Nice, not just the World War 1 empire but the glory days centuries ago.
Alternate bidding scheme
-
If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then
Wait. It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.
If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.
Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag. I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.
-
If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then
Wait. ��� It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.
If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. ��� And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.
Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.��� I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.
Thanks for the smart answer Gamer. And no worries about any bragging ;-).
-
I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Allies have won their fair share of games with a preplacement bid. But OOB there is surely a concensus that the board is Axis advantage in 2nd ed right? As Gamer points out bidding is standard in league play and even among competive players the bid it pretty high by A&A standards (into the double digits.) If Allies are taking a pair of subs, or even 3 subs for UK to squash Italy, or use other preplacement units knock off a large chunk of Axis TUV right out the gate, then it’s not unreasonable for Allies to chalk up some wins. Question is, how much do you need on starting income or with a recuring income bonus to match this?
I think the ideal would be a bid alternative, rather than an income boost that augments an existing preplacement bid. Players might grumble about the loss of UK subs, but it just seems easier to go all one way, rather than doing some kind of hybdrid, with extra starting units and extra income. I say nix preplacement and take it back to the OOB unit set up, but this would likely need the income boost to be pretty large to compensate for the Italian TUV that UK isn’t destroying in the first round, and the fact that Italy could once again have an impact on the endgame. This later point is significant. Consider that even if you give USA a recuring income bonus, Italy will likely receive a sizeable recuring boost as well, since it will be harder for UK to lock them out of the med and raid them out of existence. Also, as others have noted, an income bid on the periphery (USA) is rather less effective than one at the center (Russia), so I’d think you’d want to go pretty high with it for USA. A cap at 6 ipcs seems a bit low to me for example.
I think others in this thread have already noted that stuff, just wanted to join in the chorus. I like the idea, but I know it will take time to arrive at a concensus. Balancing on the razors edge and all.
:-D
-
OK, Elk, but what do you think about at least adding back the UK infantry in Egypt that was taken away from Alpha3 to 2nd edition? You indicate you don’t care for double digit bids…
-
I guess of all the razors, that one is the sharpest right?
:-DIf its a hard set up change, might be advisable, given that Italy has a way back into the early game now. 1 infantry would probably be better than the extra artillery you sometimes see on the open bid. At least it doesn’t double the forward attack power of another unit. And USA has no way to get to Egypt, so their income boost, no matter how high we make it, still can’t save Allies from an early drive on Cairo. There is a precedent in the earlier set up pre sec ed, so I’d at least keep it as an option. I think a lot of players have gotten pretty used to that strong UK opener in the med, the extra dude might help alleviate some of the anxiety that Churchill will undoubtedly feel, facing down an Italian player who isn’t a total non-factor anymore haha
-
About 100,000 Italians gave up and went home before ever even making an invasion on Egypt. There were about 10 Italians surrendering for every British man in Egypt. Saw a documentary on it in the past 6 months.
(Spoken by someone who almost always loses Egypt early, whether taking Axis or Allies - sick of it :-D)
-
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
In real life, the Italians faced too much problems in the med (apart from their lack of morale because the average Italian was an unwilling ally to Adolf): the RN cut off supply (very important in a real war) so the Italians in Africa had to do it without. Even if all the Italians in Africa would have been Germans, the axis would not have stood a chance there because of the RN in the med cutting their supplies every day.
The RN is too weak in A&A and too easily wiped from the globe completely. It is kinda sad because the RN was the one thing the UK could rely on during the early months of the war -apart from ‘the few’ that so many owed so much to ;-). But in A&A-terms, the latter is just a stroke of luck with the dice.The argument that a German inability to kill the RN at start would result in an invasion of Europe too early (which looses the game for the axis) is easily neutralized by giving Germany additional land units to start with. Germany can choose what to do with them -use them in Russia and face the hammering of these early invasions or they can leave troops in Europe (like they historically did) to ward off an invasion for a while. The latter should be the obvious choice, as winning Moscow does not make up for loosing Western Germany (and everything west of it) -something that is true even in A&A.
But since A&A is what it is and strengthening/positioning the RN to a point where Germany can’t kill it G1 is too much of a game-changer (let alone the playtesting required for this and for more German land troops added), we’ll have to deal with (Alternate) bidding schemes either for units or for additional income that satisfy both sides.
-
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
Well, that’s comforting, I’m in a team game right now where my Italy got punched in the mouth so hard in the first round, after I1 I had ZERO ground units in Africa and pretty much no fleet at all. And yes, I’m sure I’ll be fine, and yes of course I’m staring at an enemy complex in Egypt early in the game AGAIN (I pretty much always do, regardless of side, like I said :lol:)
-
Truth be told, I have no problem with the game if the Axis (by allied bidding or otherwise) could not do anything in Africa at all. It’s just history, could not have been otherwise and the axis still have a good shot at victory in A&A.
Well, that’s comforting, I’m in a team game right now where my Italy got punched in the mouth so hard in the first round, after I1 I had ZERO ground units in Africa and pretty much no fleet at all. And yes, I’m sure I’ll be fine, and yes of course I’m staring at an enemy complex in Egypt early in the game AGAIN (I pretty much always do, regardless of side, like I said :lol:)
:)
-
Awesome, my friendly opponent is all over it :lol:
-
Poor Gamer, I feel your pain ;-).
I have (hopefully had?) similar problems but somewhere else on the map: the UK ships off Nova Scotia.
I almost always seem to loose that battle no matter what side I play and if I play Germany, no matter if I send 1 or 2 subs (couldn’t get myself to send in more subs). -
Yugoslavia G1 has been my bugaboo - no matter which side I’m on :-)
Not every single game, but close to it :-P -
That is the best post I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for the contribution, Hawk
-
I agree with you as well,ShadowHAwk.
An enlarged version could have been more effectiv in terms of more strategic planning in games.
Whoever controlls Med first, basically has it!
He who survives with the larger Fleet gets the upper Hand. -
just cut every SZ in 2 and the game suddenly becomes a lot more realistic and interesting to play.
Yes cut the seazones, and Germany will be in Moscow before USA had time to land in Africa.
A better solution would be to cut the aircraft range. Lets say Bombers now combat move 4 spaces only, and fighters combat move 2 spaces. Of course there must be a non combat move with larger range for planes that did not participate in combat. But now we are way off topic
…or we could cut the seazones, let the planes keep their range, but let ships move 4 spaces
USA need to reach the other side in one turn, or it will be a boring game
-
Sea movement needs to be further. I have thought that since 1987. Make one side buy the blocking DDs or else face the wrath of the long distance attacking fleet.
Fts and Bombers are ok with 4 and 6 range. Adding the bonus tilts it too much and makes for endless possibilities(some of them silly, as pointed out). Combined with their lower cost, Air units are an indispensable and overpowered tool. Naval Bases are a great idea, but it think Air ones were thrown in for balance. But it does not work, except for scrambling.
I also hate how a land based Ft can land on a Carrier. I would like to see that stopped. Only specialist planes being allowed to do so, then obviously costing more. -
I think it is from less to nothing we can do with the map. You can houserule planes landing on carriers, but I doubt it will be a success.
So I choose to endorse the opening post, and welcome the US bid.
-
I was 6 in 1987, but I can see the argument for expanded distance from an evasion perspective.
:)However, having played on custom maps that attempt to achieve this, I can tell you that they are often painfully boring if you do nothing but increase the number of sea zone tiles between land masses. The earliest iterations of Big World 1942 (a custom game for tripleA by Wandering Head, that I helped with in early stages) showed this problem in action.
He believed as you do, that the ocean distances of the OOB games were ridiculous. His solution there was to basically double the number of tiles in the Atlantic and even more in the Pacific, while preserving the same movement at 2.
He also did not like the cartoonish geography of the OOB maps, the solution there was to use mercator. I had gripes with the OOB geography as well, though I think Mercator is unworkable for a game like this because Europe is too small. This is what lead me to making that Domination map projection, that tried to strike a compromise between the two. In TripleA that map projection was used for v3 AA50, just to give an idea, even there Europe was almost too small, though there was less overall map scrolling in tripleA which was the aim.
In both cases on land and at sea, the extra distance was problematic for pacing, which is why half tracks and cruisers were given a movement of 3, in one of the intermediate versions, just to provide some more interest. Even then though, the pace dragged a lot. USA in particular was very slow.
I’m not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps more distance would be workable with considerably more starting units and a much higher starting income per nation?
Anyway back to the main subject of this thread, a recuring problem with USA is that they don’t have enough total cash to play a split theater game.
If on the other hand you do give them enough starting income to do this, smart players will still just throw it all in one direction because of the way US starting production is distributed. In most games this is around 12 production Atlantic and 10 production Pacific. In Global this is even higher.
One solution, from a map redesign standpoint, would be to significantly drop the cap on the coastal factories and push the additional production to the interior of North America. But a map redesign doesn’t do you any good when you’re working with an existing game.
Perhaps another approach would be to provide a separate USA bonus for each theater, with the caveat that this money can only be used for naval units and must be spent in the specific theater. For example +10 to USA Atlantic and +10 to USA Pacific.
Or perhaps you could alternate the bonus +20 to Pacific on the odd rounds, +20 to Atlantic on the even rounds.
Another approach would be to simply split the income for USA between the Pacific and Europe boards, as suggested by Commander Jennifer and others, basically mirroring the split UK economy.
I’m not hugely fond of either approach since they introduce a lot more complexity, but absent some sort of placement restriction by theater, players will always throw everything one direction, because it’s more effective.
Given the choice, I think a bonus restricted by theater would be easier to work with for an HR.
-
Increase USA income a bunch, and just require some build rule - you don’t have to split economies like UK.
For example, you can’t build more than double the value of units on one coast as the other. Just an example.
Or, rather than a turn by turn rule, could do a cumulative total of unit value, so that you could possibly build 100% on one coast or the other for a couple of turns when you want to. Example: USA has built 100 TUV on West Coast and 75 on East Coast so far during the game. USA could build 100% on East Coast until TUV reaches 200 on East Coast.
Just brainstorming here folksIf a person put more thought into it, I’m confident you could find a way to make the USA split theaters and have more money and make the game better.
Another thought is to limit the # of boats that can sail through the Panama canal in a turn.
-
So, to shift the topic back towards the topic, and away from Egypt…
It seems that:
- Russia’s historical economy is accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition, so doesn’t need a boost.
- Germany’s economy is not so accurately modeled, and might need the NO for Leningrad removed.
- The US economy was clearly the strongest among the allies all throughout the war, increased throughout the war, and this is not accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition.
I am in favor of an exponential increase in US income, starting from Turn 1, rather than entering the war, so Japan still has a reason to do a DoW on their first turn. I think somewhere between 1-4 IPCS per turn per turn should do it. Then by Turn 16 (by some reasoning ~1944) the US could have as many as 64 extra IPCS per turn, which about doubles the US starting income while at war, consistent with the historical GDP increase.
In total, this would force the Axis to win quickly before the US totally dwarfed them in income, and would open up a possible KGF if the NO for Lenin grad was removed.
This seems to be the most historically correct fix. What are your opinions on it gamewise?
Suggested Topics
