Posts made by TheAandAClassicDude

Heya CWO Marc, thanks for giving me your perspective. I would say FotTC would fall into the first point you made, where at first the year 1900 is recognizable, but some year like 1990 would look drastically different.

I’d like to answer the main question. The ONLY way the game would follow the same path of our history is if all the game’s players manually decide to follow such a route. Just because its the year 1900, that doesn’t mean all consecutive wars that happened in our world will happen exactly, if at all. If the players explore the early 1900’s separate to how the countries really did in our timeline, wars can both be avoided and arise. WW1 will never happen unless the players choose to. WW1 could still happen, but whatever comes after can also be different based upon how player do it. It can also come in many different shapes and forms. The location, time frame, and participating powers can all vary from large to small. This game is meant to be purely customizable and unless you choose to go a certain route with your country, nothing will happen thats the same.

Yes, you are correct in saying that the world depicted at the start of the game would correspond to the world as it existed in 1900 in terms of its borders, in terms of the major and minor powers of the time, in terms (presumably) of its background rulers and politicians, and in terms of its military technology." The game will diverge from history if you choose to, and it will follow history if you choose to. This (in my opinion) is the fun of the game. Imaging “Hey what would happen if x country did y during z?” and being able to formulate some sort of idea. Even writing your own history by playing this game is fun. I understand that the main issue with following this route is both hard to relate, and difficult to imagine, however at the end of the day its just a fun board game. I prioritized how fun the game is over historical accuracy and believability. After all, by allowing any player to do what they want, I’ve already thrown all realism out the window.

I hope I both cleared up some questions, and clarified how I’m imagining it. I’d love for you to read my mind so that you get a full understanding of what I’m trying to say. If you’re still confused, I would be more than willing to continue explaining.

I guess I should elaborate a bit on the “Head of State” bit. Its borderline role-play. Lets say my name is John Smith. If I play as the U.S during WW1 (Or whatever war is created), I would be “John Smith POTUS” and not “Woodrow Wilson POTUS”. If I’m playing as Germany in WW1, I would be “Kaiser John Smith the I” and not “Kaiser Wilhelm II”. Its my fault for not explaining enough. Of course such a thing doesn’t make sense realistically as 1: A POTUS can only serve for 8 years and 2: Someone would likely not live that long, however its just a game, an expansive board game where you role play as the head of state.
I have plenty more of ideas that could clear up a few questions if you’d like to read. I’ve been meaning to bounce these ideas off of someone for a while.

Just a couple of questions I would DELIGHTED to answer.

-It was a new idea that sparked into my head not even a week ago.
-There is no map, as that would require weeks to create with stupid amounts tweaking a balancing
-There would be a maximum of as many countries that existed in the year 1900
-Its not clear how setting up and cleaning would work as I don’t have the slightest idea as to what the game would look like
-Yes while in OUR timeline many colonies became independent, this game doesn’t follow any historical path unless you manually choose to. Just because India is a country now, that doesn’t mean it HAS to be in FotTC. Nothing is required, it is not just a power you control. It is YOUR country. You aren’t Woodrow Wilson or FDR, you are the head of state.

I won’t go too in-depth with my idea, however I had a cool idea for a Global War 1936 sized Axis and Allies game.

I name it, “Fall of the 20th Century”.

What is it you may be wondering? Fall of the 20th Century would be an Axis and Allies like game that is NOT intended to be completed in a day, let alone a few hours. Fall of the 20th Century would encompass the entire 20th Century (Duh) and would begin in the year 1900. The game will last 200 turns until the year 2000 (1 year for every 2 turns) or until only 1 alliance is left. YOU shape how history crumbles. In turn 1, ALL independent countries that existed will be a political power. All alliances that existed will be an entire team, however you’re able to recruit powers into your team (or even make your own faction). Fall of the 20th Century (FotTC) will let you make even more decisions than even Global War 1936. If you have any questions, I would be MORE than willing to answer them.

This is NOT an actual game being in production, its just an idea.

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

@Argothair:

I like the problem you’re trying to solve (China gets crushed too easily), but I think your solution is complicated and confusing. China is supposed to simultaneously have both a normal economy and a partisan economy? So would you add a factory? A capital that can be looted? Are you saying that if China owns 6 territories, then they can deploy 3 infantry as partisans, plus 2 more infantry at the factory? Or would the factory be capped at one unit per turn? How do you distinguish Chinese artillery from American artillery if the Americans invade via the Pacific?

I think if we adopted all of your suggestions at once (more starting infantry for China, China can build artillery, China gets to use both a partisan economy and a normal economy in the same territories) then China would be over powered. Right now China + Hong Kong + Burma have 6 Allied infantry, and Manchuria + Kiangsu + Thailand have 9 Axis infantry. If you even that up so that both sides start with 9 infantry, and if you let China produce 5 infantry per turn, then, as a rough rule of thumb, Japan will have to produce or transport an average of 6 infantry per turn into China in order to make progress and start rolling China back toward Kazakhstan…but that’s a lot to ask. 6 infantry per turn is Japan’s entire starting income on turn 1, and about half of Japan’s income on turn 2. It really doesn’t leave Japan any margin to expand its navy to defend against a US Pacific campaign, or to try out aggressive strategies against India or Siberia or Australia. You’re kind of forcing Japan to go all-in on China every game, which is not that much more interesting than turning China into a doormat. The ideal would be for China to be tough enough that you need to put some Japanese reinforcements there if you want to win, but weak enough that you can usually afford to mostly neglect China if you’re comfortable with a stalemate.

So, here’s one way to do that:

• Add 2 more starting Chinese infantry to Yunnan – this means that the Flying Tigers will almost always survive unless Japan wants to abandon other turn-1 objectives and risk serious fighter losses, or unless Japan wants to empty out Thailand and let the British walk into Thailand and collect the British national objective there.

• Add 1 starting Chinese infantry to Ningxia – this gives the Chinese army a bit of depth, so that if the Japanese attack Suiyuan, Hupeh, and Fukien on turn 1, the Chinese still have something relevant to fight back with in the north.

• Allow Chinese forces to move freely into Burma, Hong Kong, and/or Thailand – this makes it a little more dangerous for Japan to completely ignore China.

• Allow the USA to spend $12 to replace the Flying Tigers ($10 + shipping) if they are destroyed – this makes it a little harder to permanently knock China out of the game.

Otherwise leave everything the same as OOB rules. This should be more than enough to keep China interesting, without making China so powerful that Japan gets sucked into a mandatory total war in China in every single game.

I see. Now that you tell it to me, I understand. However I made these ideas as a way to stop Japan from marching over to Moscow through Siberia. Yes it may seem that with the addition of these rules that China becomes overpowered, however I would disagree. In the normal 1941 Scenario, If Japan plays their cards right they can destroy every single unit China begins with. From there, they can open up a hole in Siberia to prepare their march to Moscow. All before the U.S even begins their first turn and even get a chance to build up a navy. I believe that you’re underestimating Japan’s strength in the beginning of the game. They’re more than capable of handling the U.S Navy with just what they start with. This is one of the many reasons people consider the 1941 weighed towards the Axis’ side. Also you say that China is able to produce 5 Infantry per turn using my rules. However if Japan takes the time to make a dent into China, then they lose territories and thus cannot make Partisan Infantry (Partisan Infantry is based on the No. of units China starts with at the beginning of the U.S’ turn). Another thing the Japanese player usually does is take out as many things as they can. So more often than not, Kwangtung and Burma’s units are taken out before the British player is even given an opportunity to use them. Japan focusing in on China in my rules would actually make the game more realistic. In the real war, Japan not only focused on their Pacific campaign, but also heavily focused (and failed) in China. Japan knocking out China so quickly is far from accurate, and makes no sense historically.
Also I guess I will take the time to clear up a few questions you had regarding my China.

• Yes they have both a Partisan and Normal Economy. I explained why this isn’t overpowered

• There is neither a factory, nor capital for China, G40 isn’t this way, so why would it be here?

• You ask how do you distinguish Chinese Artillery from American, however could you not ask the same question for the Flying Tigers and normal American Fighters? I think that its highly unlikely the U.S would go out of their way to invade mainland Asia, when they can just invade Japan anyway.

No    you need to look at this discussion.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41017.0

Interesting, the change where China chooses where to put its fighter is definitely something to consider.

What do you mean Caesar? The way they obtain units is different. They don’t have their own economy, and can’t buy artillery. The way they get units is for every 2 territories under their control, they get a free Infantry to place anywhere. If you mean rules as in where they can move, then yes, they’re identical to G40. I recommend doing a bit of research and know what you’re talking about before you comment.

I am aware that many people in the A&A community are turned off by Anniversary’s 1941 scenario because its too weighted towards the Axis’ side, however instead of completely throwing a scenario away, I propose that we balance the game so we can not only play the year earlier scenario and have it be fun for both sides. Currently one idea I have is the integration of a Global 1940-like China, in which China has its own economy and can produce artillery. What if the rule where China produces 1 infantry per 2 territories stays, however it can use its economy to buy either, more infantry, or even artillery. Due to the smaller scale of Anniversary, it can produce artillery even if the Burma Road isn’t open. I also propose that China starts with a few more units to really halt the mainland progression of Japan. This will not only deter Japan from marching to Moscow through Siberia, but also have to fend off against a much tougher China. Overall I think this will help nerf Japan and stop them from utterly dominating in Asia. Of course Japan isn’t the only Axis that needs to be nerfed, its just the most overpowered out of the 3.

Moderator’s edit: Added tag [Anniversary] to title.

Thank you very much for the help! I sent them an e-mail let me know that replacements will be here in a few weeks. Their customer service was great!

I sent them an e-mail with all the pictures I took of my defects, will this work or not?

Wow! Thats a really nice and cool map! Like Argo was saying, is it avaliable on Triple A?

Its very poorly done, but what if you took HBG’s Amerika board, and literally slid them together? I know it doesn’t even come close to matching up and lining up properly, however its the best option I can think of without creating your own.

What if we were able to find a way to incorporate the Zimmerman Telegram into the game and if it succeeds, have Mexico join the game as a Central Power?

Moderator’s Edit: Added tag [TripleA 1914] to title.

If so, what kinds of videos?

Thank you all for your strategies, I will be using them in the future

What should the USSR buy and do against the German war machine? (1941)

@tin_snips:

I’ve always liked to buy mostly infantry in the first round as Germany. I can then send them towards Russia to help buffer the tank losses, or keep some around the coast for defence depending on how the first game round plays out.

Thank you for your strategy, I’ll test them out on Triple A and adjust it to my needs.

@Baron:

Tank at 5 IPCs and M2 should be the main purchase to Crush Moscow.
M2 leave less rounds for Soviet Inf build up.

As Germany be aggressive and keep an eye on NOs.
They provide a major swing and you need them to beat Allies.
Stay on guard to deny Allies NOs.

Pardon but, what does M2 mean? Also how many tanks should I buy? Or are you saying just one? Thank you for your strategy.

I’m using the 1941 scenario and since Germany goes first you could create a strategy a definite strategy you could use any time. Does anyone have an ideal buy? What I’ve been doing is purchasing one R&D roll. Then using 24 IPCs, I purchase 4 Infantry and 3 Artillery, holding 2 IPCs for the next round. However, I feel like this could be improved upon.