Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"

Black_Elk

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.

Argothair

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.

Witt

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.

Black_Elk

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.

Witt

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.

Frederick II

Black_Elk I didn’t say that Russia and Japan couldn’t attack each other I was saying they weren’t at war until a certain round or unless the other attacks the other (Argothair, good NO’s for the nonaggression pact).

Also Argothair, here’s the NO’s I wasn’t a big fan of the Chinese Bases, Petroleum Shipments (It’s a good idea but I don’t like all the transports in all those sea zones), I didn’t understand Panzer Offensive does it have to do with blitzing?, and the Free French. The others are pretty good and I know they were just ideas I do appreciate “I Shall Return”. Don’t forget about contesting Leningrad.

CWO Marc

@Argothair:

Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.

Quebec – where I happen to live – may be a French-speaking province, but it hasn’t been a part of France for a couple of centuries and therefore should not be counted as a “Free French” territory (nor as a Vichy one, nor as any other kind of territory belonging to France).

Witt

I am playing my set up (July) for a second time and am finding it is more balanced than I hoped!
Japan and Germany started with 600 less TUV, but on T3 are holding very well. Japan and Germany are making far too much income for my liking.
All I can suggest , is that Japan must begin with far fewer units, as it can buy so many and Russia needs many more cheap ones. I gave the Allies a Sub off each of the DEI and Malaya, but it only took two turns to rid myself of them. Japan has to be strangled from the start and remain strangled. Russia, by 3, still can’t go on the offensive. And that is not what I expected.
I need to work on the starting units even more. I worry if you want to start in Feb, that the Axis will have more power than my July one.

Frederick II

wittmann, did you use any of the ideas we thought of?

Witt

I did my scenario at least 6 months ago and used the NOs from 1940. I used the 42 set up for Tournament, so Russia goes first. I had hoped to replicate the Russian counteroffensive post Zitadelle.
Not sure what you mean by: “any of the ideas we thought up”. I am playing by AAA and am not clever enough to change the settings or NOs. I presume I have not.

I am happy to research the Eastern Front to get the troop compositions right. Germany would be very low on Armour and prob air units too.

Frederick II

I mean ideas like give Germany some free tech.

Witt

I would give America Shipyards and Russia Improved Artillery. I really don’t think Germany or Japan need anything. They have so many territories, which equates to too much income. It should be easier for the Allies and I worry it will not be.

Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Nuclear bomb addition for Axis And Allies Global 1940

The Tri-Polar Cold War

Research & Development House Rule

Axis and Allies - Which games are worth extra units ?

A&A "Going Nuclear"

How to make Axis and Allies more diffucult

Nice roundels for Axis and Allies games…

Axis & Allies Revised Enhanced tournament at AAMC

45

17.8k

40.4k

1.8m