Putting IPC values on all territories…

Italy at 16? Is is not 10?  22 is too much for them, I think .
Lots of people crave more units, if you have the time(and dice), why not try with a loaded board?
I like the US with more, but is it enough more than Germany?
Excuse the questions. Meant to be observations.

This would change the entire economics of the game… AWESOME!

Of course I would need to see some playtesting before I spent the money printing and laminating a new map.

I may have a bias, but I would guess that the people in your play group will find the gameplay enjoyable.  :-D

I have played many many games with tweaks and bonuses to increase income, and in almost every instance the response has been favorable. It could be the sort of group I game with, but the main response that comes back at me is something along these lines of…
players feel like they have greater control, the win (or loss), whether it bogs down or not, is more a result of purchasing decisions than it is the result of the starting set up.  Rather than luck or exploiting the start position, it comes down to what you do, what you buy, or the mistakes you or your opponents make. So basically whether victorious or not, players seem to own their games a bit more. Less likely to throw in the towel after one bad roll, or one ugly round.

You may also find (or at least it has been my experience) that when the replacement cost of units is less, relative to the overall economy, players are more likely to risk their units in battle. The way infantry work in A&A, there will always be an advantage to conservatism, but even a slight boost to the money often encourages more big ticket builds and a greater willingness to engage the enemy. So more units are bought sure, but more units are also destroyed in the course of play. It basically evens out, except that the initial income being increased, players have more potential opening buys. This increases the possible strategies that can be adopted out of the first round,  as well as in rounds thereafter.

I’m interested to check out your map, and hope you’ll find the income adjustments fun for the gameplay

This has me very intrigued! :)
I have long been curious to see if Italy could work on a 1942 scale board, and what adjustments might be necessary.  Definitely let us know how it shapes up. I’d love to play sometime!

Just one thing you need to consider. Adding 33% income to each nation wouldn’t be balanced, it would favor the Allies. Here’s the reasoning.

In Axis & Allies, particularly any version starting in 1942 or later, the Axis have a starting advantage in terms of hardware on the board and positioning, while the Allies have the economic advantage. By increasing everyone’s economy, you would be making the Axis’ starting starting hardware less of a factor and the Allies’ higher economy an even bigger advantage. In order to keep the balance approximately the same as before, I would say you should probably increase the Allies’ total economy by the same amount as the Axis, not by the same percentage. That way, both sides’ advantage as stated previously would become slightly smaller in proportion to the total stuff present in a complete game, and I bet the decreases would be close to equal proportionally.

So for example, if you increase Japan’s economy by 10, Germany by 12 and Italy by 6, that’s a total of 28. You should therefore increase the Allies’ economy by 28 as well, not by 42 as you’re currently proposing.

Personally, to affect the game even less except for making it more compelling to fight for the Pacific (a worthwhile change in any version of Axis & Allies in my opinion), I would only give Japan the 6 IPCs extra on Islands and leave everything else the same for them. I would then increase Germany and Italy proportionally, so Germany would go from 40 to 48 and Italy from 16 to 19. This being a 17-IPC increase for the Axis, I would also give 17 to the Allies, for example 6 to UK, 3 to Russia (which you had already increased by 4 previously) and 8 to USA.

I’m not sure looking at the money in terms of totals or % of totals by side is necessarily the best way to think about the balance until more information is presented. For example, a slight bump in money could be very dramatic in one area of the board, and not so much in another, since so much depends on which other game drivers are in effect.

According to Der Kuenstler, we’re taking about a hybrid board. So if its based on 1942.2 but 6 man, then you’ve already done quite a lot to the alter the balance just by including Italy into the rotation. But just using the same total numbers, depending on where the money is distributed, you could probably create very different games even with very narrow margins of increase. Basically I’d have to see the map and unit placement, before I could make more concrete suggestions.

As a general rule though, the more money in play per round, the less dependent you are on the starting position and the first round for balance by side. Put another way, the Axis starting TUV advantage is going to be reduced the more money you introduce per round, as Zombie notes, so to strike the right balance would require play-testing regardless.

I recall in my original draft for the minimum split for the 1942.2 board was 6 ipcs to Axis (Japanese Pac Island), and 6 to Allies (3 to UK, and 3 to USA) in order to give every zero IPC territory a value of 1 instead. So 12 total additional ipcs at a bare minimum, but you figure for game balance you’ll probably have to offset this impact by adding in a few more IPCs elsewhere on the board. But this took no account of Italy, so that definitely puts a new spin on things.

With Italy at a start value of 16, I’d say you’re looking at somewhere around a couple dozen additional IPCs distributed, maybe more. But where and how much, would depend very much on the unit set up (esp. regarding Germany/Italy), and also Italy’s position in the turn order.

ps. Another thing you might consider, given that you are already open to adjusting the value on the map, would be to move some IPCs from the core to the periphery, or adjust the core and use a base of 10 ipcs for all capitals.

In the old games when I would try to add Italy (to Classic or Revised) we always started Italy with 8, since that was the lowest value of any capital territory on the old boards. AA50 has some capitals at 6 rather than 8, and used a more low production scheme (but built on the idea of indirect National Objective money). On 1942.2 the lowest value capital is again at 8 ipc, so I would at least have Italy itself  (Rome) at 8 ipcs. 8 minimum just to be a functional player without NOs.

On the other hand, if you went universally with a 10 ipc base value for all capitals on the map, then you could move 2 ipcs from Eastern USA somewhere else more contested, so that Washington DC matched the rest of the six powers all at a value of 10.

UK, Russia, and Japan would benefit. Germany wouldn’t benefit, since they already have a capital at 10. USA would be knocked down a peg to 10 on E. US, but this likely wouldn’t alter the Atlantic dynamic too substantially. This might be used to round out the starting numbers if desired. The advantage here would be that you could start Italy at 10, on the rationale that all major players start with a capital worth exactly 10 ipcs.

It abstractly puts all powers on an equal footing (at least as far as their capitals go.) Germany and Japan easily overtake Moscow in 1942.2 OOB. And UK is too cash strapped to do much in the Atlantic and India at the same time. So it folds at the center. Moscow at 10 would probably make the situation easier to manage at the center. J at 10 would make KJF harder. London at 10 would make cross channel invasions more challenging for G, easier for UK. So the trick would be to have the other production values on the map offset what you do in the core. Forcing a Pacific game would do a lot to hold off the center crunch. For units and base values, I guess 1942.2 is the model, but with AA50 aspects? Or does ILs map include other adjustments? I think it’s OOB right, for the territory and sz divisions?

I am always wishing for an A&A game with cleaner start numbers for income. In increments of 5 or 10, you know, numbers that fit the crisps 5 or 10 dollar bills ;)

Without knowing anything else about the planned set up I like the following numbers as guides, just for their quick and clean doling out at the beginning. Relative strength at…

Italy 15/20
Germany 45/50
Russia 35/40
UK 40
Japan 40
USA 50/55

These numbers (assuming no other bonuses are in play), would still provide a lot of options for opening buys. Much depends on how Italy is integrated. Would they go first, or last, or somewhere in between? And then of course the question of how to keep Germany functional and interesting once Italy is integrated.

@Der:

Zombie69 - not sure sure I agree with your math. If Japan makes 30 IPC’s and Russia makes 24 IPCs, then Russia makes 80% of what Japan makes. If you add the same number (say 20) to each side, Japan then makes 50 and Russia makes 44. Now Russia makes 88% of what Japan makes- this will make it tougher for Japan to expand. If you use percentages, then it would still be the same degree of difficulty, only with more income.

Look at it this way. Tell me where I’m losing you or where you disagree.

1. In the box, the Allies start with a big economic advantage and the Axis only have a chance because they start with a big unit advantage.
2. If you add proportionately more money to everyone without adding units, you make economy a bigger factor versus starting units, therefore making any economic advantage even more important.
3. By comparison, the Axis unit advantage becomes less important because those starting units are easier to match with more money floating around.
4. Therefore, Axis loses.

My idea of adding money in equal amounts instead of equal proportion isn’t based on math. A different amount might be needed. The idea is based on instinct. I think that such an amount would be just enough so that the Axis unit advantage would remain relevant. Of course, you’ll need playtesting to determine the best amount for balance, but I’m pretty sure that my numbers will start you much closer to perfect balance. At least this way, the Axis will stand a chance.

Switch the IPC values for USSR and UK around, I’m getting sick of the USSR being the underdog

@Der:

@Zombie69:

3. By comparison, the Axis unit advantage becomes less important because those starting units are easier to match with more money floating around.
4. Therefore, Axis loses.

But it’s the same percentage of more money as before. At any rate, I’ve been adding new territories from the Global series so I’m sure a setup change will be in order - play testing will have to be done. I’m having a lot of fun playing with this Photoshop program anyway - lol.

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

Switch the IPC values for USSR and UK around, I’m getting sick of the USSR being the underdog

You have a point - I think Russia was historically a lot more of a Bear than Axis and Allies lets on. I think that the problem is that the British territories are all over the map and thus more vulnerable to attack compared to the more condensed Russian territories, so the Brits need the beefier income.

Except the British have massive advancing armies in Africa and India, when historically they didn’t, and with the exception of Canada, Britain was always more vulnerable than the USSR

Besides, just give them a Factory in Egypt that will be out of harms way from the Axis for at least 1 round

And the USSR demolished Germany in WW2, with very limited allied support, I don’t mind that the USSR needs support, if it is for balance issues, but all you really have to do is push more Germans to the front lines that will make battles for the USSR more costly in the initial setup

Also one thing, you could do what Total World War 1941 did and disallow movement of Germany on round 1 in specific territories, marked with Russian winter symbols

@Der:

@Zombie69:

3. By comparison, the Axis unit advantage becomes less important because those starting units are easier to match with more money floating around.
4. Therefore, Axis loses.

But it’s the same percentage of more money as before.

You increased all economy but didn’t increase starting units. Therefore the side reliant on its bigger economy gets an even bigger advantage and the side reliant on its starting units gets screwed.

Here’s an example you might understand. Let’s say I give you a choice between getting $100 now or placing it for you at 4% interest and giving you the money plus interest 3 years from now. You might choose the first option, because you know a place where you can get 5%. Meanwhile your friend might choose to get the money later plus interest. Let’s say that after you made your choice, I tell you both that anyone who chose to get the money later with interest will now get 8% interest instead of 4% (for whatever reason). But I tell you it’s too late to take that option, you’re stuck with your $100 now. Wouldn’t you think that you got screwed? Well, you’re the Axis (more units now) while your friend is the Allies (more money later), with starting units remaining the same and economies getting boosted.