We have been playing CDG’s 1939 v3 set-up with a neutrals variant and it is great. Is anyone aware of a pre-1939 alternate set-up worth trying?
Thanks…MF
Alternate bidding scheme
-
Very true that there are many horribly ahistorical things in the game Calvin
Also very good idea amanntai. You should go ahead and house rule that and ask your opponents to play that way.
And I think the increase should be 4 per turn. :-) Don’t mess with 1-3 is my advice -
For me it’s not so much a historical thing as it is a gameplay thing. Going back to Classic and with each successive A&A game, the single theater focus for USA predominates. The split theater build strategy is too expensive and too slow to be effective in competitive play. USA always picks a theater, will spend as little as possible in the other theater, just enough to prevent a loss there, and drive over many rounds in chosen direction to kill that nation first. The game is basically balanced with this understanding in mind, that Axis should be strong enough to at least face down a 100% thrust by USA in either direction, so the total USA income is accordingly nerfed to ensure that that those one dimensional strats aren’t too overpowered. But if you had some way to give more total income to USA on a bonus and then force the split, I think the gameplay would probably be more satisfying overall, with action in both theaters for the duration.
Its interesting to me that such a solution was employed for the UK in Global, but not to USA, which would probably have benefited more from such a scheme. The problem as I understand it, was that a single UK economy was deemed too overpowered, so this was split into 2 economies. A single USA economy that was large enough to fight an effective dual theater war would probably be overpowered too, in exactly the same way.
I wonder how the game might look if all nations had to maintain separate income by theater?
For example if Russia had to spend their potential 8 ipcs from the Pacific side of the board in the Pacific. Just give them a minor factory in Evenki or something. USA has to spend their 17 on the Pacific side etc. Then give those nations an NO boost, in each theater, to bring the overall balance in line. The rules could be universal, such that if an Axis power moved into a different theater then any income taken over has to be spent on that side of the map. This might encourage minor factory buys under those less likely conditions, when Japanese units are in Africa etc. Clearly the Allies would be at a disadvantage under such a scheme, so it would make sense for them to get an income boost. But it might be fun, even if it requires a bit more tracking. Just like the UK, the restriction needn’t apply to movement (e.g. no need for separate units) just enforce it on purchase/income collection/placement.The idea of the ascending bonus for Allies seems cool.
I think its easier to balance using income rather than starting units, whatever the approach.
-
I think Larry Harris, the designer, actually tried to force the US player to split his spending by making a NO for France and another for the Philippines. But it can be argued that a 5 IPC NO is far from enough, considered that when US is in France and the Philippines, the game is close to an Axis surrender anyway, making this extra money redundant.
To stay on topic, why not let the players make a bid of USA NOs ?
USA get a NO if the allies control Morocco ?, and others for each of Normandy, South France and France, making a possible total of 20 extra dollars in Europe ?
And why only get money from the Philippines, why not a NO for allied control of Szechwan and Yunnan too ?
Or allied control plus one US land unit for all US NOs to work ?
-
Come to think about it, many of the current NOs are silly. How can Germany collect more money from a burned down and bombed to ruins Leningrad, than the original owner is able to in peace time ? I just don’t get it. IMHO the best NO is the trade NO, like when Germany get iron ore from Sweden, now that is how it works in the real world.
I suggest to skip the silly US NO of Mid West and Cuba, and give US a trade NO for important international trading spots and their adjacent convoy centers.
In both peace and war, US get a NO for the following
Normandy + the convoy in seazone 105
Oil rich Persia + seazone 80
Neutral Turkey + sz 99Kiangsu + sz 19
Phil + sz 35
Queensland + sz 54 and suddenly the battle of Solomon becomes urgent.Now this are just suggestions, but you get the idea. If Germany fail to capture Normandy in Turn 1, then US keep on receive NO money from it until Germany succeeds. USA get NO money from Normandy as long as it is controlled by either France or an allied power, and the convoy center in 105 is clear of enemy subs and ships
-
Come to think about it, many of the current NOs are silly. How can Germany collect more money from a burned down and bombed to ruins Leningrad, than the original owner is able to in peace time ? I just don’t get it. IMHO the best NO is the trade NO, like when Germany get iron ore from Sweden, now that is how it works in the real world.
Guys. Lets not dig to deep on historical accuracy… e.g. by 1944 2,7 million Russians were forced to work for or in Germany… may be the NOs in question are not about Oil or Steel… :oops:
may be just leave it at that…
Also… a thought about having more accuracy… morale is big point for fighting forces… may be somehow reflected by the dice here in A&A, but also holding a major city gives a boost to morale (reflected by 5 IPC NO).
There are HUGE limitations by trying to put that to a board game, and simplifications are needed for sure. So that would be my conclusion: stop seeing the NOs as true “material or money”, a lot can go into that. Morale and forces work just being two examples.
If these NOs are balanced or not on the other hand is a completely different topic and should not be mixed with historical accuracy imho.
-
I’m curious, what are the frequent bids on each game players test right now for additional U.S. income?
-
I think there are 4 games going on and we are all working on about 10 bid.
I have lost awfully in my game and found not having a Bid in the Med, quite distressing. -
Reworked NOs have been attempted already, and discussed in numerous house rule threads. Talk too much about NOs and the thread usually gets pushed into that section, so probably best to keep all this framed as a simple bid alternative. Even though bidding is technically a house rule as well, for whatever reason discussions about bids are more acceptable in the official game sections.
In order for a bid to be a bid, it has to provide a mechanism for determining who plays which side. So for original poster, that means players are bidding here for additional USA income (where that amount is variable). The novelty in this case is that the income bonus would be repeating or ascending in some way. The simplest would probably be a repeating set value. For example “I will play USA for + X per round” then if you want it to be ascending, I would just add an additional IPC value on top of the base value X.
perhaps X + Y in extra IPCs at collect income, where Y equals the number of the current game round?
-
I believe split VC conditions for each theater (8 in Europe, 6 in Pacific) is already quite a strong motivation for US to pay attention to both theaters. Maybe US players don’t get as much short term reward by splitting its resources to both theaters as they get by focusing on a chosen theater. But dedicated focus to a single theater even though bringing fast progress in the chosen theater will most likely lead to lost war in the other theater.
In my current test game with US+9 (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35735), I tried KJF. I dedicated almost all US income to Pacific and was able to capture Tokyo in US9 but I will likely lose the game pretty soon :(. Even at +9 to US, KJF is not really overpowered and probably not optimal at all. Also I believe Japan could have prevented fall of Tokyo, just somehow under-defended it, well they don’t need it to win the game.
I am currently playing three test games with extra US income and I believe we have not observed any strange artifacts felt by the additional US income, so overall I like it. In 2 of the games, it is first time for me to face the dark sky strategy (Germany having 27 bombers in 9th turn), and I don’t enjoy playing against that strategy much, it feels so unrealistic and misused. It feels that Germany is overpowered by massing bombers in such an extreme way.
As for the balance of US economy bid, in all of my games, +10 seems a bit low, especially if Italy does not get “tarantoed” then Italy is also having about +10 bonus compared to what it is normally used to have with a pre-placement bid in MED. I will try +15 to +20 range next I think. I will start a google sheet soon, where we can summarize results and experience from all played test games.
-
This is a bit off topic, but actually I find current victory conditions to reasonably well motivate allied players to historically plausible actions. What I find a bit unrealistic is the incentive of Axis powers to abandon its starting theater in the end game and focus fully to the other theater to help achieve Axis victory there. Like Japan, sending all its fleet and airforce to MED once Moscow falls to help in the battle for Egypt or defense of Rome. Maybe a house rule not allowing Axis power units to cross into the other theater could fix that*****. Japan even did not declare war on Soviet Union historically, so I guess such a simple house rule could make for a good model of the political situation of the time… also supply lines (not modeled at all by A&A) would become prohibitively expensive by going all the way to the other half of the world.
***** hmm is not that simple, there would a problem with India’s army retreating into West India and not being attackable by Japan, or same with soviet units waiting on china’s border.
-
This is a bit off topic, but actually I find current victory conditions to reasonably well motivate allied players to historically plausible actions. What I find a bit unrealistic is the incentive of Axis powers to abandon its starting theater in the end game and focus fully to the other theater to help achieve Axis victory there. Like Japan, sending all its fleet and airforce to MED once Moscow falls to help in the battle for Egypt or defense of Rome. Maybe a house rule not allowing Axis power units to cross into the other theater could fix that*****. Japan even did not declare war on Soviet Union historically, so I guess such a simple house rule could make for a good model of the political situation of the time… also supply lines (not modeled at all by A&A) would become prohibitively expensive by going all the way to the other half of the world. ��
***** hmm is not that simple, there would a problem with India’s army retreating into West India and not being attackable by Japan, or same with soviet units waiting on china’s border.�� Â
This is way off topic, but since you are the thread owner, I will respond.
I think that Japan should be treated the same way that Russia is treated towards the Western Allies. UK and US units should not be allowed to be on Russian territories, share seazones yes, but not move into Russian owned territories. They kind of can now, since this is a game, but if they do then Russia lose a 5 IPC NO. Japan should of course be allowed to move over the whole map, as they would in the real war if they had been more successful, but Japanese land units should not be allowed to move into Axis held territories, sharing seazones yes, but not land territories. They were rivals who split the world between them, not true friends that shared. Same with commie Russia and the democratic allies
just saing
-
(…)
I am currently playing three test games with extra US income and I believe we have not observed any strange artifacts felt by the additional US income, so overall I like it. In 2 of the games, it is first time for me to face the dark sky strategy (Germany having 27 bombers in 9th turn), and I don’t enjoy playing against that strategy much, it feels so unrealistic and misused. It feels that Germany is overpowered by massing bombers in such an extreme way.Gargantua and Gamer don’t think the DS is overpowered and I don’t think so either. Their comments in the DS-thread make a lot of sense. In fact, I basically said the same thing before, but ‘failed’ to execute the plan perfectly (always an allied requirement). GF against DS is not dead as far as I’m concerned.
On the contrary, from what I have seen, JF does not get the job done and I suspect KJF will only be worse for the allies. Which leaves only GF. Surprisingly, since I don’t think GF works as good against other German strategies.
Especially with DS, a monstrous Germany is worse than a monstrous Japan. Germany has the center and if it can eliminate/bypass Moscow unopposed… you know what happens. Japan has a much harder job trying to win with ~90IPCs after India is out of the way. -
So a plus 20 or even 25 ipc income each round would be ok to ask for?
-
@aequitas:
So a plus 20 or even 25 ipc income each round would be ok to ask for?
After my first 3 test games I would say 20 is a reasonable bonus for US.
Here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TRZcA7zK3-B31ipA9cOzaiLnwiCrJlY7aWlvFMSo4J4/edit?usp=sharing is a google sheet summarizing all played test games. Please let me know if you would like to add a game.
-
just curious, would you consider +15 US +5 Russia? Nice job on staying with it.
-
I want to see plus 5 to Russia with a plus 10 to America. Will try it out soon, although I still want to see Leningrad dropped as a NO.
-
That sounds good wittman. The -5 to Germany should be more impactful than just more dough for the allies. The money bid seems like a nice option.
-
just curious, would you consider +15 US +5 Russia? Nice job on staying with it.
yes, I would say that it could make for a good and balanced game.
-
@aequitas:
So a plus 20 or even 25 ipc income each round would be ok to ask for?
After my first 3 test games I would say 20 is a reasonable bonus for US.
Here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TRZcA7zK3-B31ipA9cOzaiLnwiCrJlY7aWlvFMSo4J4/edit?usp=sharing is a google sheet summarizing all played test games. Please let me know if you would like to add a game.
Hi Nerq, good job with the sheet!
Like we discussed in private (after my last online games), we can add some other game(s) to this in the near future. I’d like to give GF a couple more tries (especially with increased US production), as in USA 2 turns Europe-production, then switching back to Pacific. At least with DS, I have seen enough of (K)JF to think that this is not the thing to do with the allies: Germany will become monstrous and a monstrous Germany is even worse than a monstrous Japan. Caveat emptor :wink:!But I have to say that my last tripleA games were a bit of an eye-opener for me as to what my play(time!) limits are and I had to stop playing after about 19 turns (spread over 3 games) during 5 weeks in a row. Too bad my opponent overreacted, but in any case I would not want to repeat this… 5 weeks clearly was too much for me. But anyway, we discussed most of this before.
As I am reluctant to find out where my ‘breakpoint’ (how much time on end) exactly lies, I’d rather stay on the safe side and not get close to the breakpoint in the first place.
So if/when I play on tripleA, I should play as if I play FtF at the table: not longer than a couple of days in a row but those days should be reserved for playing A&A completely. I see you live in Europe (like me), so we should be able to arrange a long ‘tripleA game-weekend’, in which we play 1 or 2 complete A&A games in just 3 to max 4 days. That is way safer (and much more appealing) to me than playing for (5) weeks on end. Depending on how fast we can play, of course, but if we can do >½ a gameturn per hour we should be able to complete at least 1 monster game (of >20 turns) or 2 shorter ones (<11 turns each). If you (and/or any1 else) is interested in playing like this we’ll discuss the exact planning in private. -
Have you done any more play testing of the USA econ bid?
For all the reasons stated by others, the US econ bid seems like a better way to balance the game than simply plopping a few units down on the board at the start.
One point I disagree with: others have said that the bonus should kick in the from the start because, otherwise, Japan might be deterred from declaring war on round 1.
However, the fact that delaying the US bonus might incentivize Japan to delay its DOW is actually the very reason why the bonus should be delayed. The J1 DOW is not only ahistorical, it is extraordinarily powerful and puts Japan in a position that is virtually unstoppable. It is so strong that I would wager many players would continue to use it regardless of when the US bonus kicks in.
I’ve play tested the US econ bid in three games now (with bids ranging from 12 to 15, and all kicking in when USA is at war), and it has done wonders to balance the game, imo. Good idea.
Suggested Topics
