A&A Enhanced: Playtest Report

[Kaufschtick]

This is directed mainly toward Cousin_Joe as feedback information for his A&A Enhanced v1.3...

Two games played using v1.2, both games played out basically the same way. Before I get going any further, I would like to state that everyone involved thought it was great! We all want to explore this variation further. We are not "professional playtesters" or anything, rather, just long time A&A fans looking for a game that would give another option to the Axis other than the Tank Drive To Moscow, and more Pacific involvement too.

Both games drew out for us as follows.

Alot of activity in Africa, of course, with a complex going into South Africa in one game. Overall impression: This area was active and made for good game play.

Atlantic Ocean: The convoy raid rule was well recieved, although as it was new for the Allies, they didn't quite know how to react to it. Overall impression: This area went from a stale, shipping marshalling yard to an active area. Everyone loved the rule and it's effect. The Allied players, although at first stung, are itching to try it again, vowing not to be caught by suprise next time out. This too made for good game play.

The France to Norway Allied land campaign area was active. Overall impression: Still an active area as it was previously, and still good for game play.

The German-Russian front area: No real differences here either, both sides throwing punches and jabs, looking for openings...Overall: Still active and interesting.

Now for the good stuff...

Asia and the Pacific were a whole new ball game.Nobody really knew what to do for starters! Suffice it to say though, that everyone was salivating over the multiple possiblities! What would be the best strategy? We did all agree that we want to give this many more looks, so bear in mind that these are "first game" impressions.

Activity ranged from Alaska to Australia, with the later falling to the Axis in both games. Overall impression: There was so much going on, and so many options, that we all agreed that we would be playing this version mainly in the near future, over the box game.

One item I noticed was that, as the U.S. invested in Navy to do battle with the I.J.N., the Japanese were able to place a couple complexes in Asia and switch from a Pacific first strategy to a more well known Tank Drive To Moscow strategy.

The Japanese took Australia in both games, and in both games, the U.S. purchased alot of navy early on. In the first game, they split it between the Atlantic and Pacific. This left them too weak in either to get much going very quickly. In the second game, having lesson learned in hand, the U.S. went heavy Pacific. It was in this game that the Japanese switched to defensive in the Pacific as the Americans got rolling; having quietly placed a couple complexes on the Asian mainland and not building much with them. Japan then started back to that old favorite, the Tank Drive To Moscow, and suddenly those quite factories started churning out a whole bunch of tanks. This left the U.S. overcomitted in the Pacific and terribly out of position to put effective pressure on Europe...

Both games went to the Axis.

I was looking at Vollick1979's concept of moving Shang-hai to three islands as minor V.C.'s. I would like to get your take on using this with Enhanced and how this might help keep the Japanese from giving the ole' "Rope a' Dope" to the Allies in the Pacific. I mean, anyone using Enhanced is probably not a novice A&A player. This is not much more on the complexity scale...I'm not too sure about this, though...at this point, I defer to you...(anyone else have any thoughts on this? Sound off!)

[Doctor Strategy]

If both games went to the Axis, how is this great? Yeah, real historical isn't it. Believe me it wouldn't be right to almost have no chance for the Axis to win ala Original A&A. However, swinging the pendulum over to the Axis side still creates the same effect. Hardly any chance for the Allies to win. Is it more fun to play when the Axis wins all the time? Were the Allies weak players?

Cousin Joe, I'm not bashing you effort but if the Axis constantly wins you may have to look into balancing Enhanced a little more.

[series]

If both games went to the Axis, how is this great? Yeah, real historical isn't it. Believe me it wouldn't be right to almost have no chance for the Axis to win ala Original A&A. However, swinging the pendulum over to the Axis side still creates the same effect. Hardly any chance for the Allies to win. Is it more fun to play when the Axis wins all the time? Were the Allies weak players?

Cousin Joe, I'm not bashing you effort but if the Axis constantly wins you may have to look into balancing Enhanced a little more.
I suppose it's just another effect of unbalanced starting/victory conditions.

[series]

Two games can break a game, if you play with an alligator, IMO

[Vollick1979]

I was looking at Vollick1979's concept of moving Shang-hai to three islands as minor V.C.'s. I would like to get your take on using this with Enhanced and how this might help keep the Japanese from giving the ole' "Rope a' Dope" to the Allies in the Pacific. I mean, anyone using Enhanced is probably not a novice A&A player. This is not much more on the complexity scale...I'm not too sure about this, though...at this point, I defer to you...(anyone else have any thoughts on this? Sound off!)

Kaufschtick, I've tried to convince him on the 3 minor VC as have DocD but to no avail. I would suggest that if the Axis continue to win A&A:Enhanced games you just make your own house rule regarding the 3 minor VC, because well..... joe likes his ideas.

[DocD]

This is directed mainly toward Cousin_Joe as feedback information for his A&A Enhanced v1.3...
Both games went to the Axis.

I was looking at Vollick1979's concept of moving Shang-hai to three islands as minor V.C.'s. I would like to get your take on using this with Enhanced and how this might help keep the Japanese from giving the ole' "Rope a' Dope" to the Allies in the Pacific. I mean, anyone using Enhanced is probably not a novice A&A player. This is not much more on the complexity scale...I'm not too sure about this, though...at this point, I defer to you...(anyone else have any thoughts on this? Sound off!)
Hey kauf...docd here.
Yeah, I was pretty excited too to play enhanced.
It really does open up the game. Also, Axis has won both of my games also, but I'm not ready to toss this baby yet either.
I feel that the Allies just need to find the right balance with UK.
I've found the UK to be very important in enhanced because of the added threat of losing Australia. And in my games, the Axis have pounded the British hard with SBR and convoy raids, income the British can hardly afford to lose.

As far as Vollick's variant...I seem the be the only person who has even bothered to playtest it. (Except maybe Vollick) I'm hopeful others will try and give it a chance. It may be the equalizer the Allies need.

Only thing though, and I told vollick this also, I was alittle concerned with "overstretching" Japan. It's one thing to give them a choice of paying attention to the Pacific....It's something else to make them pay attention to the Pacific.

Anyway, I hope you give it a try and let us know what happen.
Thanks.

[series]

Kaufschtick, I've tried to convince him on the 3 minor VC as have DocD but to no avail. I would suggest that if the Axis continue to win A&A:Enhanced games you just make your own house rule regarding the 3 minor VC, because well..... joe likes his ideas.I like the minor VCs, but however, I think only giving them to Japan is a bit of a waste for a good concept. Perhaps, just perhaps, change the Western US VC to a minor change, Hawaii-Midway-Western USA (since Western USA is "uncapturable). Maybe for Russia there could be something as well. For Germany, I'm not sure. UK- maybe Anglo-Egypt, India, Austrailia?

Anyway, it's fine how it is with minor VCs, but however, i would like to see it used more... oh, and vollick, don't tell Joe to use your ideas *even if he would listen*, because you could make your own variant and get the spotlight!

:D

[cousin_joe]

This is directed mainly toward Cousin_Joe as feedback information for his A&A Enhanced v1.3...

Two games played using v1.2, both games played out basically the same way. Before I get going any further, I would like to state that everyone involved thought it was great! We all want to explore this variation further. We are not "professional playtesters" or anything, rather, just long time A&A fans looking for a game that would give another option to the Axis other than the Tank Drive To Moscow, and more Pacific involvement too.

Both games drew out for us as follows.

Alot of activity in Africa, of course, with a complex going into South Africa in one game. Overall impression: This area was active and made for good game play.

Atlantic Ocean: The convoy raid rule was well recieved, although as it was new for the Allies, they didn't quite know how to react to it. Overall impression: This area went from a stale, shipping marshalling yard to an active area. Everyone loved the rule and it's effect. The Allied players, although at first stung, are itching to try it again, vowing not to be caught by suprise next time out. This too made for good game play.

The France to Norway Allied land campaign area was active. Overall impression: Still an active area as it was previously, and still good for game play.

The German-Russian front area: No real differences here either, both sides throwing punches and jabs, looking for openings...Overall: Still active and interesting.Excellent :) Thanks for the feedback Kaufschtick. By the way, did you use NAs in your games? If so, which ones?

Now for the good stuff...

Asia and the Pacific were a whole new ball game.Nobody really knew what to do for starters! Suffice it to say though, that everyone was salivating over the multiple possiblities! What would be the best strategy? We did all agree that we want to give this many more looks, so bear in mind that these are "first game" impressions.

Activity ranged from Alaska to Australia, with the later falling to the Axis in both games. Overall impression: There was so much going on, and so many options, that we all agreed that we would be playing this version mainly in the near future, over the box game.

One item I noticed was that, as the U.S. invested in Navy to do battle with the I.J.N., the Japanese were able to place a couple complexes in Asia and switch from a Pacific first strategy to a more well known Tank Drive To Moscow strategy.

The Japanese took Australia in both games, and in both games, the U.S. purchased alot of navy early on. In the first game, they split it between the Atlantic and Pacific. This left them too weak in either to get much going very quickly. In the second game, having lesson learned in hand, the U.S. went heavy Pacific. It was in this game that the Japanese switched to defensive in the Pacific as the Americans got rolling; having quietly placed a couple complexes on the Asian mainland and not building much with them. Japan then started back to that old favorite, the Tank Drive To Moscow, and suddenly those quite factories started churning out a whole bunch of tanks. This left the U.S. overcomitted in the Pacific and terribly out of position to put effective pressure on Europe...

Both games went to the Axis.
Sounds like a very devious Japanese player :) Were their ICs in India and Sink? These can be very effective in tying up Japanese INF on the mainland, esp. with NA's like Pacific Divisions and Commonwealth. Japan will have difficulty buying more Navy and eventually, the US will just outproduce them.

I was looking at Vollick1979's concept of moving Shang-hai to three islands as minor V.C.'s. I would like to get your take on using this with Enhanced and how this might help keep the Japanese from giving the ole' "Rope a' Dope" to the Allies in the Pacific. I mean, anyone using Enhanced is probably not a novice A&A player. This is not much more on the complexity scale...I'm not too sure about this, though...at this point, I defer to you...(anyone else have any thoughts on this? Sound off!)Well, I like Shanghai as it gives further incentive for Allied asian ICs in Sink and Ind. Personally, I like to keep changes to what's necessary, and I think there's enough action in the Pacific with just the 15VCs as is.

The other problem with changing the Shanghai VC to the 3 islands, is that you are really hurting Japan, as they have to stretch their resources even further to defend these islands. Also, these islands are worth much less than the Asian mainland, but in order to not lose, Japan must defend these islands. This means less attention to the mainland, which can hurt them economically.

If I was to use minor VCs, I'd probably leave Shanghai alone and just expand out the Hawaiian and Phillipines VCs as such:

Phillipines/E.Indies/Okinawa cluster
Hawaii/Midway/Alaska cluster

Whoever holds 2 out of 3 holds the VC. These clusters would be much harder for the opposing side to take than their single island counterparts, and would definitely increase action and island hopping to these areas. Historically they all make sense as well. I'd have no problem incorporating this as a veteran's rule, or "island-hopping" add-on, but as far as standard, I'm a bit hesitant re: complexity, and is it really necessary?

[DocD]

Excellent :)
If I was to use minor VCs, I'd probably leave Shanghai alone and just expand out the Hawaiian and Phillipines VCs as such:

Phillipines/E.Indies/Okinawa cluster
Hawaii/Midway/Alaska cluster

Whoever holds 2 out of 3 holds the VC. These clusters would be much harder for the opposing side to take than their single island counterparts, and would definitely increase action and island hopping to these areas. Historically they all make sense as well. I'd have no problem incorporating this as a veteran's rule, or "island-hopping" add-on, but as far as standard, I'm a bit hesitant re: complexity, and is it really necessary?
Actually cj, shanghai doesn't need a VC incentive. You said so yourself that Japan needs to pay attention to the mainland for the economic value.

Same thing with the phillipines and E. indies, they have a pretty good economic value so they don't need an incentive either.

As far as spreading out the US Vcs....come on.... Japan doesn't need incentives to attack those areas (except maybe hawaii). Jeez....you're hurting me.

My suggestion would be to try the Vollick variant as written (let's keep things simple) and go from there.

[TrimChris]

I've seen the Axis win both of my playtest games so far. In both games though, the J transport sunk the UK destroyer UK1 and survived!

[Kaufschtick]

I've seen the Axis win both of my playtest games so far. In both games though, the J transport sunk the UK destroyer UK1 and survived!

That would be enough to make me cry in my beer !:eek:

[cousin_joe]

Here's my primary issue with minor VC's... Are they really necessary??? From what I understand, you are arguing that creating these VCs would:

A. Give Japan incentive to stay in the Pacific (to defend the VC)
B. Give the US incentive to go into the Pacific (to get the VC)
C. Create an incentive for fighting over these islands (Wak,Oki,Car)

So let's just ignore for a second all the additional burden this change would put on Japan (which I think should be reason enough, but for the sake of argument, let's ignore it), and instead, focus on the need for minor VCs to accomplish the objectives mentioned above.

A. Japanese Incentives to stay in the Pacific under Enhanced Rules
2VCs - Ignoring the Pacific means going after all of Ind,Cau,Kar and Rus which will likely be much more difficult. Haw and Aus are potentially much easier. This should be incentive enough.
Protecting
To protect ***,Phi - too many ICs and Tanks on the mainland put these two territories at serious risk if the Allies get agressive.
To protect income - Borneo + E.Indy + Phi are worth a whopping 10IPC. If I'm Japan, I'm definitely not going to want to just hand that over to the Allies.
To keep the US busy - a Pacific campaign prevents the US from clearing the Atlantic and focusing on an all-out D-Day

B. US Incentives to go into the Pacific under Enhanced Rules
To protect Haw and Aus - If Japan gets both of these, and Germany gets Kar, then 1 more VC (Cau/Ind) and it's game over. It's in the Allies best interest to make sure at least one of these doesn't fall to Japan.
Japanese VCs - Phi, Kwa, *** are all accessible through a Pacific campaign. Getting even just 1VC here means 1 less VC needed on the Eastern Front.
Island Income - potentially 10IPC from Borneo, EIndy, Phi
To keep Japan busy - a Pacific Campaign prevents Japan from an all-out attack on Ind/Sink (and subsequently Russia)

As you can see, both sides have very good incentives to participate in a Pacific Campaign. Converting Shanghai into a 3-part island VC is unnecessary from a Pacific incentive point of view. Conducting a Pacific Campaign, at least in part, is in both Japan's and the US' best interest.

C. Creating Incentives to fight over Wake, Okinawa, Caroline Islands

Why do we need to create incentives to fight over these islands in the first place? I realize it happened historically, but we don't need to go about adding tons of rules just to include everything that happened historically (again if someone is interested in such a project, they can create A&A:Historic, and include things like no Western Allies on Russian soil, and Russia taking former Allied territories for themselves :) - A&A:Enhanced is just not designed to be that detailed historically, at the expense of strategy, simplicity, balance, and variety of playout). With that said though , there are some incentives for taking these islands.

Island Bases - these are especially critical if Japan has Kamikazes or Kaitens and has a predilection to go after your ACs. They also serve as landing points for aircraft coming in from WUS.

Bomber Bases - Wake and Okinawa are needed to launch SBRs on Japan.

Limiting Japanese Air Movement - One less spot for Japan to land

These are historic reasons for capturing these areas as well, and I feel, enough incentive to take them.

So again, bottom line, there is enough incentive for both Japan and US to go into the Pacific in Enhanced as is, and furthermore to even fight over these islands. Minor VCs is an unnecessary change from an incentive point of view.

[axis_roll]

Cousin Joe,

In any reported outcomes of play testing of any variant of the enhanced rules, it sounds like the axis are having an easier time of it, perhaps winning more than 50% of the time, more like 75%.. am I correct?

Do you have any stats on games played/tested?

[Kaufschtick]

Excellent :) Thanks for the feedback Kaufschtick. By the way, did you use NAs in your games? If so, which ones?

Sounds like a very devious Japanese player :) Were their ICs in India and Sink? These can be very effective in tying up Japanese INF on the mainland, esp. with NA's like Pacific Divisions and Commonwealth. Japan will have difficulty buying more Navy and eventually, the US will just outproduce them.

Well, I like Shanghai as it gives further incentive for Allied asian ICs in Sink and Ind. Personally, I like to keep changes to what's necessary, and I think there's enough action in the Pacific with just the 15VCs as is.

The other problem with changing the Shanghai VC to the 3 islands, is that you are really hurting Japan, as they have to stretch their resources even further to defend these islands. Also, these islands are worth much less than the Asian mainland, but in order to not lose, Japan must defend these islands. This means less attention to the mainland, which can hurt them economically.

If I was to use minor VCs, I'd probably leave Shanghai alone and just expand out the Hawaiian and Phillipines VCs as such:

Phillipines/E.Indies/Okinawa cluster
Hawaii/Midway/Alaska cluster

Whoever holds 2 out of 3 holds the VC. These clusters would be much harder for the opposing side to take than their single island counterparts, and would definitely increase action and island hopping to these areas. Historically they all make sense as well. I'd have no problem incorporating this as a veteran's rule, or "island-hopping" add-on, but as far as standard, I'm a bit hesitant re: complexity, and is it really necessary?

I'm with you on the V.C.s (so far, but it does sound like a good idea to me, though...) :)

We didn't use N.A.'s, maybe next time, I'll let you know how it goes. We're kinda funny about checking out the basics first :)

I.C.'s in China & India, no we didn't go that route, sounds good though! You know, that's the coolest thing so far about Enhanced, it's like learning a whole new game. A definate change of pace, that's for certain. Sometimes force of habit is stronger than force of reason, and this version is definately a whole new beast! All of us who played will most certainly be looking at taking in this new A&A environment and making those changes to our game play for the next time around.

How's the v1.3 coming along?

[Kaufschtick]

Cousin Joe,

In any reported outcomes of play testing of any variant of the enhanced rules, it sounds like the axis are having an easier time of it, perhaps winning more than 50% of the time, more like 75%.. am I correct?

Do you have any stats on games played/tested?

I would be very interested in this also...

[Vollick1979]

I like the minor VCs, but however, I think only giving them to Japan is a bit of a waste for a good concept. Perhaps, just perhaps, change the Western US VC to a minor change, Hawaii-Midway-Western USA (since Western USA is "uncapturable). Maybe for Russia there could be something as well. For Germany, I'm not sure. UK- maybe Anglo-Egypt, India, Austrailia?

Anyway, it's fine how it is with minor VCs, but however, i would like to see it used more... oh, and vollick, don't tell Joe to use your ideas *even if he would listen*, because you could make your own variant and get the spotlight!

:D

are you kidding me series? You were steadfastly against the idea of minor VC's! You post so much that you forget what you said earlier and take the exact opposite side.

I originally proposed the same sort of thing for the US, in including Hawaii, Midway and Alaska as the third minor VC. But Hawaii alone seems to be the better choice. The other obvious choice for Russia is what everyone else seems to agree on in Stalingrad in the Caucasus. I don't see multiple VC's working for the UK or Germany.

[Kaufschtick]

I originally proposed the same sort of thing for the US, in including Hawaii, Midway and Alaska as the third minor VC. But Hawaii alone seems to be the better choice. The other obvious choice for Russia is what everyone else seems to agree on in Stalingrad in the Caucasus. I don't see multiple VC's working for the UK or Germany.

I guess we'll all have to just try things out and take it from there. I'm still relatively new to these type of "forums", but what a great way to communicate, share and exchange ideas...I really get a kick out of some of the bantering between series and...well, everyone else on here, I guess :)

[Vollick1979]

cousin joe you have made so many good points that i'm finding it hard to disagree with you but the Phillipines is fairly unaccessable to a Pacific campaign unless you're going in with 2 BB and 3 Carrier groups. Japan can have all those nasty NA's in Kamikazi's and Kaiten's and will just rip that fleet up. Even if Japan doesn't spend any future money on it's navy (other than transports) it has a very powerful one. Hawaii and Australia simply aren't enough incentive for Japan to go to sea. Australia is a dead end and Hawaii is always in risk of being recaptured by the US. Unless Japan's strategy involves trying for Western US those 2 VC simply aren't enough!

There are many more IPC's and VC's on the way to Moscow. Fighting over those measly islands for the sake of VC early in the game don't make sense (at least to me). The way i look at it is I would rather be losing the VC game and winning the IPC game than the other way around. It's a race to 10 or 11 VC's not to 9.

Those islands are valuable for SBR's and preventing Japanese fighters bases to land on. Everything you say is true, but as Japan i'm going straight for the mainland. I know it will be hard (maybe too hard but we hopefully shall see) for Japan to exert pressure on the mainland while holding those islands for the VC. But as it stands now with those 3 Japanese VC so close and so well protected I don't really want to venture out to Hawaii for more than a turn or two.

DocD was right there is no need to assign East Indies a VC and DocD's been saying the same thing long enough that most people should understand that if Japan loses the mainland (ie. Shanghai) it don't matter if they got Hawaii and Australia (unless it gives them 10 VC) because they are going down fast the next few turns.

But mostly joe i agree with everything you say. ;)

[Doctor Strategy]

Yeah, and the Axis won our first game of A&A Europe too, but we decided that since this wasn't the "historical" outcome, we'd refrain from throwing it into the garbage. You miss the point, WE'VE ONLY PLAYED TWO GAMES. Two games doesn't make it, or BREAK it, IMHO. Now I don't know what everyone elses experiences have been with this...As far as were the Allies weak players? As I stated previously, we're not "professional game testers". I know we've been playing the original and subsequent versions since, like 84', so I don't know, are you a weak player? :) I know EVERYONE had a good time...or is that not the point anymore? Weak players? I don't know, but I would venture a guess to say that I don't think we stink...who's to say though? I would also say this, that we've been playing with an awful lot of Allied wins all these years and I don't think a couple Axis wins will have us running home to mama...

I only meant weak relative to the ability of the Axis players. I did not even remotely imply that you or your friends stink at A&A. I should have worded it better. Sorry. So, are you saying that in general in the past you and the Allies have won a lot more than lost?

[Kaufschtick]

I only meant weak relative to the ability of the Axis players. I did not even remotely imply that you or your friends stink at A&A. I should have worded it better. Sorry. So, are you saying that in general in the past you and the Allies have won a lot more than lost?

My fault Doc, no apologies necessary : :o . The group I game with has seen quite a few more Allied wins, and we all take turns to see if it's our game play. Maybe it's just me ; I do tend to get a little over zealous at times :o

[cousin_joe]

Cousin Joe,

In any reported outcomes of play testing of any variant of the enhanced rules, it sounds like the axis are having an easier time of it, perhaps winning more than 50% of the time, more like 75%.. am I correct?

Do you have any stats on games played/tested?While I think part of this is due to the Allies having to make a much bigger adjustment in Enhanced (no more safe KGF, actually having to fight in 2 theaters, true Battle of the Atlantic) there are some changes in 1.3 that will help the Allies a bit more. Here's a complete list of changes scheduled so far:

4NAs per side (1 each 1st round, 1G,1J,and 1Allied 2nd round)
Afrika Corps now includes 2INF,1ARM in Libya
Luftwaffe DiveBombers now can be used in Naval Combat
Battle of the Bulge replaces Atlantic Wall as standard
Atlantic Wall replaces Battle of The Bulge as a German NA
Shared Tech - Tech 1IPC/roll less, if an ally has acquired the same Tech
Tech now uses a 4:2 rule

The 4th Allied NA should come in real handy, no matter who it's given to. I think the Allies benefit more from this change. Afrika Corps and LDB obviously strengthen Germany, but really only bring these to the strength of their other NAs.

BOTB as standard instead of Atlantic Wall is HUGE for the Allies. Makes it a bit easier to carry out D-Day.

Tech changes also benefit the Allies although the 20IPC minimum lost can potentially really hurt them in maintaining their fronts early.

I am still looking to play another PBEM v1.3 beta game as Allies in particular and am willing to give anyone a 7IPC bid to play Axis. I really think there's a lot more upside on the Allied game that people are overlooking. If you're new to PBEM, I can help you out with that. Any takers? :)

[cousin_joe]

I'm with you on the V.C.s (so far, but it does sound like a good idea to me, though...) :)

We didn't use N.A.'s, maybe next time, I'll let you know how it goes. We're kinda funny about checking out the basics first :)

I.C.'s in China & India, no we didn't go that route, sounds good though! You know, that's the coolest thing so far about Enhanced, it's like learning a whole new game. A definate change of pace, that's for certain. Sometimes force of habit is stronger than force of reason, and this version is definately a whole new beast! All of us who played will most certainly be looking at taking in this new A&A environment and making those changes to our game play for the next time around.

How's the v1.3 coming along?
NA's make a big difference for the Allies. Being able to hold the Economic Edge via ICs in the outliers (like Ind,Aus,Sink) is what gives Allies a chance, otherwise, these territories fall very quickly and Axis wins. I should note that in many games on the boards here, the complete A&A:Enhanced rules were not used (DocD, Kaufschtick). Check out AllWeNeedIsLove's report on the A&A:Enhanced thread as he uses the complete rules, as do the games I generally mention as well. These actually seem fairly balanced when you throw the NAs into the picture.

[Kaufschtick]

NA's make a big difference for the Allies. Being able to hold the Economic Edge via ICs in the outliers (like Ind,Aus,Sink) is what gives Allies a chance, otherwise, these territories fall very quickly and Axis wins. I should note that in many games on the boards here, the complete A&A:Enhanced rules were not used (DocD, Kaufschtick). Check out AllWeNeedIsLove's report on the A&A:Enhanced thread as he uses the complete rules, as do the games I generally mention as well. These actually seem fairly balanced when you throw the NAs into the picture.

Like I said Joe, "You Da' Man..." Thanks again for all the footwork, tips and just everything!

[cousin_joe]

cousin joe you have made so many good points that i'm finding it hard to disagree with you but the Phillipines is fairly unaccessable to a Pacific campaign unless you're going in with 2 BB and 3 Carrier groups. Japan can have all those nasty NA's in Kamikazi's and Kaiten's and will just rip that fleet up. Even if Japan doesn't spend any future money on it's navy (other than transports) it has a very powerful one. Hawaii and Australia simply aren't enough incentive for Japan to go to sea. Australia is a dead end and Hawaii is always in risk of being recaptured by the US. Unless Japan's strategy involves trying for Western US those 2 VC simply aren't enough!
Kamikazes and Kaitens are at the bottom of my list for Japan. I'd certainly pick them if US was showing Heavy AC build. Solution as US: Atlantic Navy round 1, Pacific Navy Round 2. Alternatively, if Japan picks Kam or Kait J1, go Heavy BB build as US, get Combined Arms, and conduct an Island hopping campaign using the islands as bases for your FTRs. With Ind Tech, and it's surviving Navy, the US can quickly match Japan's Navy. Get a strong US Navy in deep, possibly with some UK support, and you can threaten multiple targets - there is no way Japan can defend all of them. You really got to play out a game Vollick and see. If you're up for a PBEM game I'd be a happy to show you :) , and it would only take 15min of your time a day, just a fraction of the time you would spend on the boards anyway.

Japan can never get Western US against any decent player. There's no point trying. BUT... if Japan does NOTHING in the Pacific, and allows the US to focus 100% on Normandy... well, goodbye Germany!!! That's a FACT! Japan MUST distract the US in the Pacific.

There are many more IPC's and VC's on the way to Moscow. Fighting over those measly islands for the sake of VC early in the game don't make sense (at least to me). The way i look at it is I would rather be losing the VC game and winning the IPC game than the other way around. It's a race to 10 or 11 VC's not to 9.
1. Russia's Far East is only worth a measly 4IPC now, plus you got to deal with the Nonagression Pact plus whatever Russia leaves behind (usually not doable until turn 3 or 4)

2. ICs in Sink and Ind are much more viable for the Allies now, and with NAs, make it a lot more difficult to get those IPCs you seek (pretty much resorting to trading China until they can muster up the ground forces to overcome Ind or Sink). Is there really a lot more to be gained by totally ignoring Aus/Haw?

3. Although US can take Haw back fairly easily (unless Japan uses the Big Bully strategy - figure that one out :) ), taking Aus early and considering an IC there to hold it for all time might be an idea worth considering. Besides the game is won on VCs, not IPCs - Axis need to be agressive and go for an early win. Look at the NAs, the Allies' stress logistics and economics, they will win in the long run. The Axis cannot equalize income as easily as before, but to compensate, the Axis NAs stress military might. More than ever, the Axis need to try and win early, and taking VCs is the way to do that.

Those islands are valuable for SBR's and preventing Japanese fighters bases to land on. Everything you say is true, but as Japan i'm going straight for the mainland. I know it will be hard (maybe too hard but we hopefully shall see) for Japan to exert pressure on the mainland while holding those islands for the VC. But as it stands now with those 3 Japanese VC so close and so well protected I don't really want to venture out to Hawaii for more than a turn or two.
If the US fleet does nothing, and Japan can focus 100% of it's effort on the mainland, well say goodbye to the Ind and Sink factories. Although, they're more viable in Enhanced, they still will fall if the US fleet doesn't keep Japan's Navy and Air Force occupied.


DocD was right there is no need to assign East Indies a VC and DocD's been saying the same thing long enough that most people should understand that if Japan loses the mainland (ie. Shanghai) it don't matter if they got Hawaii and Australia (unless it gives them 10 VC) because they are going down fast the next few turns.

But mostly joe i agree with everything you say.
Not to have a single Japanese VC on the mainland would be blasphemy :eek: How many million Japanese were tied up on the mainland. Controlling it has to be worth something. And to replace it with the relatively inconsequential islands of Wake, Okinawa, and Carolines is putting salt in the eyes! VCs are meant to represent areas of political importance, which have value in controlling. They are certainly not meant to encourage island hopping!

[DocD]

Kamikazes and Kaitens are at the bottom of my list for Japan. I'd certainly pick them if US was showing Heavy AC build.
The problem with your logic here is that the Japanese have no idea the US is going heavy AC until their second round...hell maybe later. By then you have already chosen one NA.

Not to have a single Japanese VC on the mainland would be blasphemy :eek: How many million Japanese were tied up on the mainland. Controlling it has to be worth something. And to replace it with the relatively inconsequential islands of Wake, Okinawa, and Carolines is putting salt in the eyes! VCs are meant to represent areas of political importance, which have value in controlling. They are certainly not meant to encourage island hopping!
You want to know what blasphemy is!!!??!! Having these islands, which the US and Japan sacrificed thousands of troops for, mean nothing in the game!

As far as the meaning of VCs, you are right on one thing, but we both know they are also used to stir the game down a familiar historical path. Otherwise, why not put one in Brazil or Canada or Kenya?

Let me point out how important the mainland of Asia is. Let's move the LA VC to China?
Doesn't China deserve a VC....why not??? Oh, people are going to fight over it anyway??? That's the same idea for Shanghai!!! What Allied player is going to pass it up!! The only thing Vollick and I are stating is give the islands, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost over, some attention. Having a VC on those islands is more historical than having a VC in Hawaii or Australia! And as far as 'island-hopping', Hell that is what the Pacific theater was all about!!

OK Cousin, what you have done for the game is great, but now I'm seeing just plain SERIES-CRAZINESS and CLAUSEWITZ-INSANITY!
None of your arguements make sense and you only continue to justify the very facts you are sooo against! That's crazy!

Look cousin, I'm going to try and just let this go. (My face is blue enough). ;)
I just wish people would give VOLLICK'S VARIANT a try before they push it off the cliff....what's the harm in that.
Isn't that how you want people to treat your ENHANCED RULES??

[Vollick1979]

Joe what i was saying about VC is that being in the lead in VC's is a lot like leading the marathon at the halfway point. I would rather be back in the pack but feeling good then burning myself out to keep the lead. The game might use VC's to determine a winner but I'm surprised you don't think that IPC's win the game.

Has anyone actually bothered to capture Okinawa, Wake or the Carolines in A&A:Enhanced? Those little islands and only Okinawa is worth anything. If i was the US i would skip over those to bigger and better fish... Phillipines, Borneo, East Indies. If anyone has captured any of those islands could you please post and tell us which one and why you captured them! If people are fighting over them than you're absolutely right Joe they don't need VC status but as far as i see it there are only 3 reasons to want a territory and thus fight over it.

1)VC status
2)High IPC value
3)an area of high strategic importance

So which of these 3 do Caroline, Okinawa and Wake fall into if they don't have VC status? They have 1 IPC between the 3 of them so that's not it and if you think airbases for Japanese fighters to land on and bases for bombers is that important then i think you're just forgetting about the Phillipines which has a VC, it has 3 very delisious IPC's and it can act as a better bomber base than any of Carolina, Okinawa and Wake can!

And plz DocD don't let them push me off a cliff! ;)

[cousin_joe]

The problem with your logic here is that the Japanese have no idea the US is going heavy AC until their second round...hell maybe later. By then you have already chosen one NA.
Yeah but Japan is guaranteed 2NAs now, one in 2nd round.

You want to know what blasphemy is!!!??!! Having these islands, which the US and Japan sacrificed thousands of troops for, mean nothing in the game!
As I've described before, there are already several incentives for the US to take these islands (land US FTRs, launch US BMBRs, deny landing for J FTRs). Air bases were the historic reason for taking these islands. Taking these islands would not have made the same degree of contribution to a political/moral victory as other VCs in the game.

As far as the meaning of VCs, you are right on one thing, but we both know they are also used to stir the game down a familiar historical path. Otherwise, why not put one in Brazil or Canada or Kenya?
They can be used to steer the game down a particular path, but they still have to have a strong meaning to them. Okinawa, you might be able to make a point for, but Carolines and Wake, there is no way the ownership of these islands would significantly influence a political/morale victory:

Japanese Advisor: Sir, the US has taken the Caroline Islands
Japanese Emperor: Oh, no! :eek: We are doomed! How can we ever go on fighting without the Caroline Islands?!? :eek:

Let me point out how important the mainland of Asia is. Let's move the LA VC to China?
Doesn't China deserve a VC....why not??? Oh, people are going to fight over it anyway??? That's the same idea for Shanghai!!! What Allied player is going to pass it up!! The only thing Vollick and I are stating is give the islands, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost over, some attention. Having a VC on those islands is more historical than having a VC in Hawaii or Australia! And as far as 'island-hopping', Hell that is what the Pacific theater was all about!!
Air bases. That's the reason they were fought over, and that's the reason one should take them in Enhanced! Also quite useful as a staging area for troops coming over from the US (instead of leaving them on the transports). There is already plenty of reason to take them, further incentive is not necessary, and only further stretches an already stretched Japan.

OK Cousin, what you have done for the game is great, but now I'm seeing just plain SERIES-CRAZINESS and CLAUSEWITZ-INSANITY!
None of your arguements make sense and you only continue to justify the very facts you are sooo against! That's crazy!

Look cousin, I'm going to try and just let this go. (My face is blue enough). ;)
I just wish people would give VOLLICK'S VARIANT a try before they push it off the cliff....what's the harm in that.
Isn't that how you want people to treat your ENHANCED RULES??
If I truly ever get to levels of series craziness, or Clausewitz insanity, I would hope you guys push ME off a cliff! :) Seriously though, my point of view is, if it happens, it happens. There's incentives there, and it certainly is possible.. but I don't think we need to force the game to play out in a certain way. We would be doing just what AH does, but instead of forcing Japan to go to Moscow, we are forcing them to defend their Pacific Islands.

For me, the #1 priority of Enhanced is Strategic Options! Stress that word, OPTIONS! With multiple viable strategies, more strategic NAs, and more strategic Techs, players have much more CHOICE than ever before, in how they want this game to play out. Historical Accuracy is important, but plays 2nd fiddle to strategy, if Japan wants to go after Moscow (even though it's much harder now), let them have that option. And like I've said before, if you're wanting a game that stresses Historical Accuracy over Strategic Options (ie. makes Island-Hopping mandatory), then maybe someone needs to create an Enhanced add-on called A&A:Historic.

[cousin_joe]

Joe what i was saying about VC is that being in the lead in VC's is a lot like leading the marathon at the halfway point. I would rather be back in the pack but feeling good then burning myself out to keep the lead. The game might use VC's to determine a winner but I'm surprised you don't think that IPC's win the game.
IPCs are nice, but VCs win games! You even said it yourself. For the Axis, particularly in Enhanced, you gotta use your Military Might to get those 4VCs quick. You take what territories you can get, but you got to go for the jugular quick, because there is no way you're ever going to compete with the Allied Economic Edge over the long haul. For the Allies, hold on to what territories you can, but don't be just giving away VCs, as that means Axis can shift their full attention to the VCs that remain.

Bottom line: Winning requires capturing VCs, not IPCs. To argue this, is to dig yourself deeper and deeper into the ground. ;)


Has anyone actually bothered to capture Okinawa, Wake or the Carolines in A&A:Enhanced? Those little islands and only Okinawa is worth anything. If i was the US i would skip over those to bigger and better fish... Phillipines, Borneo, East Indies. If anyone has captured any of those islands could you please post and tell us which one and why you captured them! If people are fighting over them than you're absolutely right Joe they don't need VC status but as far as i see it there are only 3 reasons to want a territory and thus fight over it.

1)VC status
2)High IPC value
3)an area of high strategic importance

So which of these 3 do Caroline, Okinawa and Wake fall into if they don't have VC status? They have 1 IPC between the 3 of them so that's not it and if you think airbases for Japanese fighters to land on and bases for bombers is that important then i think you're just forgetting about the Phillipines which has a VC, it has 3 very delisious IPC's and it can act as a better bomber base than any of Carolina, Okinawa and Wake can!

And plz DocD don't let them push me off a cliff! ;)
Reason 3, area of high strategic importance. I personally have captured Caroline Isalnds in a game to have a place to land my troops (instead of leaving them on the transports), and to deny a landing spot for Japanese aircraft (so fewer of them could attack my boats in the SZ).

Phillipines is a poor choice as A. It's much harder to take (as you have said previously) B. It's much harder to defend if you take it C. It's too far from WUS. Wake is the better choice.

Bottom line: Strategically, this rule is not necessary (and in my opinion, actually detrimental, by forcing Japan to defend these islands). Historically though, you can make an argument for it. Why not create an Enhanced add-on called Historic (and it can also include the Russia-Western Allies interaction rules you like so much as well)

[pagan]

I'm with CJ on this, but i have not played his enhanced version.

BTW i want to get a game of this on. I need to get my feet wet and give it a try.

[series]

are you kidding me series? You were steadfastly against the idea of minor VC's! You post so much that you forget what you said earlier and take the exact opposite side.

I originally proposed the same sort of thing for the US, in including Hawaii, Midway and Alaska as the third minor VC. But Hawaii alone seems to be the better choice. The other obvious choice for Russia is what everyone else seems to agree on in Stalingrad in the Caucasus. I don't see multiple VC's working for the UK or Germany.
No, I remember exactly what I said before. I just said that to "bust your chops", so to speak. :) All in fun. I actually do think the idea would work- but I did mean that I think that people may not care too much about them... For Germany, maybe Warsaw (Eastern Europe), Norslow (sp) (Norway), and *Ukraine capital* (Ukraine SSR)?

[cousin_joe]

I'm with CJ on this, but i have not played his enhanced version.

BTW i want to get a game of this on. I need to get my feet wet and give it a try.
pagan,

If you're up for a PBEM game, send me a PM or e-mail. We can use v1.3 beta rules as described in the "UPDATE - A&A:Enhanced" thread. I can guarantee you that a rematch with Enhanced rules would be much more exciting than our previous KGF stackfest with AH rules.

[DocD]

As I've described before, there are already several incentives for the US to take these islands (land US FTRs, launch US BMBRs, deny landing for J FTRs). Air bases were the historic reason for taking these islands. Taking these islands would not have made the same degree of contribution to a political/moral victory as other VCs in the game.

How many players have taken those islands for SBRs or anything else?? Very few if any.

Japanese Advisor: Sir, the US has taken the Caroline Islands
Japanese Emperor: Oh, no! :eek: We are doomed! How can we ever go on fighting without the Caroline Islands?!? :eek:
that's funny...now substitute VC-LESS Manchuria in the above sentence. Seems like alot of VC-Less places could be substituted in that sentence and they were fought over like crazy.

Air bases. That's the reason they were fought over, and that's the reason one should take them in Enhanced! That's the problem, Nobody is fighting over these islands for anything.

Seriously though, my point of view is, if it happens, it happens. There's incentives there, and it certainly is possible.. not enough incentives

For me, the #1 priority of Enhanced is Strategic Options! Stress that word, OPTIONS! With multiple viable strategies, more strategic NAs, and more strategic Techs, players have much more CHOICE than ever before, in how they want this game to play out. Historical Accuracy is important, but plays 2nd fiddle to strategy, If you're wanting a game that stresses Historical Accuracy over Strategic Options (ie. makes Island-Hopping mandatory), then maybe someone needs to create an Enhanced add-on called A&A:Historic.
Ok cj...I come to you as a friend and ask...
How about this... why not include Vollick's variant in v1.3 as a add-on for veteran players?

[cousin_joe]

When it comes to taking the fight to Japan (either late game, or as part of a Japan-centered strategy), the incentive to take these islands is definitely there. The reason you're not seeing these islands fought over, is that most games are Germany-centered, or generally settled by the time the US shifts focus to Japan.

Vollick does have some really good ideas, but I think they are better suited to a Historical Accuracy-focused variant, rather than a Strategic Options/Variation of Playout-focused variant such as Enhanced. Here's a quick summary of some of Vollick's ideas (from the Enhanced thread):

1. Make Russian lend-lease standard
2. Allied units landing in Russia are mandatorily converted to Russian on Russia's turn and cannot be moved that round
3. Russia keeps Allied territories it conquers for itself (what I'd suggest in place is actually no Russian movement into Allied territories at all, but China and India would get 1 additional free INF/TURN for every territory they own in SE Asia - ie. Sink,Chi,Kwa for US and Ind for UK)
4. Minor VCs in the Pacific which Japan must defend

I'd probably look at not allowing Russia or Japan to attack each other at all, and eliminate transporting other countries INF or carrying their FTRs.

Sounds like an A&A:Historic add-on to me. Much,much more Historically Accurate, but at the expense of Strategic Options and Variation in Playout. Again, a lot of these are Vollick's ideas, and as I'm very busy with Enhanced, I would leave further development up to him, but I would certainly be happy to help. :)

[Vollick1979]

Joe posting in one place all my ideas over the past few months might lead some people to believe i'm in favour of all of those being implemented. My ideas were simply what i thought you wanted... feedback on ways your game could be improved. Now i'm not bitter... not in the least ;) that you didn't see them fitting in your game and i remember way back you said that I should try for A&A Historic. The fact is that you have already built an amazing framework on the existing ruleset and pieces provided. Any attempts at A&A Historic would simply be minor changes to your rules that are already in place in Enhanced. Without substancial and i mean substancial changes to the rules the game will never be as historic as some would like.

BTW Joe even tho i hate about half your rules the other half are just so good that it makes up for it a million times.

[DocD]

Joe posting in one place all my ideas over the past few months might lead some people to believe i'm in favour of all of those being implemented. My ideas were simply what i thought you wanted... feedback on ways your game could be improved. Now i'm not bitter... not in the least ;) that you didn't see them fitting in your game and i remember way back you said that I should try for A&A Historic. The fact is that you have already built an amazing framework on the existing ruleset and pieces provided. Any attempts at A&A Historic would simply be minor changes to your rules that are already in place in Enhanced. Without substancial and i mean substancial changes to the rules the game will never be as historic as some would like.

BTW Joe even tho i hate about half your rules the other half are just so good that it makes up for it a million times.
Yes, Vollick!! I have to say you are reading my mind!!! (and that's alot to read baby!)
Cousin, Vollick and I don't want (or even think we need) to see a new game.
I would use all of Enhanced v1.2 rules with Vollick's minor VC idea for the three islands only.
I would not take away Japan's option to invade russia or anything like that.

The great thing about the variant is that it goes hand in hand with a Japanese invasion of Hawaii or Australia.
Only if Japan totally cuts loose the Pacific and goes after Russia/Asian mainland, could things get hairy for them.

[Stephen]

I'm playing a game right now borrowing some ideas from Joe's variant, (15 VCs, some changed tech) but we've implemented a non-aggression treaty of our own:

Russia can't attack Japan, except:
a) can walk into empty territories
b) can attack Japanese in US or UK territories

So Japan can attack Russia, but loses the protection they once had against attack. This allows Japan some leverage early on; as long as Manchuria is defended, you can go wild everywhere else. Of course, UK or US can still attack Japan. We've found it pits Japan against the US and UK more, which is what we want.

Russia has choices, too. If she wants to pull everyone out, she risks looking to vulnerable. She can leave a large force there, or at least nearby, to discourage attacks.

And if Japan should choose to attack, we've made reinforcing the region even easy by having standard Trans-siberian Railway. Added with our standard rule that Japanese tanks only move 1, this gives the upperhand in East Russia to Russia: all russian land units between Moscow and the border move 2, while all Japanese land units there move 1. And it completely kills the JTDTM.

So far, we like what we see and we're continuing playtesting.

The other change we made is to reduce all tanks to 1 mvmt in the following areas:

all Russian territories worth 1; (exception: russians on the trans-siberian railway)
all Japanese territories in Asia;
all Chinese terrories in Asia;
India.

This helps make the map seem a little bigger, by preventing blitzkriegs and too rapid expansions by tanks.

I don't know what our rules are called, we don't have a fancy name or fancy sig :) But it's made for interesting battles so far, and the Russo-Japanese treaty has yet to be broken!

[DocD]

Well Stephen sounds nice.
If you are using joe's enhanced rules, Japan has to decide on going after Australia/hawaii or Russia. If they go after the Pacific VCs, a fight with Russia would not be wise. I've had a couple of games and the Russo-Japanese treaty has been left intact in both.

[Stephen]

Well Stephen sounds nice.
If you are using joe's enhanced rules, Japan has to decide on going after Australia/hawaii or Russia. If they go after the Pacific VCs, a fight with Russia would not be wise. I've had a couple of games and the Russo-Japanese treaty has been left intact in both.

Eliminating (or almost eliminating) Russian-Japanese fighting is great for game balance. Japan can now concentrate on UK and US, Russia can now concentrate on Germany, US has to deal with Japan, easing Germany's pain, UK sees their income in the Pacific threatened, changing their focus...

Basically we toyed with an unbreakable pact, but it seemed problematic, since the border could just be left wide open which didn't make sense. Under the pretense that Russia is busy dealing with Germany, they likely would not have attacked Japan. Japan, the aggressor, can attack, but more often than not it just makes more sense not to. And if they do attack, Russia has the upper hand at defending their territories with the Trans-siberian railway.

I know the changes made to Japanese tanks and tank movement in Asia must seem like heresy to people, but hey, it sounded good and so far we're enjoying it!

[DocD]

Well stephen, I was kind of pointing out earlier (not very well though) that, extra rules to keep Russia and Japan from fighting are really not needed if you are using joes v1.2 rules.
The India/ Australia VC's are great catches for Japan, and are more likely the ones a Japanese player will go for. With that, you are absolutely right in saying that Japan and Russia will not bother each other and will take the fight to UK/US and Germany respectively.

Also, they both should/will place troops along the border eyeing each other but not attacking.
And of course if Japan feels things are going good for them they are free to invade Russia at anytime (and vice versa).
That is what I like about joe's version...the historical accuracy is very close with few rule changes and no hindrance of choices.

[Stephen]

Are the 4 free inf still available to the first attacked area? I didn't find myself to be much in favour of that rule UNLESS Russia is forbidden from attacking Japan... otherwise it puts the ball too much in Russia's court.

[DocD]

Are the 4 free inf still available to the first attacked area? I didn't find myself to be much in favour of that rule UNLESS Russia is forbidden from attacking Japan... otherwise it puts the ball too much in Russia's court.
Yes, the 4 inf are still available. But Russia forfeits that if it attacks a japanese territory.
This does give Russia a chance to attack Japan at any time, but I personally think that is a crazy thing for Russia to do. Those 4 inf can turn the tide in battle and should not be hastely tossed away for temporary gain. (They represent 12 IPCs that Russia is going to find hard in making up in a Manchurian campaign).

But, I would not like to take away Russia's option in attacking Japan first.
If Russia feels things are going great on the german front by their second turn, then hey let them mix up with Japan!

[Desert Rat]

I'm playing a game right now borrowing some ideas from Joe's variant, (15 VCs, some changed tech) but we've implemented a non-aggression treaty of our own:

Russia can't attack Japan, except:
a) can walk into empty territories
b) can attack Japanese in US or UK territories

So Japan can attack Russia, but loses the protection they once had against attack. This allows Japan some leverage early on; as long as Manchuria is defended, you can go wild everywhere else. Of course, UK or US can still attack Japan. We've found it pits Japan against the US and UK more, which is what we want.

Russia has choices, too. If she wants to pull everyone out, she risks looking to vulnerable. She can leave a large force there, or at least nearby, to discourage attacks.

And if Japan should choose to attack, we've made reinforcing the region even easy by having standard Trans-siberian Railway. Added with our standard rule that Japanese tanks only move 1, this gives the upperhand in East Russia to Russia: all russian land units between Moscow and the border move 2, while all Japanese land units there move 1. And it completely kills the JTDTM.

So far, we like what we see and we're continuing playtesting.

The other change we made is to reduce all tanks to 1 mvmt in the following areas:

all Russian territories worth 1; (exception: russians on the trans-siberian railway)
all Japanese territories in Asia;
all Chinese terrories in Asia;
India.

This helps make the map seem a little bigger, by preventing blitzkriegs and too rapid expansions by tanks.

I don't know what our rules are called, we don't have a fancy name or fancy sig :) But it's made for interesting battles so far, and the Russo-Japanese treaty has yet to be broken!

Everyone knows that I hate the JTDTM more than anything, because Ive played it over and over too many times, but I don't think Japan and Russia should be restricted from attacking each other. That option must exist because otherwise you are restricting playable strategic options. A player should start the game having no idea what his opponent may try.

Rather, Russia and Japan should just be given incentives to not fight each other. As you implied yourself, if either Japan or Russia leaves a border weakly defended it deserves to be attacked.

As the basic revised game is now, if Germany puts on the pressure on the Eastern Front, Russia is not going to want to mess with Japan.

As far as Japan, the current starting units with the revised territory lay out makes it harder for Japan to invade Russia than the original game. However, in a 3 or more victory condition game, Japan is still forced to go after Russia to help Moscow fall, especially if the Allies ignore Japan in the Pacific and go all out 100% on Germany.

That's why many of us A&A veterans are playing with 15 VCs which adds Hawaii and Australia, because this gives the Japs enough incentive to go for those places instead of helping Moscow fall. In my 15 VC games so far, the Japs and Russkies have barely even fought each other (if at all). Additional rules have not been needed. This may be just wishful thinking on my part to avoid the JTDTM but at least it is a playable option.

[DocD]

In my 15 VC games so far, the Japs and Russkies have barely even fought each other (if at all). Additional rules have not been needed. This may be just wishful thinking on my part to avoid the JTDTM but at least it is a playable option.
True dat Rat. The Japanese have a real incentive to go after Australia because it is the one VC they are more likely to capture and hold.
This forces them to think twice about invading russia, without taking that option away.

[cousin_joe]

True dat Rat. The Japanese have a real incentive to go after Australia because it is the one VC they are more likely to capture and hold.
This forces them to think twice about invading russia, without taking that option away.When comparing Axis' realistic options for which combination of VC's to go after in AH/LHTR vs. Enhanced, it's not even close (UK,WUS,EUS will not fall pending a competent Allied player)

AH/LHTR:

1. Germany - Kar + Rus
Japan - Ind + Rus

1 combination, Ind + Kar + Rus, that's it!! :eek:

Enhanced:

1-2. Germany - Kar or Cau
Japan - Ind and Aus and Haw

3-8. Germany - (Kar or Cau) and Rus
Japan - (Ind and Aus) or (Ind and Haw) or (Aus and Haw)

9-12. Germany - Kar and Cau and Rus
Japan - Ind or Aus or Haw

A whopping 12 realistic combinations of VC's to go after!!! Talk about choice!!! :D

[Vollick1979]

When comparing Axis' realistic options for which combination of VC's to go after in AH/LHTR vs. Enhanced, it's not even close (UK,WUS,EUS will not fall pending a competent Allied player)

AH/LHTR:

1. Germany - Kar + Rus
Japan - Ind + Rus

1 combination, Ind + Kar + Rus, that's it!! :eek:

Enhanced:

1-2. Germany - Kar or Cau
Japan - Ind and Aus and Haw

3-8. Germany - (Kar or Cau) and Rus
Japan - (Ind and Aus) or (Ind and Haw) or (Aus and Haw)

9-12. Germany - Kar and Cau and Rus
Japan - Ind or Aus or Haw

A whopping 12 realistic combinations of VC's to go after!!! Talk about choice!!! :D

To be accurate there are 2 options in Revised/LHTR:
1. Germany gets Karelia and Russia and Japan gets India
2. Germany gets Karelia and Japan gets Russia and India

And there are 15 options in Enhanced Joe:
You missed Germany capturing Karelia and Caucasus and having Japan capture 2 out of the 3 Pacific VC's.
I have a degree in Statistics so i just hate to see bad counting. ;) And since it was you Joe i had to jump all over it. :P

[cousin_joe]

To be accurate there are 2 options in Revised/LHTR:
1. Germany gets Karelia and Russia and Japan gets India
2. Germany gets Karelia and Japan gets Russia and India

And there are 15 options in Enhanced Joe:
You missed Germany capturing Karelia and Caucasus and having Japan capture 2 out of the 3 Pacific VC's.
I have a degree in Statistics so i just hate to see bad counting. And since it was you Joe i had to jump all over it. :PLOL! :D My bad re: the combinations in Enhanced :o
However, I am correct about AH/LHTR "Mr. Degree in Statistics" ;) There is only ONE combination and that is India + Karelia + Russia. Whether Germany gets Russia, or Japan gets Russia, it doesn't matter, as it is still the same combination of 3 VCs.

But yes, to fix my earlier oversight, I would add the following:

13-15. Germany - Kar and Cau
Japan - (Ind and Aus) or (Ind and Haw) or (Aus and Haw)

So now the ratio is 15:1 for realistic combinations of VCs for the Axis to go for in Enhanced vs AH/LHTR. :eek: That's a lot more strategic options if you ask me, and that's just considering the 3 added VCs alone!

[DocD]

Good one guys...and all true. That is what makes enhanced so much better. The options for the players go up ASTRONOMICAL!
This is one case where more is BETTER.

Actually, these options give the Axis a slight edge because Paris or Rome can now be cut loose and the Axis can still win if they destroy Russia.
I'm not against that because the Allies will always have an advantage if they can keep Russia afloat.

[Vollick1979]

LOL! :D My bad re: the combinations in Enhanced :o
However, I am correct about AH/LHTR "Mr. Degree in Statistics" ;) There is only ONE combination and that is India + Karelia + Russia. Whether Germany gets Russia, or Japan gets Russia, it doesn't matter, as it is still the same combination of 3 VCs.

But yes, to fix my earlier oversight, I would add the following:

13-15. Germany - Kar and Cau
Japan - (Ind and Aus) or (Ind and Haw) or (Aus and Haw)

So now the ratio is 15:1 for realistic combinations of VCs for the Axis to go for in Enhanced vs AH/LHTR. :eek: That's a lot more strategic options if you ask me, and that's just considering the 3 added VCs alone!

Yeah ok once combination and two permutations and it's those 2 permutations is what should be counted. In your game there are 15 realistic end scenarios for the Axis to win. In Revised there are 2 end scenarios one with German troops in Moscow and one with Japanese troops. Each is a different game (ok only slightly different but still different!)

[cousin_joe]

Yeah ok once combination and two permutations and it's those 2 permutations is what should be counted. In your game there are 15 realistic end scenarios for the Axis to win. In Revised there are 2 end scenarios one with German troops in Moscow and one with Japanese troops. Each is a different game (ok only slightly different but still different!)
Au contraire, mon frere! It's the combination that counts!!!

I am stressing that there is only a single combination of VC's to go for, ie. Karelia, India, and Russia. Germany can't just go for Karelia and stop there (leaving Japan to take India and Russia). Japan can't just go for India and stop there (leaving Germany to take Karelia and Russia). Germany and Japan must both continue on to Russia, as they don't just stop after conquering their first VC, and they have nowhere else to go (UK,WUS,EUS all inaccessable).

I don't care whether Germany takes Russia or Japan takes Russia. All I know is, is that Russia is the only realistically available VC left to take for Germany AND Japan, once Karelia and India fall. It's the combination that matters, not the permutations.

[Doctor Strategy]

Not to have a single Japanese VC on the mainland would be blasphemy :eek: How many million Japanese were tied up on the mainland. Controlling it has to be worth something. And to replace it with the relatively inconsequential islands of Wake, Okinawa, and Carolines is putting salt in the eyes! VCs are meant to represent areas of political importance, which have value in controlling. They are certainly not meant to encourage island hopping!

How's about this little blurb about the importance of Okinawa.

* Battle of Okinawa (April-June 1945) - Okinawa was close enough to Japan for U.S. B-29s to bomb Japan so it was strategically important

- Japanese began their kamikaze strategy at Okinawa- suicide missions and fight to the death(This was done on a wide scale vs. 1 or 2 at a time)

-U.S. lost 33 ships at Okinawa and 350 more were damaged

- From the 100,000 Japanese soldiers on Okinawa, only 7,000 were captured - the rest fought to the death or committed suicide

- Total lives lost at Okinawa in 3 months : 150,000 Okinawa civilians, 75,000 Japanese soldiers, 10,000 enslaved Koreans, 13,000 Americans

- Importance of Okinawa - Japanese unwillingness to surrender important in Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb

I guess looking at these facts maybe Okinawa was a little important. From the Japanese and American points of view.

[pagan]

it wasnt important. it was a mistake. Best strategy is to bypass the island. Landlocked troops are no threat. The land was not necessary.

[DocD]

it wasnt important. it was a mistake. Best strategy is to bypass the island. Landlocked troops are no threat. The land was not necessary.
I don't disagree with you Pagan, but the US High command thought otherwise. Besides, only by 'test running' this invasion, could the US get a fair idea what an invasion of Japan might truly resemble.

[cousin_joe]

Hey guys,

Had a couple of FTF games of Enhanced v1.3beta (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2638&page=16&pp=10) over the weekend. I posted the playtest reports over on the A&A:Enhanced thread (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2638&page=18&pp=10). :) Things are looking pretty good. :D

[Doctor Strategy]

it wasnt important. it was a mistake. Best strategy is to bypass the island. Landlocked troops are no threat. The land was not necessary.

War's End
After the atomic bombs were dropped there was a period of two weeks during which repeated missions were scheduled and cancelled. Some of the missions were not cancelled until well on their way to Japan. Morale dropped and there were many operational accidents. Finally all the troops were called to the open-air theaters for a lecture. An officer presented the case that at that time we were bombing Japan every four days with 800 B-29's. 200 B-29's could do the equivalent damage of one atomic bomb at that time. On that basis we were destroying one Japanese city every day. In the next month the B-29's from Okinawa would raise the total bomber number to about 2000. He further elaborated that we had dropped the only two atomic bombs we had in the Pacific region. In summary, he said that the atomic bombs effect was expected to be more psychological than military when placed alongside the actual and potential damage capability of the B-29. A couple days afterwards peace was declared. This stopped construction of a facility that was to house over 700 nurses for the hospital being built in preparation for casualties expected during the invasion of Japan.

Here is another from US Army documents:

Okinawa, and 7,400 more were taken prisoners. The enemy lost 7,800 airplanes, 16 ships sunk, and 4 ships damaged. More important, the Japanese lost 640 square miles of territory within 350 miles of Kyushu.

The military value of Okinawa exceeded all hope. It was sufficiently large to mount great numbers of troops; it provided numerous airfield sites close to the enemy's homeland; and it furnished fleet anchorage helping the Navy to keep in action at Japan's doors. As soon as the fighting ended, American forces on Okinawa set themselves to preparing for the battles on the main islands of Japan, their thoughts sober as they remembered the bitter bloodshed behind and also envisioned an even more desperate struggle to come.

The sequel to Okinawa, however, was contrary to all expectation. In the midst of feverish preparations on the island in August 1945, with the day for the assault on Kyushu drawing near, there came the almost unbelievable and joyous news that the war was over. The battle of Okinawa was the last of World War II.

Still think it was unimportant Pagan?

[pagan]

Yes. Okinawa was unimportant. Old military ideas would deem it differently. Since who ever thought of winning a war with a bunch of planes and bombs....

I have problems with history's accounts, but most assuredly I have problems with psychological reconstruction of events that purport to 'damage inflicted'. I just want to state that openly.

I like to delve into a less abstract point of what you wrote about. The Atomic bombs dropped were more of a psychological effect... That is quite interesting isn't it? How much of a psychological effect would it have been should the powers in control actually have tried to kill cities (and most definately as many people as possible) with the things?

Strategic planning of land invasion into Japan was always a bad idea since it was Tactically unsound.

It was quite possible in WW2 for the USA to forgoe the land war and make Japan a radioactive zone. It would have cost us a lot of money, but what's money when we are dealing with a single American life?

Military reports are quite biased for their subjective content. A report which puts one thing in good light (be that military base, air field, ship design) is quite often the 'design' of the military officials most aptly to recieve benefit from it. The US NAvy is especially conductive to rubing one's back in the 'who-do-I-know' group of officers and their 'prospectus' within promotional ranks.

[Doctor Strategy]

At the time of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had used up the only two a bombs that were available in the Pacific. There was only one other bomb in the US at the time.

Imagine if we kept dropping bombs. The inhumanity of it killing lots of civilians. Our own Allies may have turned on us because we had become a greater monster than the former defeated ones.

The US was in fact taking out the equivalent of one small city per bombing run of B-29s. Dropping the A-bombs probably wasn't necessary as the Japanese were well on their way down.

[Doctor Strategy]

Since who ever thought of winning a war with a bunch of planes and bombs....



Ever hear about the first War in Iraq. I guess that war was won by ground troops. Not.

[series]

At the time of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had used up the only two a bombs that were available in the Pacific. There was only one other bomb in the US at the time.

Imagine if we kept dropping bombs. The inhumanity of it killing lots of civilians. Our own Allies may have turned on us because we had become a greater monster than the former defeated ones.

The US was in fact taking out the equivalent of one small city per bombing run of B-29s. Dropping the A-bombs probably wasn't necessary as the Japanese were well on their way down.

I heard that the americans would not have sent a second bomb, but there was a mistranslation. The Japanese officers said something like "When will we surrender?" and the Americans translated the code wrong into "We will not surrender ever", so they dropped another. I don't know how true this is however.

[DocD]

Imagine if we kept dropping bombs. The inhumanity of it killing lots of civilians. Our own Allies may have turned on us because we had become a greater monster than the former defeated ones.

The US was in fact taking out the equivalent of one small city per bombing run of B-29s. Dropping the A-bombs probably wasn't necessary as the Japanese were well on their way down.
Well that is definitely a missinformed opinion. Even after Russia invaded Manchuria, the Japanese weren't sending radio broadcast to announce their surrender! Why didn't they, they could have.
Sounds like a country that wants to surrender, but doesn't know how to say it right? Wrong! Sounds like a country not going to surrender, or at least buying their time to see if something worst could happen to them.

[pagan]

Doctor Strategy -->

1. re-read my post about winning a war with planes & bombs. You missed the jist of it.

2. what is good enough to win a war...? You don't send enough, you send everything you have. You don't qualify your war effort by a quantified minimum, you make a jump past the 3rd interquartile.

3. the inhumanity of using nuclear weapons.... there are no rules in war. You always do whatever is necessary to win. If I can kill 1 million enemy babys (televised disembowlments and such) against my enemy to make them quit (and especially because its so much easier), then I will. Anyone who would do otherwise is more than a poor general, She's a moron.

[Desert Rat]

Dropping the A-bombs probably wasn't necessary as the Japanese were well on their way down.

Why don't you ask a US infantryman who survived Europe and was going to be sent to invade Japan if the A-bomb was necessary.

One major goal of war is to kill as many of your enemies as possible while saving as many lives on your side as possible.

[Doctor Strategy]

Why don't you ask a US infantryman who survived Europe and was going to be sent to invade Japan if the A-bomb was necessary.

One major goal of war is to kill as many of your enemies as possible while saving as many lives on your side as possible.

Enemies yes. Civilians no. In WWI only 5 % of the deaths were civilians. In WWII, 67% of those killed were civilians. This is a staggering disregard for human life. Didn't the US get major black eyes from the beating it took from the countries of the world view of civilians killed in Vietnam by American troops?

Doing something like dropping an A-bomb will get you labeled a terrorist nowdays. For example, the fear that Saddam was going to get nuclear power and being crazy enough to use it.

You can't take back what was done. They could have demonstrated it in less populous areas. Who knows though what would have happened? The decision was made and yes it did save American lives as well as Allies.

It has been debated that the Japanese surrendered not because of the bombings but because they wanted to accept the US's generous peace terms compared with the Russians who were gobbling up Manchuria and so on. The Japanese were afraid if the Russians got involved they would not have anything left worth keeping.

I am not saying I disagree with the result just the means could have been a little better.

[Doctor Strategy]

Doctor Strategy -->

1. re-read my post about winning a war with planes & bombs. You missed the jist of it.

2. what is good enough to win a war...? You don't send enough, you send everything you have. You don't qualify your war effort by a quantified minimum, you make a jump past the 3rd interquartile.

3. the inhumanity of using nuclear weapons.... there are no rules in war. You always do whatever is necessary to win. If I can kill 1 million enemy babys (televised disembowlments and such) against my enemy to make them quit (and especially because its so much easier), then I will. Anyone who would do otherwise is more than a poor general, She's a moron.

Pagan,

You are one sick individual to post something like that. Anyway, compassion is a trait everyone should possess male or female. You sadly seem to have a lack of it.

Where will you stop? I pray you find your humanity somehow.

Anyway are there actually female generals somewhere in the world?

If that was a comment directed at me. No, I am a man.

[Krieghund]

Anyway are there actually female generals somewhere in the world?

You can't be serious. Of course there are.

[Doctor Strategy]

You can't be serious. Of course there are.

I am not saying that there aren't any,I just don't know any myself. It was an honest question generated out of sincere interest, that if someone knew of female generals in the world, they could post which nation has them. I would be interested to know. It does not imply any sexist remarks on my part. I just had to clear this up.

[Krieghund]

I am not saying that there aren't any,I just don't know any myself. It was an honest question generated out of sincere interest, that if someone knew of female generals in the world, they could post which nation has them. I would be interested to know. It does not imply any sexist remarks on my part. I just had to clear this up.

Last time I checked, the US Army, Navy and Air Force had around half a dozen female generals/admirals each, and the USMC had one. Of course, that was a while back...

[Stephen]

3. the inhumanity of using nuclear weapons.... there are no rules in war.

Of course there are rules in war. There is no agreement on the rules of war, but everyone fights wars according to some rules.

You always do whatever is necessary to win. If I can kill 1 million enemy babys (televised disembowlments and such) against my enemy to make them quit (and especially because its so much easier), then I will. Anyone who would do otherwise is more than a poor general, She's a moron.

Doing as you suggest may compel the enemy to quit, but is this really the ideal result?

The US could've used Nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and would've won the war a lot more easily. A lot of nations could have used nukes in many, many wars as a way to force the surrender of their enemy. Why didn't they?

It is close to useless to win a war unless you have a plan for what you plan to do AFTER the war. If you don't believe that, look at Iraq today.

[DocD]

Even though I think that this thread is getting a bit off subject, I will say this, I agree with most of that Stephen.
BUT, WAR has NO rules, except the ones both sides agree to. If one side thinks that it can win the war by doing savage and brutal things against civilians or troops, there is NO one that can stop them from doing these things!
Will the world admonish them, will neutrals decide to join opposing side, hold WARCRIMES TRIALS if they can after the affair, etc, of course!! but that doesn't change the fact that they can't do evil things anyway.
(this the very reason warcrimes trials go on, even these days)
So I understand what Pagan is saying and he has a point, even though the rest of us find it repulsing.

[pagan]

I have not replied until now because there have been no comments worth replying too.


How are the Enhanced games going?