Imperious Leader is speculating on Axis strategies. I do not see why it is inadmissable to speculate on how his strategies may be countered. He is automatically assuming that the Italian player will do precisely as he is told. I suspect that Imperious Leader will make sure that he controls both the German and Italian player, which defeats the whole purpose of adding Italy.
Countering is all fine. Adding stupid house rules is completely different.
I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.
Better get a black marker and start blacking out the Axis then.
Excellent, we are in agreement then. I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis. Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor. A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War. Death to the Axis!
Why do I get the feeling that you have no friends that play Axis & Allies?
timerover51, yes we know, you hate Axis. Why not just add the feature “You win” to the Allies instead of wasting all the time with putting pieces here and there. Whatever you do, your post doesn’t belong in this thread.
I know if I was playing the game at GenCon, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell the designers that the balance sucks, they need to redesign it.
Germany’s and Japan’s fighters should attack at 4 (and maybe defend at 5) to represent the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
On IPC values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30 (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.
Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China infAllies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.
Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.
Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.
Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed. The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production. Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5. If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170. Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use. Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US. Have to give that some thought.
Good luck finding someone to play Axis.
As for Variant’s comment: “How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?”
By 1941, Britain was producing as much military equipment as Germany, and maintained that rate throughout the remainder of the war. In 1944, Britain managed to devote 60% of its Gross National Product to military production, a rate which could not be sustained, and left the British post-war economy in shambles. I am not making those figures up. If you wish, you may consult Klaus Knorr’s War Potential of Nations, which is the source of some of my information. If the aim of the game was to really bias it in favor of the Allies, all they would have to do is give the US its true military production capability in late 1943/early 1944. To do that, you take the sum of the total production of all of the non-US players (Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, and the UK) and give that to the US. In the Revised Game, that would be 124 IPC, not 42. And to that add the US should automatically be producing somewhere between 2 and 4 transports per turn. The US was also feeding a large portion of the world at the same time.
Maybe if you are comparing Germany proper to the UK they might be comparable. The GDP of the UK wasn’t even half of the entirety of German occupied territory. France alone had half of the GDP the UK did and the UK didn’t even reach even with German proper. Even if the UK spent half their GDP on the military, they couldn’t reach the German Reich’s production during 1941 and 42. The UK was being propped up by the American war machine. It didn’t have the capability to compete against Germany without aid.
Why are you even bringing up America’s 1943/44 production? What is the point?
The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.
Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.
I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.
So you want a history book and not a strategy game?
The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.