@grapesoda:
Hi A&A community,
I’m new to this board and wanted to share my thoughts about the imbalance of this game. I believe it has less to do with the units and their placement on the board, but that it is rather a logistical problem. The general consesus seems to be, that everything revolves around capturing Moscow for the Axis and saving Moscow for the Allies. So from a logistical viewpoint, the goal for every power is to get units to Moscow.
I compared four A&A games with regard to the problem of achieving this goal for both the Axis and the Western Allies (UK & US): Classic, Revised, 1942 1st Ed, 1942 2nd Ed
The general perception is, that Classic greatly favors the Allies, 1942 2nd greatly favors the Axis while Revised and 1942 1st are largely balanced. When looking at the supply lines for each power from their main production facility to Moscow i noticed the following:
Classic:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Karelia-Russia = 3 turns
UK: Karelia-Russia = 2
Japan: Manchuria-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Karelia-Moscow = 3
Revised & 1942 1st:
Germany: Eastern Europe-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Archangel-Russia = 2
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-UK-Archangel-Russia = 4
1942 2nd:
Germany: Poland-Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia = 4
UK: Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 4
Japan: Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk-Russia = 4
USA: Eastern Canada-Finland-Karelia-Archangel-Russia = 5
What can be easily seen is, that the most balanced games are the ones where the supply line to Moscow for Germany, Japan and USA are all the same. The game where the supply line for the Americans is shorter than one of the Axis powers heavily favors the Allies. The game where the supply line for the Americans is longer than for both Axis powers heavily favors the Axis.
In 1942 2nd Edition the Americans could cut their supply line by one turn by dropping units from Finland or Norway directly into Archangel through transports. But that would require another large fleet of warships and transports on part of the Allies, which they cannot afford. So for me the solution to the imbalance seems to be, instead of pre placing several units across the board, to give the Americans the means to build such a fleet through either more income or a larger starting navy.
A better solution in my opinion would be, to have Iceland touch both SZ 2 and 3. Then the main Allied fleet could sit in SZ 4 and the American supply line would go: Eastern Canada-Iceland-Archangel-Moscow = 4. This would however require a reprint of the map. But other than that, i believe there is nothing else that can balance this game other than a large bid that completely alters the starting setup.
Pretty interesting comparative analysis.
It opens a totally different approach on Balance issues.
However, I’m not sure that looking for the path to reinforce Russia via ground units is they key.
Fight the enemy where he is weaker.
I believe you should look and compares about times needed to land US and UK in France or North Western Europe. Taking hold in a 6IPCs TTy, even exchanging back and forth is a huge swing for Allies.
It drastically cut the German investment on Eastern Front.
Also (your approach make me think about this) , may be you can make a rough approximation of many IPCs can land per Turn over the time. Example, assuming 1942.2 India need 3 units (2 Art and 1 Inf), this cut 31 UK to 20 available per game turn to land on Russia. So, at best it is going to be 2 Fgs in 1.25 turn to reach Moscow. For USA full KGF, it means roughly 2TPs 1DDs 22 IPCs per turn which cannot be land unit, hence 20 US IPCs per turn left for ground to reach Europe. Again, it can be 2 Fgs in Moscow assuming a Carrier in Easter US as a launch pad and via Iceland, it takes 2 turns to reach Moscow.
Maybe there is some way to compare and see how the money (here 1942.2 2*20 IPCs per turn) reach Russia.
Also, there is no India IC before 1942.2, so in a full KGF, it may reveals more fund goes to Russia, IDK.