Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    ps. to be clear, I think Argothairs suggestion could also work, if we are willing to zero the board of all units, and build the starting forces from the ground up.

    When I hear mild economic edge for Axis, and deficit in units, I’d read that on the broader continuum. Since Axis don’t have to make more money in total than the Allies to achieve that effect, they just need to make more IPCs each round relative to what they usually earn, relative to their starting TUV/unit composition.

    Without wildly distorting the ownership of Axis starting territories, this economic edge would have to be accomplished via NOs. Fairly large NOs too, since you’d only have two Nations on that team. That seems cool with me. NO’s are the best sort of gamey mechanism we have, since it’s all abstract and not tied to the specific ipc/production values of the game map. If you want to bring Axis totals up substantially, I’d do it like that, rather than by trying to engineer an scripted expansion pattern for Axis as a way of equalizing the total loot they can grab for their side each round.

    Allies by contrast, would be collecting at similar amount with less objective boosts, but with more starting units already in place, with their unit composition more pre-determined.

    So instead of in 1940 where the Axis have the most complex opening moves, in 1943 it could maybe be one of the Allies, say USA, who has to make a complex opener, with tough decisions about how to distribute their starting forces in attacks, and tough decisions about what to by, in order to set the game pace.

    I will always argue for a stronger Russia as a way of introducing novelty, but that doesn’t mean you have to nerf everyone else to achieve it. If the set up was designed such that the Western Allies have a ���� ton of things to do, and sending fighters to Moscow isn’t one of them, then it makes sense to create a more defensible stand alone player in Russia. A&A has always started in a timeline where Russia is meant to be the weak link, but by 1943 this was not case. 1943 is the year the Red Army turned the corner and starting wining WW2 against Germany for the rest of the world haha ;)

    Questions:

    Which side would you have move first? Axis or Allies?

    What turn order would be the most interesting to pursue in a 5 man? Would you keep it traditional with a Russian opener, or switch things up, the way AA50 did, and have Germany, or Japan move first? And related to this, is it worth mixing up the turn order in a new way to introduce more novelty to the scenario? USA or UK first, for 1943? It could be cool for an early campaign against Italy.

    On the idea of turn order, I’ve done a lot of experiments with this on various boards, and I found that its easier to change the starting nation, than it is to change the order or sequence of Nations for any given board. So for example, traditionally in the 5 man it is…
    R, G, UK, J, USA.

    Instead of altering the sequence the way AA50 did, you can just alter the start point in the sequence like…
    USA, R, G, UK, J

    Or you can reverse the direction (reading the traditional sequence backwards say, from any point) like…
    USA, J, UK, G, R.

    Any takers? hehe

    Also should capital capture be necessary in order for the Axis to win? I’d vote no on this last, but if no, then really think a VC focus needs to be a priority, and perhaps be built into the National Objective income scheme as some sort of stand alone bonus.

    I kind of like that idea, in a 1943 game, where winning as the Axis means expanding just a bit and then “holding out long enough.” Sort of like a mirror image of the Classic game, where Allies win simply by holding out long enough. In 1943 the onus could be on the Allies to attack and destroy the enemy “before time runs out,” whereas usually this onus is on the Axis in A&A. Might be cool for the switch up. I agree that it would be a fun change of pace in an A&A game.

    For a proper 5 man, the first addendum to the rules would have to be something like…

    All territories with an Italian roundel are considered “originally controlled” by the Germans.
    All territories with an Anzac, Canadian, French or Dutch roundel are considered originally controlled by the British.
    All territories with a Chinese roundel are considered originally controlled by the Americans.

    This way you don’t have to deal with any weird liberation issues, everything is just governed by the roundel drawn on the map, with control assigned to the appropriate nation if the territory is recovered for your team.

    If desired you could extend this concept of “control” to the national unit sculpts too. Meaning for example, any Italian units on the map are considered German. Any French or Anzac troops are considered British. With the choice of sculpt/color being merely an aesthetic preference. This would allow players to utilize all their G40 sculpts!

    Italian sculpts are considered European Axis under German direction.
    French and Anzac sculpts are considered European and Pacific Allies under British direction.

    This would allow players to still give the gamemap a global feel, but without requiring all the rules overhead of a 10 nation turn order. Basically these “bonus sculpts” would be interchangeable with the sculpts of the Nation that controls their roundel flag insignia on the gamemap.


  • I’ve been very busy for the past several days, so I haven’t had much time to follow the details of this discussion.  From a quick read today, I can see that lots of interesting ideas have been proposed but I’m also wondering if the discussion is perhaps drifting into potentially conflicting directions (a point alluded to by Argothair in his most recent post).

    Black Elk has proposed a lot of good ideas which I think are well worth pursuing.  Many of them – if I understand them correctly –  seem to aim to produce an A&A game which works “better” than the OOB version…a game that has the scope of Global 1940, but which plays with the briskness of the smaller games.  They include concepts like “zeroing” the board and the units, generally streamlining the game, giving the game a 5-player dynamic, giving the Russians a proper navy, and so forth.  What Black Elk sees here is, in his words, “a real opportunity to correct some of the issues that have long plagued the game” which would be done from the ground up by the A&A community.

    This all sounds great, but it should be noted that these concepts are applicable to A&A in a general sense.  There’s nothing in them that inherently ties them to a 1943 scenario, or for that matter to a scenario set in any other year of WWII.  So we should be careful to be clear about exactly what the intended objective of this exercise is, because the objective has a major impact on some pretty basic decisions.  Specifically:

    • If the objective is to produce a game which has the “rebalanced” elements which Black Elk advocates, then we need to seriously ask ourselves whether a 1943 scenario is the right context in which to set the game.  Perhaps what Black Elk advocates could be achieved in a 1943 scenario by bending historical reality sufficiently…but might it not be easier and more historically accurate to pick a different year?

    • Conversely, if the objective is to model 1943 accurately (which was, I think, the premise on which this discussion thread was originally based), then it follows that the unit values and locations of the forces on the board have to correspond to historical reality reasonably closely, and that this in turn might rule out some of the things (such as a balanced game) which I think Black Elk wants to achieve.

    So I’m wondering if this discussion should actually be split into two separate ones: one to create a revised game system along the lines being proposed by Black Elk (in which the year of the scenario would be dictated by the system’s requirements) and one to create a 1943 scenario (in which the game system would be dictated by the reality of the situation as it existed in 1943).

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Great posts as always, Black_Elk. I agree with your agenda: let’s get the starting territories right first, then figure out some starting battles / national objectives to give the game a solid 1943 theme, and then we can tweak the starting unit balance.

    I typed up a list of territories assigning France to the USA (rather than to Britain, which is already relatively income-rich in 1943), and splitting China between the USA and the USSR (which is surprisingly income-poor in 1943). These are mostly stylistic choices – obviously, you could give all those territories to Britain and it would not affect the overall Axis/Allied economic balance. I just think it’s fun to model the ongoing tension between the Brits and the French – if you give all the French colonies to Britain, then Britain winds up with this monolithic chunk of territories in Africa. It’s not as if the USA can build an IC in Algeria or Madagascar, anyway – they’re all 1-point territories.

    Anyway, I show that the Axis start with 136 IPCs to the Allies’ 124 IPCs, even before adding in any national objectives. So unless my math is badly off or I’ve grossly misrepresented the Russian front, it should not be too hard to have the Axis starting off with a straightforward income advantage in 1943. I think this is the simplest way to force the Allies to race against the clock to defeat the Axis – if you let the Axis sit on their gains for too long, they’ll just start out-producing you.

    I take your point about starting unit placement being more important than starting TUV and starting income. In games where the entire British and American navies get destroyed on turn 1, along with the bulk of the Russian tank corps, the “printed” Allied TUV is deeply inaccurate. The actual TUV that the Allies have to work with in 1940 or 1941 is much less than what they are shown as starting with on the setup cards, because most of it will be destroyed either before the Allies get a move, or after the Allies’ very first move.

    However, I think this will be less true for the 1943 scenario. We agree that no Allied navies should be reliably sunk on turn 1. There is no Pearl Harbor, no Taranto, etc. We agree that Russia should have a tough, buff front line that is in position to advance and conquer, rather than in position to be shattered and forced to retreat. I envision that Allied China will fall more often than not in 1943, but there is not a lot of TUV there – maybe 50 points of infantry and 20 points of fighters. I do not see any big opportunities for the Axis to destroy Allied TUV in the first couple of moves. The Allies might choose to commit some of their TUV to try to make aggressive territorial gains, but that’s a different animal.

    GERMANY
    Western and Central Europe (including France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Sicily) – 49 IPCs
    Tunisia, French West Africa, and French Central Africa – 3 IPCs
    Norway, Finland, and Karelia – 6 IPCs
    Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Novgorod, Smolensk – 6 IPCs
    Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Rostov, Caucasus – 8 IPCs
    German subtotal – 72 IPCs

    JAPAN
    Home Islands, Korea, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Formosa – 14 IPCs
    Oceania (including Philippines) – 17 IPCs
    Eastern China, from Hong Kong to Manchuria – 13 IPCs
    Kwangsi, French Indo China, Siam, Malaya, Shan State, Burma – 9 IPCs
    Central China (Chahar, Hopei, Anhwe, Kwichow, Hunan, Yunnan) – 6 IPCs
    Eastern USSR (Soviet Far East, Siberia, Amur, Sakha, Buryatia) – 5 IPCs
    Japanese subtotal – 64 IPCs

    Axis Total – 136 IPCs

    USSR
    Europe (Archangel, Vologda, Russia, Bryansk, Volgograd, Urals, Novosibirsk, Tambov, Samara, Kazakhstan) – 13 IPCs
    Asia (Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey, Yakut) – 4 IPCs
    Communist China (Kansu, Suiyuan, Shensi) – 3 IPCs
    Russian Subtotal – 20 IPCs

    USA
    North America  (including West Indies, Panama, Alaska, Hawaii) – 50 IPCs
    Nationalist China (Tsinghai, Sikang, Szechwan) – 3 IPCs
    Free France (Morocco, Algeria, French Equatorial Africa, Syria, Madagascar) – 5 IPCs
    American Subtotal – 58 IPCs

    BRITAIN
    UK and Canada – 14 IPCs
    British Africa (including Libya, Congo, Ethiopia) – 14 IPCs
    Jordan, Iraq, and Persia – 5 IPCs
    India – 3 IPCs
    Australia – 8 IPCs
    New Zealand – 2 IPCs
    British Subtotal – 46 IPCs

    Allied Total – 124 IPCs

    PS: CWO Marc, in my opinion, the 1943 scenario will be a reasonably good vehicle for the kind of rebalancing that Black_Elk has in mind. By moving forward in history, the game length is naturally shortened. It also makes more sense to have fewer players in 1943 – the alliances had largely consolidated by then. Finally, Russian naval/air strength was much better in 1943 than at any time since 1939. If you want to apply strict historical accuracy to the territory distribution listed above, you would have to return 5 IPCs from Japan to Siberian Russia, plus 2 IPCs from Germany to the Western Allies for French West Africa and French Central Africa, which joined the Free French in December 1942. You might also have to give back one or two Chinese territories from Japan to the Nationalist Chinese, for another 1 or 2 IPCs. Leningrad is also debatable, for another 2 IPCs. If you shift all those territories over, the economic balance might shift from 136-124 in favor of the Axis, to 135-125 in favor of the Allies. Not necessarily fatal to good game play, since the USA still has no ICs or convenient IC sites anywhere near the action, and you can use national objectives to give the Axis an economic edge.


  • Thank you for that work, Argothair.
    Unfortunately, I can’t agree on Germany having Novgorod, because of the 5 NO. Equally, Caucasus. The Germans abandoned that in Jan of 43. They held Rostov.
    Are you proposing a post Stalingrad start? I can accept Germany still having a prescence in Africa, albeit I started in June to avoid the African confrontation.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Hi wittman! We’re re-drafting the national objectives from scratch, so giving Leningrad to Germany doesn’t necessarily mean that Germany will get a +5 IPC bonus. We could even flip that one around! Maybe Russia gets a +5 IPC bonus if Germany holds Leningrad. After all, the historical dynamic was that Germany deliberately avoided occupying Leningrad in part because Russia was spending a lot of resources to try to supply all the starving civilians under siege. A reverse NO would be wildly unorthodox; you might not like that. My main point is that we can change the NOs as we see fit. Whoever gets Leningrad, they should start with few or no troops in the area – it was hotly contested in 1943.

    Similarly, whoever holds the Caucuses should hold them very lightly. I’m proposing a January 1943 start, so that we can honestly keep the ‘1943’ title while still maximizing the extent of Axis territorial holdings. So, yes, Germany’s armies in Stalingrad were destroyed, but the German retreat from the Caucuses was not yet complete. Part of the problem is that “the Caucuses” was a large area relative to the size of the campaigns. The Germans were driven back from Astrakhan and Baku well before January 1943, but the Russians didn’t get to Stavropol until January 21, 1943, and didn’t get to Krasnodar until February 1943. On January 1, 1943, I think the Germans still controlled the majority of the population and industry of the Caucuses. The Germans did not entirely abandon the peninsula until September 1943.


  • True: they were still in the Kuban until Sept, but that was not the Caucasus proper. And not worthy of a NO.

    I understand your reasoning with choosing Jan and am happy to help with anything.
    Changing the NOs would help greatly, so I am in favour and look forward to your ideas.
    All we need now is some Ferdinand sculpts!

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Wittmann, you seem to know a great deal about the history of the Russian/German front – do you want to take a crack at designing the starting unit roster for Europe in 1943? It’s beyond my expertise; I have no idea how many panzer divisions were in eastern Europe at all, let alone at some specific point in early 1943. it sounds like that’s not Black_Elk’s strong suit either.

  • Sponsor

    @CWO:

    So I’m wondering if this discussion should actually be split into two separate ones: one to create a revised game system along the lines being proposed by Black Elk (in which the year of the scenario would be dictated by the system’s requirements) and one to create a 1943 scenario (in which the game system would be dictated by the reality of the situation as it existed in 1943).

    I think any significant colaboration here for a new Axis & Allies varient should be rooted in 1943, simply for it’s easy identification and original setup period no matter how chalanging.


  • Wow I had to read a lot of good post because I was pretty busy. Argothair, in one of your post you have Japan controls the russian Siberian area which is not historical, even Russia and Japan weren’t at war with each other until 1945 after Berlin had fallen so maybe there should be a nonaggression pact between them. Something like a G40 rule like…

    Russia and Japan are not at war until Round 4 unless one of them attacks the other. Or something like that.

    Also about Leningrad there could be 1914 type rule like russia owns it but the Germans can contest it in the start if you know the 1914 rule. Even though I don’t own the game I know almost about the game. Japan should get higher roles for their kamikazes and starts with 10 of them (is that to much). Germany will soon be losing oil after the fail to gain the oil fields in caucasus if Russia took it back, so at a certain round like R6 or R7, the german Mech inf. and tanks should move 1 space since of the oil shortage if they don’t own territories like Ukraine, or Caucasus. They could also own some territories in the middle east to have their Mech inf. and tanks move 2 spaces. This also could affect their planes.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Frederick, that’s a good point you raise about Axis oil – I think this is typically handled in the 1940 series by giving the Axis national objectives that give them large bonuses for occupying, e.g., the Middle East. But that’s not the only way to do it – we could impose some kind of movement penalty on German tanks, planes, and mechanized infantry, or even a combat penalty, if they lose all of their sources of oil.

    I think http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm#ploesti makes a very convincing case that the Allies blundered by repeatedly failing to launch major attacks on Ploesti, Rumania, where most of the German oil supply came from throughout the war. The battle of El Alamein, the battle of the Bulge, etc., were won primarily because the Germans ran out of fuel and were unable to continue maneuvers – but the Germans had only one source of fuel, and it could have (and should have) been destroyed, even at the cost of abandoning some other front.

    One problem with modeling this too literally is that it’s not fun to just force the Germans to attack the mideast and force the Allies to attack Rumania. The game is more fun if all players have multiple plausible strategic options. I think if you slow German tanks back down to 1 movement after the Allies take Rumania, you basically force the Allies to go all-out to take Rumania. What do you think?

    As far as the Russian/Japanese non-aggression pact, I personally do not like it at all. It’s one thing to model the incentives faced by historical actors so that players face similar incentives, but it’s another thing to outright forbid a player from making an interesting decision. There was no logistical reason why Japan could not have invaded Siberia, nor was there any reason Russia could not have invaded Manchuria. If Stalin or Hirohito gave the order, it would have happened. Players should have at least as many options as the historical leaders did. At most, we could have a national objective saying that if Russia and Japan are not at war, they each gain 5 IPCs/turn from trade, or something like that.


  • I quite agree that players should not be locked into replicating the events of WWII.  That being said, however, it should be remembered that in practical terms – as the Japanese Navy appears to have pointed out to the Japanese Army during their chronic bickering about Japan’s strategic objectives – Japan had nothing to gain by trying to conquer Eastern Siberia.  Japan needed oil more than anything else, and the best place to get it in quantity was the Dutch East Indies, not Eastern Siberia.  The part of Siberia which contains the most oil is apparently Khanty-Mansiysk, which is in Western Siberia-- roughly as far to the west of Japan as Afghanistan.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Fair enough, CWO Mark, but the Dutch East Indies are all 3 or 4 IPCs per territory, whereas eastern Siberia is all 1 IPC per territory. Doesn’t that give Japan the right incentives without the need for further restrictions? Yes, you may invade Siberia if you wish, but you’re unlikely to recoup the cost of your transports in any reasonable time-frame, so you probably don’t want to.


  • I see your point guys but why start with Japan controlling Siberia? They may attack each other but I would like a bit more historical.
    Also thank you on my oil idea.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    OK, here’s a second draft of the territory list, taking into account some of everybody’s feedback:

    GERMANY
    Western and Central Europe (including France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Sicily) – 49 IPCs
    Tunisia, French West Africa, and French Central Africa – 3 IPCs
    Norway, Finland, and Karelia – 6 IPCs
    Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Smolensk – 4 IPCs
    Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Rostov – 6 IPCs
    German subtotal – 68 IPCs

    JAPAN
    Home Islands, Korea, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Formosa – 14 IPCs
    Oceania (including Philippines) – 17 IPCs
    Eastern China, from Hong Kong to Manchuria – 13 IPCs
    Kwangsi, French Indo China, Siam, Malaya, Shan State, Burma – 9 IPCs
    Central China (Chahar, Hopei, Anhwe, Kwichow, Hunan, Yunnan) – 6 IPCs
    Japanese subtotal – 59 IPCs

    Axis Total – 127 IPCs

    USSR
    Europe (Archangel, Vologda, Russia, Bryansk, Volgograd, Urals, Novosibirsk, Caucuses, Tambov, Samara, Kazakhstan) – 17 IPCs
    Asia (Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey, Yakut, Buryatia, Sakha, Amur, Siberia, Soviet Far East) – 9 IPCs
    Communist China (Kansu, Suiyuan, Shensi) – 3 IPCs
    Russian Subtotal – 29 IPCs

    USA
    North America  (including West Indies, Panama, Alaska, Hawaii) – 50 IPCs
    Nationalist China (Tsinghai, Sikang, Szechwan) – 3 IPCs
    Free France (Morocco, Algeria, French Equatorial Africa, Syria, Madagascar) – 5 IPCs
    American Subtotal – 58 IPCs

    BRITAIN
    UK and Canada – 14 IPCs
    British Africa (including Libya, Congo, Ethiopia) – 14 IPCs
    Jordan, Iraq, and Persia – 5 IPCs
    India – 3 IPCs
    Australia – 8 IPCs
    New Zealand – 2 IPCs
    British Subtotal – 46 IPCs

    Allied Total – 133 IPCs

    On this draft, the Allies start off with 133 IPCs to the Axis’s 127 IPCs, but the Axis can expect to roughly swap that lead on the first turn (I recommend giving the Germans the first turn), so the economic race still  starts off in a dead heat, and the Axis can have more generous national objectives.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I’m at work but just wanted to say that I’m following this discussion with interest, and the feedback so far is great.

    Just real quickly, to Marc’s point about the 1943 start date being a little less flexible than an earlier one, I can totally appreciate that. The advantage in my mind is first, that people seem to be interested, probably because a late War scenario has not been attempted yet on previous A&A boards (whereas 39, 41, 42 etc all have.) It’s hard, pretty damn hard, to make a custom scenario for A&A, unless you have at least some critical mass for early feedback. It takes a while to set these things up for playtesting purposes, especially if you’re trying to do it on the physical board. Often times people put a lot of effort into designing a great mod, only to have it languish with a relatively small player base, as evanescent enthusiasm is almost a hallmark of A&A custom games. If you have a half dozen people on board expressing interest right away, I’d take that as a sign that it might be worth pursuing. There is also a certain advantage to building things out in a collaborative way, with all the push and pull that entails, as opposed to having one grand architect of the mod, or calling it “Somebody’s 1943” scenario. Here you can take the ego out of it, and get enough designers invested in the process to actually carry it through to completion, not unlike the “alpha” process that the 1940 Global game underwent to arrive at the 2nd Edition.

    For me the main appeal of 1943, is that it allows you to create a set-up that would make for faster game resolution and much simpler rules than 1940, while still using the same large map.

    When I consider the historical reality vs the gameplay merits of 1943 vs say 1942 or 1941, I would remind everyone that a start date in A&A is just that, a start date. The game almost always diverges from the history immediately after the first round.

    Take Classic for example, here the start date is 1942, but by the time you get to a position in the game that might reasonably correspond to 1943 or 1944, the territory ownership will almost always look way different than anything that happened in the history. So what players tend to do is search for sign posts or markers, that might indicate the general timeframe for their play narrative. For example, if America has just launched a D-Day invasion, then players tend to associate that game round with 1944, regardless of how long (in game rounds) it took to set up that move. Similarly if Berlin is about to fall, then players tend to look at things “as if” the current round was 1945, regardless of the original start date, or how many rounds you’ve actually been playing.

    The basic point I’m trying to make is that it really doesn’t matter at all after the first round of the start date, what happened historically, because the A&A game does a rather poor job modelling the real war after the first round. Once you’re 5 or 6 rounds in, it’s anything goes. Usually by that point Japan has done much better in-game than they ever had a prayer of doing in the real war. And nobody cares for the most part, because it’s a game.

    This is not to suggest that we shouldn’t aspire to make a historically valid set up for our start date, with a reasonable distribution of forces/production for the period, but just acknowledging that there’s only so much you can do in A&A before the war in-game departs from the war in-reality.

    I would try to pick a watershed theme for the opening 2 rounds to clearly indicate where we are in time. To my mind the most recognizable theme for the average player and casual student of history would probably be the invasion of Italy. But as Marc suggested, the earlier we go in 1943, the more historically feasible it becomes to imagine an Axis break out, or a major Allied upset of some sort, to justify the balance of the thing as a game worth playing.

    It might be cool to just avoid the idea of “seasons” or “months” altogether, and leave the start date vaguely anachronous, “sometime in 1943.” I think A&A does a notoriously bad job of accurately tracking/modelling the passage of time as a function of turns or game rounds anyway. So I have no problem suspending my disbelief when some chronological oddity appears as the result of the turn sequence. This is just something I accept as part of the nature of the turn based game. I think other players frequently adopt this attitude as well. The “Pearl Harbor” attack occuring again in 1942 is a good example of how players are willing to just throw out the relative timeline as soon as gameplay begins haha.

    In that respect I tend to agree with Argothair and others, that we shouldn’t try to prohibit certain things from happening with a hard rules restriction (e.g. Russia and Japan can’t go to war with each other.) We can make certain attack patterns more or less attractive to keep the flavor of 1943, without really needing a DoW rule, we can use unit positioning or NOs for that.

    This same attitude should probabably apply to the eastern front. We just need to give an incentive for historical attack patterns, but without forcing them. For example if 1943 was defined mainly by German reverses and Russian advances, then we can encourage the Russian player to be agressive and the German player to be defensive, simply through the TUV distribution and the Objective bonuses in play. Just pick a couple watershed moments, and set the odds in the opening battles to reflect the general situation.

    So what are the main things that happened? And how much of it can we handle in the first round or first 2 rounds, given that time in a turn based game is already highly abstract? I’m just yanking stuff off a wiki timeline at this point, for play points that might be interesting to capture in the first 2 rounds of gameplay…
    :-D

    Final Russian offensive in Stalingrad, and destruction of the German 6th army.

    Bombing of Berlin in earnest

    SAND AND SEA in the Med…
    Allies in north Africa, Libya and Tunisia.
    Allies in Greece.
    Allies in Sicily and Italy

    SAND AND SEA: In the Pacific…
    Guadalcanal and New Guinea
    Japanese bombings in Australia
    Japanese pull out from the Aleutians
    Solomon islands etc
    Tarawa

    Kursk and the Summer offensive!

    Allied expeditionary force formed for the invasion of Europe, and Overlord plans put in place.

    There’s gotta be enough in there to form a scenario worth playing right?
    Maybe not as many swing situations as 1942, but it’s still got some cool stuff going on. I’d approach it a little like the 1942.2 or Classic board, after like 6 rounds of gameplay, when the Western Allies already have their logistics to London in place, so that the game just launches right into the action.

    Also to Argothair, I rather like that idea of giving “original control” of French territories to USA rather than UK, if this produces a more interesting play balance.

    The upside here is that, in gameplay terms, UK could launch an amphibious invasion against France and liberate it for USA. Meaning that on USA’S turn they could build here! That would be a major incentive for Germany to hold Normandy/France instead of trading it endlessly with UK, the way they usually do in a 5 man.

    Similarly if France is under original USA control for the purposes of liberation, then UK also has a stronger incentive to make invasions in the Med, like Italy, for income. The same could be said of Holland or Scandinavia.

    I think this could be a real game changer for Allies, to have France under original USA control. It would make D Day and Paris much more integral to the Allied war plan. While providing some added interest to the Med in the process.

    I like it!
    :-D

    ps. I also like this second draft, that just came in as I was typing. It seems to fit the bill rather nicely!
    Another way to do a “dead heat,” if you wanted to explore an alternative turn order, would be to just make up the difference in potential starting NOs. You could basically use this to “round-up” the starting income numbers, which have always seemed annoyingly hard to cash out for players at the start, on previous boards. Something you can handle easily would be nice, with 5s, 10s or 20s, in paper bills or poker chips, for the starting piles of cash to each individual nation. I think this would aid the impression of overall balance and game craftsmanship for the new player just coming to the mod for the first time.

    For example, using those production numbers you suggested, if Axis had 23 ipcs in potential round 1 NOs, and Allies had 17 ipcs in potential round 1 NOs, that’d be 150 Axis vs 150 Allies.
    For a total of 300 IPCs in contention!

    Nice and round so everyone gets the picture haha. Its anyone’s game ;)

    Conventiently 17 ipcs in Allied starting NOs + 23 ipc in Axis starting NOs, is a solid 40 ipcs in contention from objective bonuses. Again nice and round, so the causal player can read the situation, and the income balance, at a gland.

    Add to the 40 ipcs in bonuses, 10 more ipcs in contention, from the first round combats/territory exchanges, and that’s your 50 ipc income swing right there!

    Axis can deny Allied NOs in the opening round, providing their team with the desired income edge, while at the same time giving the Allies an initiative incentive (ie. Allies have to push forward against Axis soon, to reclaim their NO territories, or risk losing out in the overall income game.) Then set up the rest of the balance by sides via the TUV and starting unit composition, and you’re pretty much on your way.
    :-D

    For a 5 man game I think you could get away with 15 total NOs. Like three NOs for each player. maybe 2 large Objectives and 1 small Objective to help guide the playstyle and give it a proper 1943 historical flavor.

    What would be the best candidates for 1943 Objectives for each nation?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    pps. So China would look something like this right?… on the physical board, some extra soviet chips would go over the relevant Chinese territories.

    For simplicity and to fit with the “Communist vs Nationalist theme” all Chinese territory should be considered “originally controlled” by whatever Nation currently has a Roundel Chip on it (not by the Chinese roundel drawn on the map.)

    All French territories are considered starting under original USA control for the purposes of liberation.
    All Anzac territory are considered starting under original UK control for the purposes of liberation.
    All Italian territories are considered starting under original German control for the purposes of liberation.

    This will prevent confusion as the game goes on in most areas on the physical board, when territory changes hands  and the initial roundel chips for the mod are removed during the course of play. Having some clear associations at least for France, Anzac, and Italy, will help to clarify who owns what “originally” if those territories are liberated. You basically go by the roundel that’s drawn on the map, everywhere except for in China, (or on the Dutch islands if desired), to allow for a more dynamic ownership contests. Eg. the potential for Russian control of Manchuria, or US control of the east indies money islands. But while still preserving the desired American control of France, German control of Italy, and British control of Anzac dynamic.

    china 1943 redux.png
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb
    china 1943 redux.png_thumb

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Just brainstorming here – I thought I’d throw out a handful of potential national objectives for the 1943 game, and see if anyone likes any of them. If nothing else, maybe they’ll help inspire other people to come up with better ones.

    AMERICA
    Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
    I Shall Return: +3 IPC if America controls the Philippines.
    Champions of Democracy: +5 IPC if America controls at least 4 of the following: Norway, Holland, Denmark, Southern Italy, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia.
    Chinese Bases: +5 IPC if the Allies control at least 8 territories marked with a Chinese rondel AND America has a strategic bomber in Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, or Manchuria.
    Naval Supremacy: +5 IPC if the Japanese have no carriers or battleships on the map.

    BRITAIN
    Secure Supply Lines: +3 IPC if there are no Axis troops in Africa, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Northwest Persia, or Eastern Persia.
    Colonial Restoration:+5 IPC if Britain controls India, Burma, Malaya, and Kwangtung.
    Pacific Commerce: +3 IPC if the Allies control New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and all of Australia.

    RUSSIA
    Relieve the Siege of Leningrad: +3 IPC if the Russians control Novgorod, Archangel, and any one of the following territories: Belarus, Baltic States, Vyborg, Karelia.
    All Quiet on the Eastern Front: +5 IPC if the Russians control Amur and did not participate in combat with any Japanese units this turn.
    Ukrainian Conscripts: +3 IPC if the Russians control Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and Rostov.

    GERMANY
    Atlantik Wall: +10 IPC if the Allies do not control any of Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Holland, Normandy, or Spain.
    Oil Supplies: +5 IPC for each of the following territories the Germans control: Venezuela, Romania, Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Saudi Arabia.
    Panzer Offensive: +5 IPC if Germany has a total of at least three tanks in the territories marked with Russian rondels.
    Finnish Defenders: +3 IPC if the Germans control Finland but not Novgorod.
    Baltic Shipping: +3 IPC if there are no Allied ships in Sea Zones 113, 114, and 115.
    Not a Step Back: +3 IPC if Germany attacked at least one Allied-controlled territory this turn and did not perform any retreats this turn.

    JAPAN
    Inner Defense Ring: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Guam, Formosa, and Okinawa.
    Petroleum Shipments: +10 IPCs if the Japanese control Persia, Borneo, or Celebes and there are a total of at least 3 Japanese transports in Sea Zones 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 79, and/or 80.
    Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea, and Japan has not participated in combat with any Russian units this turn.
    Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere:: +3 IPCs for each of the following territories Japan controls: Kwangtung, Malaya, India, French Indo-China, Korea, Shensi, Yakut.
    Imperial Glory: +10 IPCs if Japan controls at least two of the following territories: Amur, Hawaii, Alaska, New South Wales, South Africa, New Zealand.


  • I think you have given too many NOs to the Axis, which is a problem with 1940.
    Sorry!
    US would not even have 70, which is not enough in a regular game. I think this would see the Allies struggle to regain lost territory. Russia will have its usual income problem too.

    A couple of people were experimenting (on AAA) with giving the U.S. more basic Income, as NOs. We were at about +15. We all know how hard it is to cross the Atlantic or Pacific, If the other side can just Bomb the fleet out of the water.
    However, it is good to see some new NOs. I hope you enjoyed thinking about them.

    The only problem I have with your set up, is the depth of Japan’s expansion into China.
    I would like to check, but I think you have given them too many territories.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I believe he was just offering up some ideas, not suggesting that all of them be implemented as is or necessarily at those values.

    To the low income objection, it’s true that typically in A&A the Atlantic crossing is difficult for the US to set up, but that’s in large part because their starting TUV is usually much lower relative to income. In 1940 or 41 or 1942 the game has them building up over several rounds so they need higher income to create an expeditionary force and a navy and enough fighters and carriers to match Germany’s air builds. But that whole play dynamic comes from the fact that their TUV is low compared to Axis and the units are all out of position. If we give the US more starting units, with a more useful starting composition, put them in stronger starting locations, and then the need for such a high US income per round is less pronounced.

    I think that was the idea at any rate. Could still be that the ownership of territories in China be tweaked. But there again, it depends on the starting TUV for the Allies in the region and what aid Russia can send.

    I think the experience of G40 needn’t be a guide for what works or not in a general sense. Since the TUV available at the start could be a lot different. Creating an entirely different play pace and different income requirements.

    Russia likewise, could field more starting units as a way to compensate for lower starting income.

    For the Germans you could find other ways of develop an interesting opener. Perhaps with more subs to raid, as opposed to making naval combat attacks. Or preserve a carrier option, but not one that allows for early 1940 style sea lions, since that hardly makes sense for 43. The battle lines could be drawn in an entirely new way.

    I’d suggest first designing the openers, by configuring the units in the border zones and contested areas. Then concentrate whatever forces are needed back in the core, so they don’t have to puchased but still need to be moved out. At capital territories for example.


  • Hi. I have looked and Japan only had the North East of China. It had pockets on the Coast  in the South East and that is all.

    I would suggest: Manchuria, Jehol, Shantung, Chahar, Anhwe and Kiangsu only (11 IPCs). That is what I gave it in my July set up.
    China would still have 12 and its  NO.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1
  • 18
  • 38
  • 7
  • 296
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts