From: pmenard@cse.unl.edu (Patrick Menard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Game Balance
Date: 23 Jan 1993 21:27:47 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey) writes:

>Keith Allan Schneider (keith@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey) writes:
>: 
>: 
>: 
>: >f12008ad@triton.unm.edu writes:
>: 
>: >A quick summary of my game-balancing rule modifications:
>: 
>: >NO new industrial centers. This favors the Axis because it keeps the Allies'
>: >lines of supply longer than the Axis', at least until the Axis has expanded
>: >it's territory.
>: 
>: I think this tends to favor the Allies, actually.  Most Japan players
>: end up building a few ICs on the mainland.  The only allied IC that seems
>: to be commonly built is perhaps an English IC in India.
>: 
>: keith
>If America and/or Britain build ICs in asia, Japanese expansion is severely
>hampered. 

Unless Japan can take the IC and then things go REAL bad for the allies.

>An IC in South Africa coupled with American transports to the
>northwest african countries effectively knocks Germany completely out of
>africa in a couple of rounds.

The US can still do this from the Mainland and not have to waste 15 IPC on an
IC.  Not having this factory doesn't hurt them that much.

>With transports, Japan's lines of supply
>are shorter than anyone's, including Russia, who is also constrained
>to place most, if not all of its new troops on the european front. Thus
>Japan can expand almost at will in asia, once it has defeated the Allied
>forces there at the start of the game.

Hehe, well, germany can expand almost at will in asia, once it has defeated the
Allied (Russian) forces there at the start of the game.  Seriously, Japan has
to commit all it can on the offensive, which means lots of tanks.(unless you 
like plodding along at 1 per turn)  Tanks mean 1 per transport, or 3 on the
mainland(from an IC) and the transports are free to ferry troops across(2 per
transport) or even more tanks, or help the rest of the fleet crush the US
flotilla.

>Attrition is on their side.

I (of course) disagree with this.  The Axis have to strike hard and fast to
get the Allies below them on the income scale. Axis start with 57, Allies
with 90 hardly a situation I would just "sit and wait".  If the Axis do,
soon there edge in units will not exist and the Allies will still make more
each turn.  Also, Russia just needs to build 3 turns worth of men in Karalia
and with 2 planes of its own, and 2 planes from Britain, its impregnable and
can concentrate on Japan.(It might even take Ukraine and Eastern Europe for
good measure if Germany will just sit there)  Also, Britain and the US can be
bombing the hell out of Germany so the Axis will have even less money.  The US
can send its fleet (beefed up with 5 or 6 Subs(or 2 or 3 subs and a carrier))
and attack the Japanese fleet.  The US will lose, but Japan will either lose
all its transports,(and effectively halt the invasion) or lose expensive naval
units it cannot afford to replace.  Either way, the US has enough money to re-
build its fleet in 2 turns.(or A fleet anyway, it won't be anything to be 
proud of :) and attack again.  This will kill lots of transports again, either
the ones left from the first attack or the ones Japan just built.

The Axis cannot just sit back and wait, unless they get VERY lucky.(on the order
of 10^9) or the Allied players are indept.(in which case you could have Germany
declare war on Japan and the axis would probably still win)

>And
>Germany, similarly, with a modest Mediterranean fleet, has the shortest
>line of supply to africa.

But cannot afford to supply Africa with too many units.( unless Russia plans
on becoming REAL friendly towards them.)

>I have played these rules against a only a few
>different players. Perhaps the results are somewhat influenced by my bias.
>I would welcome input from anyone interested enough to try these mods
>and share the results.

Shadow