Imperious Leader is speculating on Axis strategies. I do not see why it is inadmissable to speculate on how his strategies may be countered. He is automatically assuming that the Italian player will do precisely as he is told. I suspect that Imperious Leader will make sure that he controls both the German and Italian player, which defeats the whole purpose of adding Italy.
Countering is all fine. Adding stupid house rules is completely different.
I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.
Better get a black marker and start blacking out the Axis then.
Excellent, we are in agreement then. I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis. Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor. A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War. Death to the Axis!
Why do I get the feeling that you have no friends that play Axis & Allies?
timerover51, yes we know, you hate Axis. Why not just add the feature “You win” to the Allies instead of wasting all the time with putting pieces here and there. Whatever you do, your post doesn’t belong in this thread.
I know if I was playing the game at GenCon, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell the designers that the balance sucks, they need to redesign it.
Germany’s and Japan’s fighters should attack at 4 (and maybe defend at 5) to represent the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
On IPC values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30 (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.
Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China infAllies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.
Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.
Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.
Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed. The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production. Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5. If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170. Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use. Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US. Have to give that some thought.
Good luck finding someone to play Axis.
As for Variant’s comment: “How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?”
By 1941, Britain was producing as much military equipment as Germany, and maintained that rate throughout the remainder of the war. In 1944, Britain managed to devote 60% of its Gross National Product to military production, a rate which could not be sustained, and left the British post-war economy in shambles. I am not making those figures up. If you wish, you may consult Klaus Knorr’s War Potential of Nations, which is the source of some of my information. If the aim of the game was to really bias it in favor of the Allies, all they would have to do is give the US its true military production capability in late 1943/early 1944. To do that, you take the sum of the total production of all of the non-US players (Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, and the UK) and give that to the US. In the Revised Game, that would be 124 IPC, not 42. And to that add the US should automatically be producing somewhere between 2 and 4 transports per turn. The US was also feeding a large portion of the world at the same time.
Maybe if you are comparing Germany proper to the UK they might be comparable. The GDP of the UK wasn’t even half of the entirety of German occupied territory. France alone had half of the GDP the UK did and the UK didn’t even reach even with German proper. Even if the UK spent half their GDP on the military, they couldn’t reach the German Reich’s production during 1941 and 42. The UK was being propped up by the American war machine. It didn’t have the capability to compete against Germany without aid.
Why are you even bringing up America’s 1943/44 production? What is the point?
The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.
Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.
I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.
So you want a history book and not a strategy game?
The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.
Allies players because what Axis player would want to play it?
/variant
Look at the game map pictures on www.boardgamegeek.com!! You can see that Japan grabs a lot of territories very quickly, since the game starts in 1941, and the same goes for Germany as the first turn is the Barbarossa campaign.
You are assuming that Japan and Germany want to grab those territories. A game should not be balanced on assumption or railroading a player into taking specific actions just so they can survive!
On IPC values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30 (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.
Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China infAllies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.
Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.
If the starting IPCs is correct, I am not buying the game. What the hell kind of imbalance did they create in this game?
@Imperious:
Your making comparisons based on what you do in revised. Thats the same thing you probably did when Revised came out and you were playing milton bradley edition. The game has evolved and its much more aligned with the realistic or historical sensibilities where the Japanese don’t make those tank charges against Moscow, driving up from India or Manchuria… Thats all nonsense.
I measure balance. Everyone agrees that the last two are unbalanced, Classic to a greater degree than Revised. I don’t want to see 50th Anniversary take a giant leap backwards.
Realistic or historical sensibilities? Do you want a boardgame or a history book? So what if Japan didn’t do something? When I sit down to play, I don’t think about what Japan did or didn’t do when I go to make my moves. I look for the best route to win. And just because Japan didn’t do it, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have done it. Japan never invaded Austrailia, but they damn well can in Axis & Allies.
How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?
@Imperious:
Italy is weak and they were sort of weak, but had a few really nice pieces to start ( her navy) Italy can also easily get her 10 IPC bonus and basically double her income in no time. You need to come up with new ideas to win, and you cant rest on your knowledge of revised to get you to the finish line. This new evolution is a totally new experience and most of the people commenting are looking at it with the revised map and rules embedded in their mental picture.
So again its not a Revised version or Revised. Its AA50. A whole new edifice.
I would rather have Italy excluded altogether than have it be a weak link in an already underpowered Axis.
Oh and I forgot to add that it will be much slower for Japan to increase in IPCs with Asia split up the way it is. Looking at the map, I don’t even think its worth the effort.
The Axis is gimped.
Japan will not be able to help Germany on Russia’s front.
Italy is entirely too weak and is nothing but a weak link in the Axis.
Italy splits up Germany’s IPCs.
Italy’s splits up Germany’s original forces, especially naval.
Italy only has a lousy 10 IPCs.
Italy has no transport and will be unable to ship anything to Africa to fix their IPC deficient status for at least a turn.
Italy’s IPC deficient status railroads them into an immediate expansion for IPCs.
We won’t know just how much Axis is hurting until we see Germany’s and Japan’s starting IPCs.
Do the designers hate the Axis or what?
I personally think Germany needs to be at least 35 IPCs and Japan needs bumped up to 35 as well. Though I would like to see Germany keep its 40 IPCs and simply count Italy as extra. I would have originally liked Italy to be 15-16 IPCs, but that isn’t happening from the looks of it.
Italy should go towards balancing the sides instead of just hurting the Axis. For example, why doesn’t Italy have a transport? Also, why aren’t most of those units in Africa Italy’s?
Where is Italy going to get any more IPCs to fix the fact that they are gimped at 10 IPCs? There is going to be a very long delay in the capture of Africa simply because it will take a turn for Italy to build a transport and another to ship over anything to begin taking provinces. What bright mind thought of this setup?
I hope a company produces silicone friction stickers (they don’t really stick and don’t leave residue) that would allow us to put them on the board to change values of provinces and even add provinces (such as Sicily). It would go a long way in letting us customize the game.
@LT04:
The Allies always have more IPC’s then the Axis. In revised Germany is the second largest IPC country and Japan is tied for third with the UK. So as far as the Axis being at a loss is normal.
Axis were underpowered in both Classic and Revised. They became more balanced with Revised and it should have become even more balanced with the new one, but they seem to be becoming more underpowered.
I get the feeling that they have really hurt the Axis through all the changes they have made.
Concerning the map, sure yes. But consider the turn sequence. Axis is always first. As Japan is (most likely) before UK in both scenarios, their units have much more impact and second: they have tons of naval units and 9 fighters in the 1941 scenario! I.e. you can balance everything by just adding enough (extra) units!
All Italy ends up doing is dividing up Germany which forces Germany to work with less IPCs. It also prevents Germany from gaining more IPCs in Africa.
Italy is too weak at 10 IPCs that it will be a weak link as opposed to actually helping the Axis. The map also prevents Russia from helping Germany on the Russian front.
If estimates pan out, there will be a 29 IPC gap between Allies and Axis. To me it looks like its going back to the original A&A when Axis was so underpowered that it rarely won.
I get the feeling that they have really hurt the Axis through all the changes they have made.