Well, for starters the Black Sea should be closed for sea transport like in AAE. This will stop the ridiculous Italian invansions in the Ukraine and Caucasus.
yes right. They have no business landing every turn like roaches on rafts. They perform more like a German surrogate commando force with 3 shore shots a turn (4,3,3) that alone can make it worth landing every turn.
Maybe Russia needs to build a factory east of Caucus?
Change NOs to “If no russian units in original Japanese territories(1941 Manchuria) collect 5 ipcs”
and also change NO of Japan to “If no Japanese units in Russian territory collect 5 ipcs” and get rid of the Kiangsu,Manchuria,Thailand NO for Japan.
yes i like that. But for the Soviets…just allow them to move 1 factory each turn and once per game. The problem is Germany takes whatever they live because the Soviets are now defending 3 Moscows. Germany takes the central spots with tanks able to go north or south, then the Soviets cant defend Karelia, then Caucasus falls, then Moscow. The germans cant have these factories because it accelerates the Soviet demise and makes it impossible to remove them.
@Imperious:
How can Italy (1941) land fighters on newly captured territories when Russia moves first?
Germany plays after the Soviets. Germany takes a Soviet territory and Italy shadows with fighters and other stuff landed by transports in Black sea. The Soviets have to fight 2 nations.
No, in 1941 they are not. And the first part of your review seem to address the 1941 scenario.
I really don’t agree in this talk that Russia is so weak in this game, they have more IPCs than ever before. The problem is that Germany gets so strong IPC-wise. Either you counter this with a very aggressive KGF strategy (see my post above for an example), or you try playing without national objectives. Typically Germany gets 15 IPCs and Italy 10 IPCs from NOs and Soviet union only gets 5, whereas UK gets zip -> so playing without NOs would really help balance the game up towards the Allied side. I would like to see a game played without NOs for the '41 scenario, I will post a game report when I’ve tried it myself!
I haven’t played yet but have looked at the board ('41).
I wouldn’t be so quick to change things around yet. Allied strategy ALWAYS trails the Axis. ALWAYS. It was like this for 2nd Ed and for Revised. I specifically remember in Revised in the early games people claiming Germany was too tough and now the Axis need 8-9 bid just to be competitive.
I think if anything this shows that KGF is back in play and the US should do its best to only spend minimally in the Pac and Ignore Japan. I haven’t studied the seazone moves that close yet, but it take Japan like 6 turns just to get from Asia to Mos (up from 3-4 in Revised), But I failry certain the US can land in Afr 1 turn (from Eus, 2 if you go from Ecan) and can set up a similar (3x3 or 4x4) shuck as in Revised for the Europe landings depending on UK moves. And from ecan that is still 2 moves which is much shorter than Japan to Mos.
Russia can pretty much retreat everything East and still hold in Kaz/Novo.
But it does look like they should pretty much abandon Kar or at the very lest try to deadzone. You can pull your AA adn then use Allied bombers to reduced the IPC so at least Ger has to pay some ipc or they still only get to place in Ger.
If after several months the Axis are still winning with ease then just start with eliminating the NO’s and go from there.
Edit:
Lynxes snuck in a post. But I basically agree with him.
I dunno, I’ve felt that the axis are too strong in AAR at times and that maybe Russia needed a boost there too.
I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians. Maybe he had one too many nuclear attack preparedness drills as a child or something.
Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology. So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income? (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)
We don’t really need to screw around with NOs and bonus units etc. All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls. That one fix alone would give Russia a significant boost in defensive power. (And it would still take 5 rounds for Russia to walk some of those infantry up to Germany, so it isn’t like a magic wand that Russia gets a mass of troops.)
I am not playing with NO’s I am just playing the standard rules…no tech no NO’s
@Craig:
@Cmdr:
I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians.
Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology. So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income? (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)
The problem is that there is no way in which to represent these issues in a game of this level other than to give them less equipment.
Unlike other games in which you have different quality of units for the different powers, this game has generic units. As such the only recourse is to reduce the set up to get the play out that one wants.
Craig
That, plus the fact that a strong Russia in A&A would = Axis NEVER wins. I agree with Jen that, in reality, Russia’s army was by far the largest fielded in WWII. But as IL said once (I believe it was IL), this is a game, not a simulation. Who wants to play a game that one side always wins? And that’s what you would have if you gave Russia an historically accurate army size.
I don’t have the game yet, but it does sound like this one accomplishes what you would hope it would – i.e., the problems and challenges of the game are different than previous editions. This is no mere re-print of Revised.
How about nerfing America instead of Russia for once? :P
Maybe USA should be forbidden to make any attacks or reinforce non-US held territories for two turns and during that time only collect 50% of their normal income.
Then we could rebuff Russia to a more realistic level. :)
How about nerfing America instead of Russia for once?
Slowing down America is bad for gameplay. It makes the pacing drag really hard.
They are so slow on the uptake, and if you knocked them out of the fight for the first two rounds they would be even more boring to play than they already are.
We experimented with an idea like that using a couple of different house mods and design strategies at TripleA. Wandering Heads Big World 1942 was probably the most popular, but I think it really proves that a weak America makes for a rather drull, and highly Euro-centric gameplay dynamic. If anything we should be giving the USA more money, and more starting units. Maybe then they’d actually try to fight a two front War, instead of just throwing everything in one direction, because they’re so strapped for cash. I actually would have been happier in AA50 if China was just under full USA control like it was in Revised. I think Wandering Head made the same mistake when he changed BigWorld 1942 from the original set up, to the one that included China as a playable faction. It just makes the US less relevant, and takes another KJF option off the table.
Unfortunately, an accurate historical simulation can be just as mind-numbingly boring and irritating, as a wildly inaccurate one, so a compromise will probably always be necessary. I would like to see more effort designing factions that can fight a forward game though, instead of always designing them to defend/collapse. I would say that the current model is predicated on the consistant collapse of China/Russia, where the only real factor is time.
All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls.
For a long time I used to suggest a similar house rule in Revised, where No Jap troops could attack into a starting Red Territory, and no Soviets could attack into a starting Yellow Territory, until India and Sinkiang where under Jap control. Combined with the house rule of No Western ground units in Red Territories, it had a certain charm. Much of the basic JTDTM remained in place though, it was just delayed by 3-4 rounds. I don’t think we can fix the Russo-Japanese dynamic with NAP rules alone. What we need are some realistic targets for Japan, and a plan for Axis victory that doesn’t involve Moscow. Right now I don’t really see any
I think my image links went down when the site was switched over, but I think you can still read the discussion.
Triplelk’s House Rule for Revised
http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=8174&page=1#8174
Also, you can combine the house rule posted above with the Colonial Garrison NA and No Axis bid, for a different type of game than the standard 8-9 ipc Axis pre-placement bid.
Might be more doable to nerf America in AA50 if you double the IPC value of Chinese territories when under Chinese control and give China a couple of tanks, an AA Gun and an IC.
Since China is US controlled anyway.
Hmm, how about a little NO for Japan which states: “+5 IPC if no originally Russian territory is owned by Japan” This would make it a bit less favourable to attack Bry or Far, as Japan would loose IPC’s that way 8)
+5 is a lot not to attack. It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas.
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead.
Poor Review
+5 is a lot not to attack. It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas.
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead.
Naah, loosing 5 income for conquering Russia is not a lot: after 3 territories you’re back on the plus side (-5 +3 for Japan, -3 for Russia == +1 for the Axis (or -1 for the Allies)). It’s not making Japan never going to attack Russia, it’s making Russia a bit less attractive for Japan to conquer. I think this would be best: Russia NO: “+5 IPC if at least one original Russian territory is controlled by Japan”.
You know, looking at it all, I’m seeing a Kill America First strategy that could be potent.
Also, Italy is not a nothing nation slave for Germany. Italy should own Africa which would give it income on par with Germany almost (assuming Germany starts having issues with Russia/England)
What about having a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis? I don’t think Japan could be ignored then, and the Japs themselves needn’t go JTDTM when victory is closer by. To boost the Allies you could tweak the NOs in the Allied favour or giving the Chinese the '42 setup in '41 or both.
The Soviet factories are huge problematic points that prove a weakness in the Soviet position and make it much harder to “give up land for time” because frankly nothing can stop German tanks from taking Karelia factory, while the Soviets by even trying to defend Moscow or the factories face an unmitigated task of stopping the Panzers from multiple defensive points.
This is the one thing that I find most perplexing about the new set up.
Why, of all places, did they choose Karelia as the location for the only new starting Factory in AA50?
Doesn’t this part of the map receive enough attention already?
With the production hit on Moscow (down to 6 ipcs) and the oportunity for the Axis to triple team Russia, this decision only makes the game even more dependent on direct British involvement in Russia along the northern route. We had a number of alternative locations for a new starting factory that would have been much more promising. India, Australia, or even Hawaii (if they’d given it a boost to 2 ipcs) would have all dramatically improved the gameplay, and certainly been more interesting than Karelia. I never expected to see a starting factory at a value of 2 anyway, but now that the precedent has been established, why wouldn’t you do it for a part of the map that might really benefit from a new starting factory? I feel like some of these things are just so obvious, it makes me wonder who dropped the ball during playtesting, that they couldn’t see the Karelia thing coming. Factories should be used like anchors for parts of the map that aren’t receiving enough action already. Karelia is like the total antithesis of that, since its arguably the most active territory on the board.
For the Russians the factory is a liability rather than a boon, and it doesn’t do much to change the basic dynamic out of Revised. If the rationale was that the Germans needed another factory to use, then they should have put it somewhere more compelling, like Poland or Romania. But forget about reworking the Eastern Front, we’ve been down that road twice now. Instead, we need to focus on the South Pacific and India. It doesn’t matter how many new territories or factories we put in Russia, if the Pacific remains inactive, we’re still going to see the same patterns all over again.
Suggestions:
Minor:
-Allow Factories to be destroyed by their current owner at the end of the Mobilize Units phase (“scorched earth”).
-Lower the cost of new Factories to 12 ipcs
Major:
-Increase the production value of each Capital by 2 ipcs, increase every other territory by 1 ipc.
-add 3 more Victory Cities in contested areas of the map!
I think if you did that the core game would be much improved. The first minor adjustment alone, would allow for a much more interesting endgame. :)
