• 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    There are what, like 23 factory units in the box? of which only 9 are in play at the start? Sure maybe the Japanese buy a pair, or reckless Americans, but the most I’ve ever seen in the most ridiculous production game is maybe a dozen ICs. That still leaves another dozen that never get purchased or used.

    I have been trying to think of a set up which puts them all to use.  Where might they be distributed? If a factory was placed on every territory that might make sense. And then restricted, so no further production can be purchased (since all the sculpts are already on the board from the outset.)

    Germany: France, Northwestern Europe, Bulgaria
    Russia: Archangel, Kazakh, Novos
    UK: India, Eastern Canada, Australia, Egypt
    Italy: Balkans
    Japan: Manchuria
    USA: Alaska, Brazil

    My thought was that UK would get a major leg up. Germany and Russia would have more production but also more targets for capture. Japan would be nerfed by a max production at 11 total and denied the easy East Indies factory, USA would have a tiny bit more projection. Italy would be more effective against Russia, but might also face more early resistance from UK, with possible weak links in the Balkans or med push. What do you think? G and J still have pretty good projection, but with Canada, India, Australia and Egypt as starting factories UK would have a stronger position at the center south. Japan would be more challenging to play, but they still have options to capture production from the Allies. Probably France throws it, but it might be interesting to see options on a med fleet and to see if G can defend that many factories along the med and the northern coast at the same time.

    Providing no additional AA guns, just the factories. Wonder if it might work, with NOs or without NOs. Probably without NOs stands a better change of working.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Also, one cool effect of positioning starting factories along the main Axis tank drive routes is that they serve as automatic blockers. So even though Arch, Kazakh and Novos may seem pointless, they actually serve to create a buffer wall for Moscow, which makes tank punching harder to pull off. (Basically Russia can withdraw in key rounds completely but still rely on the factory block, so long as it is under Allied possession.) I think the idea with G is to put more targets down across Atlantic and Med lines to pull more Axis units west to defend against Allied drops.

    Bulgaria might be overpowered. India I think works, but might be worth putting one on target in South Africa to split the Brits along a broader swath of the south. The main difference in overall gameplay I think is keeping factories off Borneo and East Indies.

    This means Japan has to stretch farther, and capture an Allied factory to produce above 11 total. This will create a stronger parity between Japan and USA in the Pacific, but also make things less insane if USA went full Pacific (since again Borneo and East Indies wouldn’t have an IC.) I think it makes a kind of sense. Japanese production concentrated in the Manchuria/Chosen region which they controlled since 1937, rather than in newly captured Borneo and East Indies. Both these island territories are still worth 4, for the oil wealth, but they don’t have to produce units to represent that. Or at least, that is the idea behind the 23 factory spread. That you use all the factories but position them in ways to serve overall power balance.

    What do you guys think? Which locations would you choose for the factories? If all 23 had to be placed at the start, and no new production after that?

    Another idea is to put a few of those factories on territories at 1 ipc. So for example Hawaii, or Okinawa (make them shiny targets to go after after or defend, but not particularly powerful.) Sort of like the 1 ipc factories in the 1941 starter board. If 1 ipc factories, there are a lot of options on the board that might work for creating play anchors and directing the patterns of troop movements in different directions. Any ideas


  • @Black_Elk:

    What do you guys think? Which locations would you choose for the factories? If all 23 had to be placed at the start, and no new production after that?

    Interesting idea.  Perhaps limit the number of total capacity of new factories by IPC’s per side.  For example, the allies can add factories that can produce 9 IPCs(units) worth of production and the axis 9.  I actually think adding additional factories at the beginning would greatly help the allies, so, it might need to be a 9 allied/12 axis split.

    I just made up those numbers right off the top of my head, they could be WAY off, or spot on.  The only way to know is to game play test them.  This could be a different way to bid to even the game as well.

    Nice out of the box thinking.


  • Agreed.
    Cannot look at the game at the moment, but sounds interesting.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    If each victory city is given an IC by default that is 9 additional factories.

    Japan at 2 in Kiangsu
    America at 2 in Philippines (to Japan in the first round) and 1 in Hawaii (target for Japan)
    Britain at 2 in Australia, 1 in Kwangtung (to Japan in the first round), 3 in India (target for Japan) 3 in Eastern Canada
    Germany at 6 in France, 3 in Poland (targets for UK/US and UK/US/Russia respectively?)

    So far that’s 14 starting production to Axis (if you count what Japan can take in the first round), and 10 to Allies.

    That’s 18 factories just on the VCs alone, but you’d still have what, like another 5 factories left over to try and balance against that?

    The most significant change from the introduction of the 9 VC factories suggested above seems to be in India and France. But these might be fun in developing a KJF game, or for German Atlantic/Med action. Poland could allow for more aggressive move against Russia, whereas France allows for more aggressive moves against England or Africa. The next biggest change, perhaps even more significant, would be the situation around Japan.

    If the Japanese starting factories were concentrated on Kiangsu (VC Shanghai), Kwangtung (VC Hong Kong) and Philippines (VC Manila), Japan’s whole orientation is shifted towards the American thrust. These make sound IC choices over Manchuria, East Indies and Borneo. Those last 3 are all rich in IPCs already, representing the raw materials, but focusing the actual production facilities on Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Philippines is probably more interesting for gameplay, and makes sense historically. Philippines was targeted because of the large bases there. Hong Kong was also targeted as a base of potential British resistance to Japanese designs on the Pacific, and Kiangsu represents all the major areas of activity in the Chinese war since 1937. So it makes sense for Japan to have these territories in their immediate objectives, and also to mark their importance with factory units. This combined with the target VC factories in Hawaii, India, and Australia, and you instantly have a game that is geared much more towards Pacific conflict.

    The question from there is where to put any remaining factories. I count 23 total factory sculpts in my box. You guys have the same or is it 24 and I just misplaced one? :)

    Anyway, starting VC factories seem like the way to do it, then fix the remaining production where it does the most good on balance. I think you have to fix the production at some number and then not allow additional production to be purchased for this to succeed. Otherwise you end up with that dreaded factory in East Indies that makes the Japanese defense so easy to lock down and allows for a broad launch across the whole bottom of the board. This distribution of factories at VCs would remove the Japanese tank drop factory in Manchuria, but would still allow similar production, just spread out across territories that are somewhat more challenging to defend. Kiangsu, Kwangtung, and Philippines would require more fleet actions and forward coverage to use. They create interesting power projection points, but without allowing such massive drops into south asia. I think it would be superior for the gameplay, over the traditional locations for additional Japanese production, and it forces recognition of all the VCs. Highlights VCs in terms of the actual gameplay, and not just as some extra aside. I think it might work

    With the remaining 5 ICs, I suggest the 3 Russian territories Archangel, Kazakh, or Novosibirsk just for the blocking potential mentioned above, and to give the Russians some light early flexibility in the placement of infantry, artillery or tanks.) The other factories I suggest going to Egypt and Alaska, to counterbalance against the starting production advantage of Germany, and the production that can potentially be seized by Japan. Egypt gives another Axis target that Britain must defend (splitting their purchases across a longer line, but also giving them the potential to project earlier), while Alaska can serve as a target of opportunity for Japan, or as a potential spring board the Americans. An alternative to Egypt might be South Africa, if Allies prove to weak to hold the line, or if there are in fact a total of 24 sculpts rather than 23 you could do both haha.

    With 18 down on all VCs where would you put the extra sculpts still remaining?

    For this to work, I think it makes sense for China to be under normal US control, to prevent the weirdness of starting factories in Chinese territories. To me this has long been the most sound fix for the China problem anyway, to just consider them US controlled like on all previous gameboards. In fact I think I will make a separate post on the China subject right now.

    OK I started a legit thread, so we can plan exactly how this should work.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33665.msg1286598#msg1286598

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts