Mediterranean, or not.
To move units directly from Ontario or Quebec into Norway/Karelia/Komi, new transports need to be placed in Ontario.
Basically, anytime you’re not moving units into Scandinavia, they need to be moved into France, and then used somewhere in the Mediterranean after that.

Generally as the UK, I’m thinking it’s best to send everything to Europe; likewise, the Americans need to send basically everything to the Pacific.

Overall, the heaviest blows need to be landed in/around Scandinavia (UK) and Siberia (US) in order for NATO to really put Moscow in a vice. Drawing Soviet troops down to Greece can be a useful diversionary tactic. But I think the main responsibility for the UK is to invert the current meta, by turning Scandinavia into contested territory, rather than secure income for the Soviets.

The unofficial home for modern-day “East & West” discussion is right here, on the A&A .org forums! ;)

Have a look if you’re interested or have questions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1266842

Our intrepid Axis & Allies player @The_Good_Captain has put out a video which includes a review of East & West!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsm4is72-sc

I’m about to check it out myself; I’ll let the crowd know if I have any thoughts on it :)

@black_elk said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

I tend to agree with most of the points Janus is making about streamlining the game. I think the prob comes from low-balling the money and trying to keep those numbers so low, instead of just amping the production a bit.

After reading the thread saying “infantry should cost 3.2!” this idea popped into my head: increase the IPC values and unit costs by 10x except for infantry – which would then cost 32.

In that same vein, I think if you want to have a game with more and more unit types, they should look at doing a move to d10 (as was done with Napoleon’s Imperium.) Having infantry at A1|D3 on a d10 might help negate the IPM.

@black_elk I think the way to do Italy justice is to just have a full-blown “Axis & Allies: North Africa” in the vein of the D-Day game.

You could have German reinforcements come in waves sorta like D-Day, but more or less run the rest of the mechanics like A&A but with a cap on the number of rounds.

@hengst I guess my point is that you don’t make the Axis more interesting by splitting Germany into a moderate power and a minor power; I think you can do that more effectively by making Germany a proper superpower.

And like I said, any timeframe later than 1940 makes it harder and harder to justify Italy being a separate power, unless your idea is that their main contribution is to be an “also-ran” on the eastern front, as part of a bloc with the other minor powers. It just doesn’t vibe, IMO.

@hengst I mean if you’re building a game where your baseline assumption is that Germany would/should be overpowered, then sure :face_with_rolling_eyes:

Edit: To clarify my point, I think one of the things that works to keep Germany competitive is that the Allies don’t get to attack them together. Even then, their job tends to be “don’t die, until Japan sweeps the board.” If you take that disadvantage and give it to Germany by splitting their economy and units into smaller chunks, it’s not actually a benefit to them. And I think if the only justification for doing it is to have a 3v3, I feel like the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

@hengst You’d think so, but nah. It’d just weaken Germany.

@black_elk said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

The reason I like 1941 over the high water mark 1942 opener, is that mechanically the game always has the Axis side expanding early as the way to get a rough parity by sides going into the second and third round. That just feels more appropriate to 41 for me. Like if you have it open with a bang and the Axis side achieving that high water mark in the early rounds it feels more like the march of history, rather than starting from that high water mark and then vaulting like Shamu even higher, expanding massively into uncharted territory right at the start. You know where like Italy rules Egypt and Japan crushes into Siberia and India or whatever, because that’s how far they need to go to get into break even territory hehe. Like it’s all well and good if the game gets there after many rounds, but just not to have the balance tip too hard like that right away. Better, if the Allies are going to be on their heels in the opener, to pick a date where that vibe hums. Also helps I think with the sense of progression of game-time in the player’s imagination. Early enough for a total war start with some space to operate, but not so early that you have players waiting on the sidelines forever before it gets interesting.

I think I kinda get what you’re saying: 1942 basically requires the Axis to do better than history, in order to be competitive and/or to keep advancing right out of the gate. The problem I have with 1943, is that it’s essentially trying to capture that 1941 feel, when in reality the momentum should all be going the other way, plus the Soviets and Americans aren’t caught unawares.

I think Italy only works if you’re doing a really zoomed-in Europe map (like basically converting a WWI map) where it’s more along the scale of the old A&A Europe, but with more territories – just North Africa (not the whole continent) and maybe the middle east. And even then, once you hit Barbarossa, Italy isn’t going to have enough to do (after Taranto, and with France and Greece/Yugoslavia already taken care of.) Frankly, having a 10-IPC “”“major”“” power just doesn’t pass muster IMO. I think the only way you can buff Italy to any meaningful level is to bend history and stick Vichy French territories under their control.

China has the same problem; if you don’t want them to just be ‘neutral’ picket armies, and you also don’t want them to be able to attack on the UK turn, just stick 'em under the US, like in Classic. ANZAC seems entirely unnecessary, particularly outside of a Pacific game – or just for the purposes of victory conditions.

Basically there are things you can (and possibly should) do in either a Pacific or a Europe game, that you shouldn’t do in a global game.

I honestly would like to see a more stripped-down version of the game. I think if you want to remove most of the politics, you need to set it either right on the cusp of Barbarossa/Pearl Harbour (Spring 1941) or what Larry calls the “high-water mark of the Axis expansion” (Spring 1942)

Just as a side note, I would say when I look at World at War, it feels like an attempt to answer the question “What if we had Axis & Allies, but with France as a major power?” without any thought as to why not to do that. I still think 1940 (before the fall of France) is probably the last, other reasonable start date – but I don’t know that it’s preferable to the other two. I think 1943, with the failure at Stalingrad (and particularly after the surrender of Italy) is kind of a “point of no return” for the Axis.

I think back to Classic, and it’s kind of a pastiche of WWII. You have to have tanks, planes, submarines and carriers – those are iconic to the period. Of course, you need transports and at least some type of surface ship (whether it’s Battleships or just something nondescript.) Artillery have been around basically forever, and I’d say they’re more iconic to WWI (that, and machine guns.)

Submarine interactions have gotten too complicated, and the creep towards contested sea zones and land territories is taking away the elegance and simplicity from the game. Also constantly trying to shoehorn in Italy and China as separate powers isn’t doing the game any favours, IMO.

I’m not entirely sure how they might fit this into a “G40 3rd Edition” but I’d be interested to see a 1945(ish) scenario, in the vein of Operation: Unthinkable

I think there are a couple different start dates you could do w/r/t the Cold War. For example East & West (by Imp Games) is set around the Berlin Airlift of 1948, just before decolonization began to really ramp up. So you still have the full breadth of the British Empire for the most part, with the Arab League and Organization of American States being established as major neutral blocs, and the civil war in China nearing its end.

E&W sort of has the problem of being “USSR vs. the World” so I think if you could do a global game where the west is powerful enough to merit having China as an active Soviet ally, that would be ideal. The issue is always going to be that there’s effectively little or no naval game, unless you set it in a period where nuclear submarines are just all over the place, pulling wild and crazy stunts.

Other dates:
1950-1953 - Korean War, Greece and Turkey join NATO
1955 - West Germany joins NATO, occupation of Austria ends, Warsaw Pact is formed, Baghdad Pact/METO/CENTO (UK, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) is formed, SEATO established in 1954 (US, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand)
1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis
1975(ish) - allows for Communist control in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Indochina, as well as the Warsaw Pact countries; (Iraq left CENTO in 1958, but it existed until 1979; SEATO operated until 1977)

Ultimately, the issue I find with any cold war scenario is that it probably lends itself more to a Europe map (maybe even the 1914 map over the Europe 1940 map) or that it should actually use a northern hemisphere map, rather than eastern or western.
Right at the outset of the cold war, the western powers have vast empires, but within a decade or two they no longer control much of anything in Africa or southern Asia. Having a map that’s chockful of neutrals isn’t terribly appealing, without a robust, meaningful, yet lean diplomacy system (again, don’t do what World at War does.) I think the “activation” mechanics mostly work for a WWII setting, but they also feel kinda handwavey and tacked-on.

Active Nations:

USSR: 45 IPCs
Would include all starting USSR territories, plus the following:
Germany, Poland, Slovakia Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania

Western Europe (WE) : 23 IPCs

• Portugal, Portuguese Guinea, Angola, Mozambique
• Holland Belgium, Suriname, Belgian Congo
• Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway
• Northern Italy, Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia
• Turkey, Greece, Crete

So in E&W, a bit ahistorically (as the game is set in 1948) Greece and Turkey are part of WE, despite not joining NATO until 1952. For now I’m lumping them in here, but my other preference would be to have them as strict neutrals – more on that later.

Also in E&W, Greenland and Iceland are treated as US territories; since both are worth 0 IPCs on the Europe 1940 map, the only real important distinction is whether they are hostile or friendly, so I wanted to include them under WE instead.

UK: 31 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Italian Somaliland, Tobruk, Libya, Western Germany

• UK loses Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Alexandria to the Arab League
• UK loses Iceland to WE

US: 38 IPCs
gains the following territories:
Greater Southern Germany

• US loses Southeast Mexico to the OAS
• US loses Greenland to WE

Neutral Powers:

France (pro-NATO) : 16 IPCs

• France loses Syria to the Arab League

What I’m proposing for France would be sort of a hybrid rule between the activation rules for pro-neutrals, and a house rule I proposed for China, in E&W.

Essentially how this works is that France would contribute income to WE, based on the IPC value of French territories containing NATO troops (WE, UK, or US) at the end of Western Europe’s turn. If France is attacked by the USSR, all French units and territories would convert to WE ownership.

The reason for doing this is primarily to keep France as part of NATO, without making WE so huge economically that they don’t need any help. Also, by weakening NATO a little bit in this way, I’m hoping to avoid needing to use the E&W rule whereby USSR gets infantry for 2 IPCs instead of 3 IPCs.

Organization of American States (OAS) : 9 IPCs
(Essentially, all of the neutral South American countries except Suriname, plus Southeast Mexico)
If the OAS is attacked by the USSR, all OAS units and territories would convert to US ownership.

Arab League: 8 IPCs
(Alexandria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia)
If the Arab League is attacked by the USSR, all Arab units and territories would convert to UK ownership.

…
So, in addition to possibly including a diplomacy mechanism similar to classic E&W, I was wanting to incorporate one of the house rules I had suggested for E&W and apply it to this scenario:

All remaining neutrals are considered “strict neutrals”
However:

1. The USSR may attack any neutral at any time.
2. If the USSR attacks a strict neutral, rather than having ALL strict neutrals side with NATO (as in classic Europe 1940) instead NATO gets to shift either the OAS or Arab League one step on the diplomacy scale.

Now, if Greece and Turkey are kept as strict neutrals, rather than being part of WE, this rule could potentially have large consequences if/when the USSR chooses to attack them.

I was thinking instead of the classic E&W diplomacy scale, it’d make more sense to have it like -8/-6/-4/-2/0/+2/+4/+6/+8

Strict Neutrals:
Probably a good “hard and fast” rule would be that if attacked by the USSR, strict neutrals in Europe would join WE, while strict neutrals in Africa or the middle east would join UK; Rio De Oro would be considered part of Spain, for these purposes. If Turkey is neutral…? I’d probably consider them part of the middle east.

• Europe: Eire, Spain / Rio De Oro, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland
• Africa: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ethiopia
• Middle East: Northwest Persia, Persia, Eastern Persia, Afghanistan

What this all means:

Starting Income:
USSR: 45
NATO: 92

Maximum potential income, including neutrals:
USSR (plus Arab League, OAS*, and all strict neutrals) : 71
WE (plus France, and all strict neutrals in Europe) : 46
UK (plus Arab League, and all strict neutrals in Africa + Middle East) : 42
US (plus OAS*) : 46

*Assumes OAS income is capped at 8 rather than 9

For those unfamiliar, “East & West” is a cold war A&A-style derivative/variant/expansion from 2000, by Imp Games (which seems to borrow heavily from Xeno Game’s “World at War”)

I’ve started up a discussion thread for E&W in case anyone is interested in checking that out.

One of the topics that @tacojohn brought up in the thread was the possibility of updating E&W to one (or possibly more) of the modern maps/rulesets; I began keying in on the Europe 1940 map in particular, in large part because China is treated as a neutral power in “classic E&W” – I felt like there wasn’t much sense in including the Pacific half of Global 1940.

I’ve decided I’ll just share my initial thoughts (after a couple weeks of tinkering) and see if anybody would like to take the ball and run with it.

@the-captain said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

• Add 1939, 1941, 1942 and 1943 versions.

1939 Would be a tough sell, IMO. At that start point, you end up with too much politics and not enough war; it’s just Germany (and USSR) invading a bunch of neutral countries. I think G40 strikes a good compromise. I’m also leery about '43.

@superbattleshipyamato said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:

@crockett36

“Nerfing” Japan makes me afraid for that power.

Why so?
The current J1 attack meta is apparently pretty strong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRi3aIsj8P8

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

2. If you combine France, Italy, and the rest of Western Europe without Greece and Turkey, you’re looking at a solid 40 IPCs vs. 49 IPCs for the USSR. This makes WE the strongest NATO faction, which is… weird. Granted, Western Germany and Northern Italy being under threat right away, translates to a 9 IPC swing.

Thinking on this a little bit more, probably one way to avoid a huge Western Europe is to go the ‘occupation zone’ route with West Germany – Western Germany belonging to UK and Greater Southern Germany belonging to the US.

(This would also potentially resolve the issue in ‘stock’ E&W whereby WE has to always be the one liberating West Germany, or there’s no net economic benefit to the Alliance.)

Taking GSG away from the USSR would knock their income down to 45, compared with:

• France: 16 IPCs
• WE: 19 IPCs (not including Turkey or Greece)
• UK: 31 IPCs (including Western Germany)
• US: 38 IPCs (including GSG)

This would mean US is the strongest NATO ally economically, at the start; however, a combined WE/France would have more income (35 IPCs) than the UK – and none of that income would be on the immediate frontline, either.

The other angle to come at it might be to treat France similar to a “neutral alliance” that favours NATO; units of the Alliance can move through their territory, but they don’t purchase/move/attack, and instead only defend French territory. This would likely require putting Greece and Turkey under WE, and possibly West Germany as well. It’s interesting to ponder…

The Western Bloc
I still haven’t nailed down whether to unite France and WE.

If you keep them separate, it probably makes some sense to allow WE to build infantry as per the normal E&W rules (assuming you wouldn’t normally allow it in this scenario, as a general rule.) I also like the idea of having them “declare multi-national force” i.e. the only action they take on their turn is to say “WE units will act on the [France/UK/US] turn, this round.” This is something I did for the NATO vs. Arab League mini-game/scenario I created, where the NATO factions are:
France & Belgium, Spain & Portugal, UK & Commonwealth.

If you put France and WE together, the interesting thing is how closely the economics line up with classic E&W (using the territorial assumptions from earlier in this post):

Classic vs. Europe
WE: 32 IPCs vs. 35 IPCs
UK: 33 IPCs vs. 31 IPCs
US: 43 IPCs vs. 38 IPCs
(NATO: 108 IPCs vs. 104 IPCs)
USSR: 48 IPCs vs. 45 IPCs

Neutral Considerations:
The whole “pro-neutral” mechanic of the 1940 game adds an interesting dimension that isn’t seen in the original E&W, per se. If you’re going to keep with the mechanic of letting the USSR attack any neutrals at any time, then the only real consideration is whether there are any “pro-neutrals” in the game at all.

1. Greece & Turkey: If these are strict neutrals, there is a lot less incentive for the USSR to attack them; if they are pro-NATO, then USSR has a lot more incentive to take Turkey, in order to prevent NATO from activating them to enter the strait.
2. Yugoslavia & Albania: If Yugoslavia is kept neutral, that would mean NATO offensives would have to funnel through the German territories, and likewise the USSR would have fewer territories to attack from on rd1, potentially making it tougher to take Germany. If Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece are all neutral, this would create a solid barrier for the USSR against invasion.
3. Persia/Iran: Should the Allies be freely able to open this route into the USSR? Or should this territory be strictly neutral?
4. Spain & Scandinavia: There’s probably an argument to be made that these territories should be easier for NATO to influence, but likewise that they shouldn’t be able to just freely “activate” them – so I can’t say that they absolutely should be pro-NATO. They might need their own distinct mechanic.
5. Ethiopia/Italian Somaliland: Being neutral in E&W, this serves as a meaningful barrier to shipping UK infantry from Africa to India. With the Europe map potentially greatly de-emphasizing India, these territories become less important; making it pro-NATO seems a bit silly, since then it’s kind of a freebie that the USSR would have a hard time contesting.