I’m not sure if it’s bad form to be posting in this thread after February but anyway…

My name is Janus (also known on other parts of the internet as P.d0t)
I got into A&A with the MB version, back in about 1997 or so(?)
However, the biggest chunk of my A&A play experience is/was with the Imp Games expansion “East & West”: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

That company seems to have gone defunct (and their forums went down long before that) so I joined the A&A .org forums a while ago – somewhat passively – but have been following the site’s news via Facebook. When the announcement for A&A Online came through on that channel, it rekindled my interest in E&W. As such, I’ve been trying to track down anyone who owns the game or has played it, and have been working on honing strategies for the USSR.

One such strategy can be found here on the forums, which I ran just as a playtest against myself:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19172/east-west-by-imp-games-soviet-strategy-playtest

If you’re a fan of E&W, please get ahold of me here on the forums/PMs; it would be much appreciated

@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?

FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)

Not location-specific, but I’m just hoping to get in touch with anyone who owns or has play-experience with this game. I own a copy myself, and am just looking for anyone knowledgeable, who would like to discuss strategies for the game – and possibly play in some electronic format or another.

The official site has long since gone offline, but a bit of info still exists here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

Back in the day, I had been reading up on all sorts of A&A stuff: some of the “limited” scenarios (where not all nations were used/played) on thrasher’s A&A site, as well as World at War and its use of an “impulse” turn for the Axis.

I kind of wanted to combine some of those ideas, with a setting earlier than Classic’s “Spring 1942” which Larry Harris described (in a video during the credits of Iron Blitz) as the “high-water mark of the Axis expansion.” My knowledge of WWII kind of suggested that the highest mark prior to that, would be 1941 – specifically when most of France’s colonies were still collaborationist, or had not yet been captured by the British, and when Italy still controlled east Africa.

I can recall sharing this with a friend back in 2007, so this sort of comes after the original Europe and Pacific games, but prior to Global. As you might guess, this kind of shared the mindset that would go on to create that game. Essentially, the game is broken into 3 theatres – one Axis power for each. If that Axis power is either defeated, or achieves their objectives, then their theatre merges with at least one other. (i.e. Italy must be defeated in Africa before the western Allies can start to attack Germany)

For simplicity, I kept the starting unit setup the same, with units changing nationality if their territory also changed. For balance, the Axis were given some early bonuses, and (also for historical reasoning) the USA and USSR both had restrictions in the first round. I also included some further clarification to the 2nd Edition rules, as well as some changes (such as adding some complexes, but all complexes being limited in the number of units they can produce.)

Anyways, I have most of the documentation saved, it probably just needs some updated formatting; I wanted to post here first, so as to gauge interest and see if I should go through with the process of cleaning up what I have.

Thanks for reading hopefully there are some enthusiastic responses!

Tactics: Operation Fishnet (Soviet Pacific Fleet)

For those who know me, I’ve historically mostly played as NATO in E&W. As part of the ongoing refinement of my Soviet strategy, I wanted to come up with some better opening moves for their naval units; here’s what I’ve been looking at just recently:
(red arrows outline spaces that US navies could conceivably reach)

Objectives: To stall US transport capability in the Pacific.

This should be a fairly straightforwardly important goal, for any Soviet player: keeping the US off of your shores (or away from landing support into SE Asia.) It’s difficult to actually attack the US transports (because of their positioning) so instead we want to prevent them from steaming across the ocean, for as long as possible.

Scatter
The purpose of scattering your navy is to make it a less-attractive target for the US nuke. Many times, the Soviet moves in the Pacific involve slamming as much force as possible against another large force. Usually this is a no-win situation; either your remaining force is large enough to warrant dropping the bomb on, or is small enough that it is mopped up by US naval forces, with nary a whimper. Also, keeping subs separate from surface ships will tempt your opponent to split their air power from their naval power.

Block
By positioning the subs between your other ships, and the West US fleet, you’re able to effectively keep those units from using their full movement – unless the enemy attacks both ranks of your defensive line. Again, this is not the worst result, because you’ll have already prevented them from being able to concentrate their forces.
If the Japan SZ fleet attacks the Soviet ships in the Bering Strait, this means that the transport at Okinawa cannot effectively be used to amphibiously assault Kamchatka or East Siberia; the ships at Hawaii are also blocked from providing shore bombardment, and the carrier cannot move in to provide a landing space for supporting fighter aircraft.

Deadzone
As you’ll note on the map, the Marcus Island SZ can potentially be hit by all of the US ships in the area. However, if the US moves heavily into this zone with their surface fleet, they will not be able to keep the Japan SZ well-defended – potentially leaving it open to a counter-attack, with support from Soviet aircraft. If they instead consolidate their navy at Marcus Island, their transports will be far out of position to send reinforcements to SE Asia.
The place where the US can launch the strongest amphibious assault (with both their Japan fleet and Hawaii fleet) is against North Korea. Fortunately, the free Chinese infantry make this a tough nut to crack, and the Soviets should always have units in East Siberia and/or Manchuria, available for a counter-attack. Also, the commitment of US surface ships to such an attack would mean a much weaker naval response, to the Soviet fleets; if the US only commits submarines to Marcus Island, and only aircraft to deal with the Soviet submarines, they risk leaving the West US transport exposed to the Bering Strait ships. In this situation, the US may opt to instead move this transport towards the Panama Canal – both to be out of reach, and to instead assist in moving forces to Europe. In this case, the Soviet fleet will have succeeded at its objective.

Let me know what you think about this opening move
Comments and critiques are always welcome!

Operation Underbelly (part 4, continued)

Theorycraft: The Thinking Behind it All

1. The Iran Plan, and the Reserve Groups

I’ve classed the Soviet bomber as a reserve group, simply because it can be used in any/all of the proposed attacks; the remaining reserve units are a bit more limited. Our “cavalry” group can reach India on round 2 – so that’s almost an automatic; the armor group is a little bit trickier. Basically, if these groups are not used to attack Iran (and subsequently non-combat move to Pakistan/Turkmenistan/Sinkiang, to aid the followup attack on India in round 3) then they need to be non-combat moved towards your next objective: either South Korea, or Norway.

If not used against Iran, the armor can move one of a few ways:

Kazakhstan->Manchuria->South Korea
Kazakhstan->India->Burma
Ukraine->Karelia->Norway
Ukraine->Yugoslavia->Italy

The heavy armor can basically be positioned alongside the regular armor, but since it has the extra movement, it can quite easily also be used to attack India, and still catch up.

If you placed your 3 “flex” infantry in Georgia on round 1, this makes the Iran attack a lot more viable, since it means you can execute it without drawing significantly from your garrison forces in Turkey. Really, the objective with taking Iran is to move your reserve groups more quickly into the India theatre, and (potentially) move the rest of your armor more quickly out of that theatre (and onward to Europe) once India has been mopped up.

The concern I have with taking Iran, is that the likely UK counter-strategy is to set up a shuck-shuck from Africa into Pakistan – combining their South African cruiser, Australian navy, and Mediterranean fleet in the Persian Gulf, by round 2. If Iran’s neutrality is broken, this opens the floodgate for NATO forces, into territories that the USSR would otherwise not have to worry too much about defending. I think what it boils down to, is whether the USSR is able to take out the India transport, and whether their sub at Cyprus manages to live long enough to keep the UK from getting through the Suez.

This would mean the USSR has an extra cruiser (in the Red Sea) with another round to mop up the Australian navy, thus neutering the UK’s amphibious capabilities in the area. (Again, this would assume the “strong India” tactic, where the Australian navy moves to India SZ; if they don’t, India won’t be strong enough to withstand the USSR’s attack on round 2 – that’s just how much of a difference those Aussie infantry make.) If the Soviet bomber didn’t take out the India transport on round 1, then this cruiser (if able to survive) would also be able to re-engage that target, if it moves towards Mozambique; the bomber is also within range of this SZ.

2. Japan SZ, 2: Electric Boogaloo

As was illustrated in the earlier post, one conceivable US response is to set up their surface fleets in the Japan SZ and the Burma SZ. This is why a Soviet followup attack on Japan SZ is an attractive option… assuming it’s at all possible. For the attack to be viable, we need at least some of our navy in the Pacific to have survived the US counter-attack; if we have no ships left, it’s not advisable.

The other drawback to this offensive, is that it requires all of our air power (within reach) to be redirected towards it, significantly weakening our India attack. It might be worthwhile in the long run (for preventing US reinforcements to southeast Asia, or amphibious assaults into East Siberia) but taking out India ASAP should always be the priority.

The nice thing with this option, however, is that our air power is fairly well masked; the US may not see it coming. If they use up all their fodder (subs) counter-attacking our cruisers, this makes their surface ships even more vulnerable (assuming any fodder of our own remains, to throw into the attack.)

3. Fire, Maneuver; Fire, Maneuver

The important thing with using aircraft so heavily in the India strategy, is to always be repositioning them closer to the next objective. Once India falls, we need to non-combat move those fighters either towards South Korea, or our next target in Europe (likely Norway.)

I’m a bit late in mentioning this, but the other reason for using our airpower in Asia (aside from being faster than armor, or even heavy armor) is that NATO does not begin with any AA guns there. This is why the “armor for Europe, air for Asia” doctrine helps us to maximize our offense, and minimize the risk to our units.

4. You Sunk My Battleship!

With the naval positioning I’ve proposed, one potential outcome of the NATO counter-maneuvers, is to end up with the WE ships from the Mediterranean being moved to the Cyprus SZ. This isn’t necessarily a “sexy” target, but I think part of the Soviet naval doctrine (that is emerging from my research into this strategy) is to take out these sorts of targets early, while you still have fodder (ships) to commit to these actions. This leaves any NATO transport capacity with fewer surface ships to escort them, thus making them potentially vulnerable to attacks by “naked” Soviet air forces (i.e. without naval support.)

As I had touched on earlier, in a more “Europe First” type of strategy, it seems like it’d make sense to commit air and naval power to hit the British surface fleet first, and then smash the “softer” targets with whatever forces you can scrape together, on subsequent rounds. (It’s worth noting that, coincidentally, this UK fleet consists of the same units as the US starting fleet in the Japan SZ.)

Also, splitting your naval forces allows for this sort of punch-counterpunch idea, whereby you always have a reserve naval force (for fodder) with which to strike back – assuming that NATO can’t afford to spread their attacks around, and sink everything all in one go.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Balance Fix: reduced starting forces for NATO

With the game now being available to everyone via MapView, I’ve been able to play and tinker a bit, and I’m coming back to this idea again. The overall intention being to adjust the balance of the two opposing forces, without it being noticeable enough to impact the game’s overall presentation.

One thing I should touch on right away from the previous post, is that I was using the totals for NATO infantry from the “total” column in the rulebook… which has some addition errors; specifically, the total UK infantry is actually 31, not 33. (Their starting income is 33 …coincidence?)

Anyway, here’s my revised idea (after much back-and-forth) that I’d be willing to test out if anyone wants to have a game:

• [unchanged] territories with more than 1 WE infantry start with 1 less WE infantry (France, Italy, Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Indochina)
• UK and US territories with more than 1 UK infantry start with half as many UK infantry (UK, Iceland, India, New South Wales, South Africa)
• US territories with more than 1 US infantry start with 1 less US infantry (East US, West US, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, Philippines)
• remove any NATO fighters from territories with an IPC value of 2, which do not also contain an armor unit (Iceland, Indochina, New South Wales)
• remove any NATO submarines based off the coasts of territories with an IPC value of 2 (Iceland, New South Wales)

The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:

• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2 or more, and with at least 1 starting infantry, each gain one additional infantry (East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Karelia, Belarus, Ukraine, Orel, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, East Siberia, Kamchatka, North Korea)
• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2, which contain an industrial complex, each gain 1 fighter and 1 cruiser (Karelia, East Siberia)
• other Soviet territories which contain an industrial complex each gain 1 heavy armor (Ukraine, Russia)

Final tally:

Infantry:
USSR (+15) / Total: 75
WE (-7) / Total: 21
UK (-8) / Total: 23
US (-6) / Total: 27
[NATO total: 71]

Fighters:
USSR (+2) / Total: 9
WE (-1) / Total: 3
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 6
[NATO total: 12]

Submarines:
USSR [unchanged] Total: 6
WE [unchanged] Total: 1
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 3
[NATO Total: 7]

Cruisers:
USSR (+2) / Total: 6
NATO [unchanged] Total: 7

– Any comments/questions, just shoot me a reply below

"The 2nd Great War"

My idea for using the TGW map for a WWII scenario basically involved breaking the war into phases, starting in 1939 (after the surrender of Poland); in hindsight, 1940 (after the fall of Denmark and Norway, with the USSR annexing the Baltic states) probably makes more sense.

Basically, most countries would be inactive, until certain triggers happen. (I never got deep into the rules/setup, so this is mostly just a thumbnail sketch.)

Phase 1: Germany invades Belgium and Netherlands; once conquered, Italy becomes an active Axis power
Phase 2: Germany invades France; UK becomes an active Allied power; once France is defeated (Axis capture 50% or more of French territories by IPC value, OR capture Paris) Vichy France is established
Phase 3: the minor Axis countries (“Danubian states & Finland”) becomes an Axis power, allowing Axis units to move through their territory; they become an active Axis power after Germany conquers Yugoslavia
Phase 4: After conquering Greece, the Axis can invade the USSR; after the USSR is attacked, the US joins the war (as an active Allied power/contributing full income/etc.)
Phase 5: Once Vichy France is defeated (Allies capture 50% or more of Vichy territories by IPC value) Vichy France is absorbed by Germany
Phase 6: Once Italy is defeated (Allies capture 50% or more of starting Italian territories by IPC value) Italy is absorbed by Germany

Major Neutrals: (all use 8 IPCs for purposes of influence scale?)

• Spain: favours Germany or France(?)
• Yugoslavia: favours Italy or USSR(?)
• Turkey: favours Danubian States or UK(?)

Territorial Changes (to reflect 1940)

• Germany: add Austria, Bohemia, Carinthia, Tirol, Poland, Galicia, Denmark, Norway; remove German Africa Convoy
• UK: add Mesopotamia, Palestine, German Africa Convoy; remove Ireland, British Africa Convoy
• Italy: add Albania, Carniola, British Africa Convoy
• France: add Syria
• USSR: add Armenia; remove Finland, Poland

New nations:

• Danubian States & Finland: Finland, West Hungary, East Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria
• Yugoslavia: Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro
• Turkey: Thrace, Anatolia, Ankara, Kurdistan

@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?

FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)

@jwlbigdog said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@the-janus I do still have a PDF copy of the 9.1 rules for TGW, even still have the CD for the map view file. Not sure where my copy of E&W is though…

I have the “2nd Edition rules” doc for E&W.

To make a short story long, I had misplaced my physical book, so I went to order a replacement – back when the Imp Games site was still up. They emailed me saying something like, “here, just take this instead, we don’t really want to have to ship anything.” But suffice it to say I explained that I wanted the physical book, so now I have both the physical and the electronic versions. P.S. to that story: I ended up finding where I had misplaced my original book – so now I actually have two physical copies of the rulebook.

@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

I think I may eventually try to recreate the E&W Cold War-era scenario on one of the more recent A&A maps - either the Anniversary map or maybe Siredblood’s or one of its offshoots - and work up the starting set ups, territorial control changes, etc. since finding new copies of the old E&W map seems unlikely. And then I’ll just use existing pieces I already have, plus some new pieces from HBG.

As I’ve touched on previously in the thread, the E&W map looks like it’s a modification of the Xeno Games “World at War” map – some obvious Cold War changes are included, like east/west Germany, Yugoslavia/Greece, and North/South Korea.

Typically those changes are hard to come across in a map expressly meant to run a WWII game, but something like Bloodbath (IIRC? whatever the cool kids are playing these days…) might come close.

On a related topic, I always thought the TGW map would be handy for a WWII or even an E&W scenario. I liked the mechanic of infantry entrenching, that was something I had wanted to borrow and expand on, for a homebrew idea I had.

@imperious-leader
I unfortunately am one of the few Imp gamers who never once played a game of The Great War. I think I had a copy of the rules, at one point, but as far as I can tell, I’ve lost them to the sands of time.

Not sure if @jwlbigdog @tacojohn or anyone else might have a copy buried somewhere…?

@jwlbigdog said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@the-janus A fourth option would include making the use of paratroopers without other land units present a researchable technology.

At that point, I would just staple it onto the Helicopter tech.
My own personal inclination is to just not allow paratroopers at all, but there might be other satisfactory solutions that I don’t want to shut the door on.

Variant Rule: Round Zero Breakthroughs

A while back, I had posted a topic on the idea of an “impulse turn” for the USSR, as sort of an expanded “round zero.” Admittedly, the implementation is a bit clunky (mostly for balance reasons) so I’m still trying to workshop it a bit. However, there is one aspect from those rules that I’d like to pluck out, since I think it could be applied independently from the impulse turn.

This is the idea of “round zero breakthroughs” – the Soviets being able to gain additional techs, and readjust the diplomatic situation – for some different options at the start of the game.

1. Diplomacy: The USSR can move China up one space on the influence chart, or they can move the other two neutral alliances a total of two spaces on the influence chart.

This allows for some interesting options:

• The Soviets can move China to +8, giving them some more income and making Chinese support in North Korea a little bit more secure against NATO spies.
• The Soviets could move the Arab League to +0, meaning that the Suez Canal would be closed to NATO at the start of the game – potentially providing for some alternate strategies using the Soviet fleet in the Black Sea, but also preventing NATO from combining their ships from the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.
• The Soviets could move the Arab league to +3, giving them almost the same amount of income as if they had increased Chinese support instead, but also allowing Soviet troops to move into Arab territories, providing a gateway to attack Africa.
• Moving the OAS would mean that an errant complication roll for a Soviet nuclear attack won’t immediately lead to more income for the USA.

The 2nd part of these added breakthroughs would be granting additional tech to the USSR:

2. Technology: The USSR gains two full-steps at submarine technology, or two half-steps towards any other tech trees.

What this does, in practical terms:

• The USSR can move their subs through hostile sea zones, bypassing enemy ships and potentially setting up offensive moves deeper into NATO supply lines.
• With the “straits rule” in place, the USSR can use the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea almost like sub pens, to protect these units from NATO naval units.
• Soviet subs can potentially link up, by crossing underneath the ice sheet at the top of the board – to project greater force into one theatre.
• This gives the USSR the option to develop Fission Weapons, as a counter to NATO naval power, or to progress further along the armor tech tree with the goal of eventually gaining total superiority on land.

Since I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that nukes are the best counter to NATO’s navy, I’d probably want to revise this rule a bit, to reflect that; submarine tech should be treated as a fun option, rather than a viable balancing / war-winning feature. I haven’t really nailed down what that implementation should look like, just yet.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

(Reusing this image for visual aid purposes)

Basic Mechanics: Paratroopers

Just due to the number of bomber aircraft that NATO has, this mechanic is particularly slanted against the USSR (who start with only one bomber.)

Paratroopers based in the UK can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to the UK:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Karelia, Komi

Paratroopers based in France can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to France:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Karelia, Komi, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine

Paratroopers based in Italy can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to Italy:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia

Now, this is not including things like dropping a paratrooper off and landing in a territory other than where the bomber started its turn; Norway for example helps put Belarus and Orel more easily into paratrooper range.

But if we look at the list of territories mentioned above, the problem starts to become pretty obvious:
Paratroopers subvert the protection that the “straits rule” can provide to the Soviets. This forces the USSR to backtrack and fix their supply lines, which causes big disruptions if you’re trying to keep as many offensive units as possible at the front lines. It also requires you to keep your infantry spread out across more territory.

By contrast, the USSR can only really hope to make distractions, through the use of paratroopers. From Turkey or Pakistan (assuming your bomber is protected enough, in those territories) you can cause mischief in Africa; likewise, you can spring surprises from Chinese territory, if your opponent isn’t mindful. It just doesn’t have the disruptive effect (particularly relative to the opportunity costs) that NATO paratroopers are able to create.

It is for these reasons that I recommend the paratrooper rule be amended; here are some possible ideas for how:

• No paratroopers – neither side can use paratroopers
• Bombers can only transport infantry on non-combat movement
• Paratroopers can only be used in combat as an addition to other land units attacking the territory – the attack cannot consist only of aircraft, but it can be an amphibious assault

There is a somewhat historical precedent for the 3rd option, with the 2nd option (I feel) being more in line with the game’s setting, of the “Berlin Airlift” – whereby bombers were used as transport planes for supplies.

Basic Mechanics: The India Stack

Pictured above is the starting setup, highlighting the Indian Ocean and surrounding areas.

Just by placing on land, the UK can add 5 infantry to this theatre every round; 1 in Pakistan, 3 in India, and 1 in Burma. Western Europe (WE) can also add 2 infantry in Indochina every round, but likely won’t have the economy to be able to afford it, after round 1.

However, there are 3 transports that the UK can use to further reinforce India: the one at India itself, another at Italy, and a third by Australia. Since the UK can place 7 infantry per round in Africa, they can easily keep these transports full every round, shucking either from the Red Sea or Mozambique SZ to unload into Pakistan. By linking up the various UK navies in the Persian Gulf SZ, this creates a strong pipeline into central Asia.

2 - South Africa
1 - Rhodesia
1 - Tanganyika
1 - Sudan
1 - Nigeria
2 - Singapore

Now, the UK’s starting income being 33 means that placing 5 infantry on land and 6 more to be moved via transport, would require spending their entire income on infantry, each round. Doing so would necessarily mean not adding any units in Europe.

An alternative is for the UK to place an industrial complex in India, thereby increasing the amount of infantry that they can place by 3, up to a total of 8. It also speeds up how quickly these additional units can reach the front line. The other reason to do this, is to get armor or other units built in-theatre. In either case, this leaves very little income remaining for the UK to do anything else, while also leaving them few options for utilizing their transports.

Now, for the opposite perspective…

To match the 5 infantry that the UK can place on land, the USSR needs to place 2 in Kazakhstan, 2 in Turkmenistan, and 1 in Mongolia – each of these territories being within one space of Sinkiang. The problem they face is that the fighters from Indochina and Australia make for a formidable defense of India; by contrast, the USSR has no offensive units in the immediate area to counter this.

The other areas that the USSR needs to defend in this part of the world, are their coastal territories in Asia: Kamchatka, Eastern Siberia, and North Korea. Since these areas are under threat by the US immediately at the start of the game it makes sense for the USSR to be placing defensive infantry there every round. If the USSR places the maximum amount of infantry on both Eastern Siberia and North Korea every round, this adds up to 6 in total – effectively matching the 6 infantry that the UK can transport to India. This is why I’ve advocated for the “Operation: Underbelly” tactic of always placing these infantry, but always moving them through China towards southeast Asia.

(This is to say nothing of the US setting up their navy off the coast of Indochina, shuttling 2 infantry from the Philippines every round, as well as transporting infantry from Japan every other round. In short, the Soviets need to fight a quick, decisive war in this theatre – the long-term prospects are not in their favour.)

All of which dovetails into topics I’ve covered previously in this discussion thread:

• Reduced starting forces for NATO:
• • cutting down the numbers of units in India, Indochina, and New South Wales gives the Soviets a more reasonable opportunity at success in this theatre, without having to commit so many of their limited resources.
• The proposed overhaul to the rules regarding China:
• • the USSR would always be allowed to move units through Chinese territories
• • the USSR would gain income from China based on the value of Chinese territories which contain Soviet units, at the end of each Soviet turn
• • the influence scale would only serve to determine whether Chinese troops will defend North Korea
• • If contributing 12 or more IPCs to the USSR or giving full support to the USSR on the influence scale, NATO can declare war on China, and attack Chinese territories

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Balance Fix: reduced starting forces for NATO

With the game now being available to everyone via MapView, I’ve been able to play and tinker a bit, and I’m coming back to this idea again. The overall intention being to adjust the balance of the two opposing forces, without it being noticeable enough to impact the game’s overall presentation.

One thing I should touch on right away from the previous post, is that I was using the totals for NATO infantry from the “total” column in the rulebook… which has some addition errors; specifically, the total UK infantry is actually 31, not 33. (Their starting income is 33 …coincidence?)

Anyway, here’s my revised idea (after much back-and-forth) that I’d be willing to test out if anyone wants to have a game:

• [unchanged] territories with more than 1 WE infantry start with 1 less WE infantry (France, Italy, Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Indochina)
• UK and US territories with more than 1 UK infantry start with half as many UK infantry (UK, Iceland, India, New South Wales, South Africa)
• US territories with more than 1 US infantry start with 1 less US infantry (East US, West US, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, Philippines)
• remove any NATO fighters from territories with an IPC value of 2, which do not also contain an armor unit (Iceland, Indochina, New South Wales)
• remove any NATO submarines based off the coasts of territories with an IPC value of 2 (Iceland, New South Wales)

The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:

• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2 or more, and with at least 1 starting infantry, each gain one additional infantry (East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Karelia, Belarus, Ukraine, Orel, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, East Siberia, Kamchatka, North Korea)
• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2, which contain an industrial complex, each gain 1 fighter and 1 cruiser (Karelia, East Siberia)
• other Soviet territories which contain an industrial complex each gain 1 heavy armor (Ukraine, Russia)

Final tally:

Infantry:
USSR (+15) / Total: 75
WE (-7) / Total: 21
UK (-8) / Total: 23
US (-6) / Total: 27
[NATO total: 71]

Fighters:
USSR (+2) / Total: 9
WE (-1) / Total: 3
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 6
[NATO total: 12]

Submarines:
USSR [unchanged] Total: 6
WE [unchanged] Total: 1
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 3
[NATO Total: 7]

Cruisers:
USSR (+2) / Total: 6
NATO [unchanged] Total: 7

– Any comments/questions, just shoot me a reply below