Scientifically proven map balance rework- Cow edition 1942

[Argothair]

Black_Elk, as you can probably guess, I’m all in favor of increasing the Russians’ ability to wage an offensive war, and a starting bomber is one good way to do that. What I wonder about is how it could be possible to offer the players the realistic option to have Russia go on the offense (against Germany? against Japan?) while simultaneously having the Axis wage an aggressive war against the UK and/or the USA.

I see five possibilities here:

1. Russia attacks Germany, and Germany makes attacks based on economic goals, rather than going after a capital. Germany’s extra starting units in the west allow it to conquer all of Africa and maybe even take Brazil, but Japan isn’t in position to deliver a killing blow to either London or Washington, and so the game is slow, at best – the Axis strategy basically involves winning by building up such a big economic advantage that Germany can absorb, blunt, and eventually retaliate against the strong starting Russian attack.

2. Russia attacks Germany, and Germany directly attacks London while Japan seizes on the distraction to gobble up British possessions in the southern hemisphere. This game will be very short, because if Germany heads west then it won’t take long for the powerful Russian attacking forces to make it to Berlin – either the Sea Lion will work or it won’t, and the game will be decided accordingly.

3. Russia attacks Germany, and Germany tries to ignore a still-vigorous British empire, cross the Atlantic, and attack the USA, with or without help from Japan. Britain shoots down half the German transports with subs and planes, and then America laughs and easily defeats the rest of the German invasion; meanwhile, Russia enters Berlin and ends the game.

4. Russia attacks Japan with help from the United States and the UK, as in a standard KJF. Russia is presumably able to seize the valuable territories of Manchuria and Shanghai (otherwise it wouldn’t be much of an attack!), meaning that Russia can afford to let Germany win some territory in eastern Europe and Russia can still build a successful infantry wall. Germany can try to take Moscow before Tokyo falls, as in a standard all-out KJF, but will have a much harder time than usual because Russia has more income, and Germany’s extra starting troops need time to shift over from France and Italy to the eastern front.

5. Russia attacks Japan with help from only the United States, leaving Britain to help defend eastern Europe. Japan can probably hold out for several turns while still defending Manchuria and Shanghai. Germany is probably forced to gamble on an early blitz to Moscow, because it has no other plausible options for linking up with Japan or relieving the siege of Tokyo.

I have to say, I’m not wild about any of these scenarios. What do you think?

[Black_Elk]

I think I get what you’re driving at. Honestly I’m not sure that such a thing can be achieved purely with a starting unit adjustment. I think it would require deeper adjustments to income/production or the design of the map itself.

The reason I’m pushing the bomber concept here, is because I actually like Cow’s ideas a lot.

I think if his set up included the Russian bomber it would be a lot more fun. And could then grow organically from a simple set up change, to a more advanced set up change.

For example, new player comes along and says something like

“This game is broken, how are Allies supposed to win this way?! My friends and I don’t like to bid, we want a set up change, that allows us to pick a side and play!”

Response

Step one: add a Russian bomber in Caucasus, see if that works for your playgroup.

Step two: if Axis are still stomping, it means your Axis players are at a higher level of experience so, proceed to the full Cow set up change.

Step one I believe will cover a lot of players in the begginer to moderately experienced. And its an easy change, so simple for players to include. Step two will cover expert play, the set up change is a bit more involved but still fairly simple.

That way we cover everyone and don’t have to deal with competing, which are less likely to be adopted by a large group of players.

Basically I want consistency and ease of use. So I’ll keep suggesting it, until I see a compelling  reason why we shouldn’t start with the Russian bomber as the basis for the tweak.

[Argothair]

I guess that makes sense – you’re not actually trying to give Russia strategically offensive options where they start whaling on an Axis player’s capital; you’re just trying to give them more tactical offensive options where they can pick off a poorly defended transport or trade three territories in a turn, or something like that. Fair enough; I guess that does make the game more fun.

I’m not convinced that giving the Allies 64 IPCs worth of extra units vs. 11 IPCs worth of extra units for the Axis makes for a balanced game, even against expert Axis players. Add in a Russian bomber as well and I’m sure the game’s biased in favor of the Allies. Cow talks a lot about how his setup is scientifically balanced, but so far that’s just marketing – Cow hasn’t shown us any of his TUV calculations or playtest results.

[Black_Elk]

Exactly! What I’m looking for is not a Russian stomp, but rather a little more flexibility for them on attack and a boost from their normal position which is almost entirely defensive, to one which is still primarily defensive but with more teeth for counters.

The lion’s share of the TUV in Cows set up is coming from 3 units. The fighter in UK, and the American Battleship and W. USA bomber. That’s 42 ipc right there! I can see what he’s driving at with these, but I don’t think any of them in isolation would have as much impact as the Russian bomber to the sense balance at the center.

America already has a battleship and a bomber, and UK already has several fighters. Those units are already purchase options for both nations.

But Russia is the power that’s consistently nerfed, and which has no income. They never get a bomber or a battleship! Why not give those units to them instead?

I think it would add more novelty. I mean hell, a Russian battleship in sz 4, now that’s something we’ve never seen before! A Russian bomber is something we’ve only had once (in AA50, with the decidedly unpopular 1942 start date.) So if the objective is spice, a real red airforce or real red fleet would be way hotter in my view.
:-D

Now I don’t seriously expect anyone to slap down a Russian battleship in sz 4. But it would actually have a similar effect as putting one in sz 11, because a Russian battleship would make the sz 7 attack totally do or die. Germany would probably have to bring all 4 submarines and enough air to ice it, or be screwed completely, which would result in both the US and UK Atlantic transport/destroyer groups surviving.

I think for me, the best idea would be to start small and build it out incrementally. For me the Russian bomber just has a special charm that I think is hard to beat.

[Cow]

Allies have a problem getting #s of units into Europe and Asia, this is why the 5 infantry Russia is so critical. The one infantry french africa is nice in case the axis do bust into africa, it is just one guy so nothing too punishing if the axis do decide to play the income game.

These changes were meant to have a more enjoyable game, the allies get going a little sooner with the battleship in play and extra uk fighter.

[Black_Elk]

The Allies may indeed have problems getting numbers of units into Europe and Asia, but the whole reason they need to do this in the first place is because Russia has such woefully inadequate starting attack power!

The Soviets can barely trade with Germany or Japan for 2 territories a turn, before they start hemorrhaging ground units in the process, forced to make terrible trades at a loss just to prevent Axis blitz paths or landing spots. This means that the Germans can advanced along a broad front, with only modest sized stacks, and Russia is totally unable to contest them.

Instead, because they cant attack on their own, the Soviets are almost completely reliant on UK/USA to run direct counter attacks for them, against a relentless Axis advance. And this all happens in their own backyard, right in their own core Russian territories!

And its not as if Russia collapses only when they receive zero aid from the West (which might be understandable) but they collapse when they don’t receive the full maximum aid. Like literally almost all the UK/US ipcs from the early rounds dedicated just to holding the center.

The western Allies routinely send dozens of fighters and as many ground units as they can to prop up Moscow. And even then Moscow gets hammered.

Honestly if I was designing this thing from the ground up, I’d give Russia an airforce on par with the other powers. Like 3 fighters AND a bomber. Or hell even 4 fighters AND a bomber!

They’d still have the weakest starting airforce on the board.

I just think its rather lame, that the Russians are so nerfed in A&A. It feels totally ahistorical.

They had superior tanks to the Germans, even by the time this game is supposed to start, and yet it is the Germans who always tank drive. They had some the best fighter aircraft in the world by the time this game is supposed to start, and yet it is the Luftwaffe that always crushes. They had the numbers, and yet it is Germany who always pushes the massive ground stacks.

It just doesn’t look like World War 2.

The way the Royal Air Force is always camped out in Russia, and Monty is taking his tank columns on escapades through the Caucasus. For real?

If you want their income so low, they should have starting TUV. Or conversely, if you want them to have low starting TUV, then give them more income. But if you shaft them in both areas, then the game turns into this weird deal, with the western Allies running the show in Red territories.

The Russia design is just silly OOB. They have low income and as such will buy infantry and artillery as a matter of course, almost exclusively. They don’t need more inf, what they need is air power, so they can trade that infantry effectively, the way the other player nations do.

I think a single additional Russian bomber is a decidedly modest expansion compared to what they should really have, if you want to reflect their historical position during this period.