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.
Have you done any more play testing of the USA econ bid?
Don’t know about the others (looking only at Nerquen’s sheet it doesn’t look like it), but I haven’t.
My FtF games aren’t for much playtesting (other than strategies with the ‘official’ rules) and in TripleA, people just want to have more playtime than I can afford. To better think over their moves, for example, or to spend more quality time with their families during the weekends (very understandable). Since I have to spend much more time on my job since recently, my availability to TripleA has become even more questionable… I don’t want A&A to become my first priority after my job and my daily need for sleep ;-). Alas. But who knows if/when that changes again!
USA starts with SA under control, adjust income accordingly. Makes them more of a threat, liberating uk/losing uk less an issue, more fun. Can even add those neutrals by South Africa to UK.
Bam pick a side or bid down for # of neutrals uk starts with.
Play-tested Cow’s idea (of putting all of South America under US control, thus increasing America’s starting production by 8, and giving 11 additional infantry at the start of the game) and it seemed to work reasonably well.
It also seems like a more organic solution than simply tacking on some arbitrary number to USA’s income, and has some historical precedent (since South America did lend some support to the war effort)
Coupled with a modest bid for the brits (6ish), i think this would go a long way to balancing the game.
