Eastern Front Broken - $5 German tanks too powerful, income disparity a problem


  • 2019 2018 '16 '15 '11 '10

    ok,

    I’ll bite.

    Just got a call; a game is on for this weekend. We’re going to try this:

    USSR (as per Gargie): 1 infantry per turn at each IC owned since beginning of her turn and a minor IC with AA in Stalingrad.

    Germany (as per SS + Variance): 1 mech per turn at each major IC owned since beginning of her turn. She keepers her 5 ipc armour.

    We’ll see how it goes.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    If you are giving Germany 2x mech. Make sure Russia gets inf for any complexes it builds. Just to keep things even.


  • 2019 2018 '16 '15 '11 '10

    Roger that Gargie.


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    @Gargantua:

    So I have another alternate proposal.
    -Give Russia + 1 minor IC in Stalingrad
    -Lose the Russian Berlin NA (As it’s never used).
    -New NA - “For the Motherland!” Russia gets +1 infantry during the place units phase each turn at any industrial complex it holds in the following territories (Moscow, Novisibirks, Karelia, Stalingrad), so long as it has held the territory from the beginning of it’s turn.  This advantage does not count against maximum production.

    This inspires the Axis to go hard and fast for the industrial complex’s, or face that many more infantry a turn.  It’s an incentive for the axis to start early, without breaking the game.

    If that’s not enough, the NO can be reworded so that Russia gets +1 inf per complex it holds.  They may gamble and place extra factories early, as an investment,  but may have to pay the price for it down the road.

    I’m going to weigh in on this with a personal “unofficial” response. I agree there could be some improvements made to the Eastern Front. Whether it’s setup changes, rules changes, or strategy changes (or a combo) I do not know yet.

    First, I agree with Garg that 2 IPC infantry will break the game too far in Russia’s favor. We can’t go there. But, I’m not willing to throw out Germany’s 5 IPC tanks yet.

    I see the above solution as the most sensible to try out. Thanks go out to those guys already trying it. Please let us know what happens!

    I don’t like rules that limit production of common units like tanks, so I’m against that. Special units is one thing, but limiting tank buys beyond income and factory limits goes against the feel of the game IMO.

    Any “official answer” on a game changer like this will have to be tested and discussed by all 4 game designers before anything is written in stone. But I encourage trying the above as Garg suggested, then telling everyone what happened. Let’s start there.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    We will play test the Russian advantage with free inf at Karelia, Stalingrad, Moscow, and Novisibirsk on Feb 22nd.  +1 Stalingrad IC at setup.

    -No free mech for Germany.
    -No extra infantry for new complexes the Russian’s build.

    IMO - This will be the best way to square things up.  The axis will feel the heat to get pressure on those factories early.



  • What I always find strange about Russian production is that it’s consistently and permanently lower than Germany’s whereas in the actual war Russian production far outstripped Germany’s. So how about:

    Russia keeps on rolling 1 d12 until it reaches a maximum production of 60 (?) or even 80 (?) and adds this result to its production. It’s maximum production of 48 is just far too low, if you ask me…



  • Well, there is the lend-lease rule.  The odds of losing some or all of the IPCs make it somewhat unappealing, but it does give the allies a chance to pull Russia’s bacon out of the fire.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Koba, how did your game go with the changes?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Our group has had VERY bad luck with lend lease.

    3 out of 4 attempts have put the money in Axis hands.

    1 out of 4 only 20% of the IPC’s got through.

    I know that our results have been flukey, but it’s VERY unappealling! LOL.



  • Yes, personally I’d have the success or lack thereof of lend lease depend on how many German subs are in the Atlantic and whether or not the “Norwegian” Convoy route is occupied by Germany. This would not merely have lend lease depend on luck, but you could actually enhance the chances of it getting through by keeping the Arctic route open as well as keeping the number of German submarines low.

    Just a thought…



  • Hey, Koningstiger,

    That sounds like a good idea.  How about if there are no Axis subs or surface ships in the convoy box between sea zones 3, 5, and 14 at the start of the US turn, then add two to the die roll when giving lend lease to the Russians?  For the British, it would be the convoy box between sea zones 27, 31, and 32.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    GREAT CONCEPT GUYS!!!

    Going to playtest something like this for sure!

    If this is the case, $5 German subs would be a fair trade.



  • You’re welcome. I tend to be good at making [house]rules, if I may say so myself. Heavily involved in that sense in Tide of Iron.

    I was indeed thinking along those lines.


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    I like this Lend Lease idea too. It gives Germany another option to spend money on potentially helping the balance issues.



  • Something that should probably also affect the lend-lease success or lack thereof is who controls Persia/Iran. Part of it also entered Russia via that route.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Ok if you want to know where is was received figure 25% via Murmansk Convoy, 50% from across Alaska to Soviet Far East, and 25% via Persia. I am off only a margin of about 1-2% on these figures.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I’ve approached my group about playing with the rule that for each convoy zone occupied by the axis in the atlantic, the allies get -2 to their lend lease roll.  If there are no sub’s, allies get +2



  • @Imperious:

    Ok if you want to know where is was received figure 25% via Murmansk Convoy, 50% from across Alaska to Soviet Far East, and 25% via Persia. I am off only a margin of about 1-2% on these figures.

    Actually it might not even be a bad idea then to have lend lease placed in said territories as well. then of course abstracting this, simply by awarding the extra IPC’s is also OK.



  • @Gargantua:

    I’ve approached my group about playing with the rule that for each convoy zone occupied by the axis in the atlantic, the allies get -2 to their lend lease roll.   If there are no sub’s, allies get +2

    I’d include something for Persia (e.g. -1 if Axis controlled) and the Soviet Far East (e.g. -2 if Axis controlled) as well.



  • @Gargantua:

    I’ve approached my group about playing with the rule that for each convoy zone occupied by the axis in the atlantic, the allies get -2 to their lend lease roll.   If there are no sub’s, allies get +2

    Rather than subs, surface warships might also be taken into the equasion. For good reason the Brits also feared the Bismarck (-;

    So far most conditions favor the Axis. perhaps also a +1 to each die roll could be given for: Norwegian Convoy route is free of German warships; there are less than 5 German warships/subs in the Atlantic (+1) and Persia is Allied controlled (+1). So +1’s for the Allies; -2 for the Axis.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Play Test Notes

    • Lend Lease rule was fun! And worked well for both sides.

    • Russian infantry bonus was paramount to it’s survival to mid term of game, although Russia still faced defeat. The knowledge for the future is to put complex’s down early, for the late game infantry mash!

    • Russian infantry boost in Novisibirsk really helped China against Japan!  This is needed.



  • @Gargantua:

    Play Test Notes

    • Lend Lease rule was fun! And worked well for both sides.

    • Russian infantry bonus was paramount to it’s survival to mid term of game, although Russia still faced defeat. The knowledge for the future is to put complex’s down early, for the late game infantry mash!

    • Russian infantry boost in Novisibirsk really helped China against Japan!  This is needed.

    Which exact lend-lease rule did you use?



  • Wanting to get into Global 39 but personally never played it but have plenty of experience with global 40 so this may not work, but how about you just give Germany (or possibly the whole Axis) a cap on the amount of industrial units it can make (I.E. Tanks) to give a better representation of lower industrial capacity while not making tanks to expensive, Idk proper cap amount to suggest though 😛

    P.S. Russia effectively owned Mongolia as a satellite state and Britain/Russia launched an invasion of Iran in which Russia got the northern half


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Gar and Koba what changes have you made to game? Going to do a game in 2 a week.



  • @Gargantua:

    Our group has had VERY bad luck with lend lease.

    3 out of 4 attempts have put the money in Axis hands.

    1 out of 4 only 20% of the IPC’s got through.

    I know that our results have been flukey, but it’s VERY unappealling! LOL.

    OK

    @Gargantua:

    I’ve approached my group about playing with the rule that for each convoy zone occupied by the axis in the atlantic, the allies get -2 to their lend lease roll.  If there are no sub’s, allies get +2

    Wouldn’t that make the problem worse?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 15
  • 7
  • 6
  • 11
  • 3
  • 9
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts