Has anyone played any games w/o National Objectives yet? How did it change your strategy? I would think that it would be radically different. :?
I am willing to try a 41 and a 42 game w/o NOs if anyone is interested (by forum of course). :-)
I’ve been playing 42 without Objectives.
You are going to have to protect Germany/Italy rather than take Russia. In the games I’ve been playing though, there is no bomber defense. So thats a lot harder than it will be with the Fighter-Escort rule.
@Frontovik:
yeah, it makes a radical change for axis
see, with NO’s, axis need to kill russia (most of the cases)
without NO’s, axis need to keept russia from killing them :-)41 is impossible without NO’s, and '42 is not certain.
Is this because of the allied bombing? Or income? Or because Germany lacks the amount of troops it has in 42?
I think its the bombing that unbalances the game. Without that, its much more fair.
The reason I ask is that the Origins/GenCon tournys are going to this format. By observation it looks like Allies have a huge advantage.
Does anyone know why the Tourney rules are so “not normal”? It seams everyone on this forum prefers 41 with NO’s, yet they’re gonna do 42 without? I wonder how these decisions are being made? IMHO, both scenario’s seem quite balanced with NO’s, and they definately make the pacific, and the German/Russian front MUCH more interesting.
Answers for this JoeCold are at the GMs website
I still don’t 100% agree with him but I do now understand his reasoning. His approach is to start with the base game and balance that and then move on to scenario choice, adding optional rules and bids etc. He did say that it will probably be tweeked after the tournys.
for LHTR for Heavy Bombers, why roll two dice and pick the better of the two? Why not just increase the attack power of bombers to 6? Or why not make it an attack power of 3 but with two dice? W/E, TECH f up the game too much regardless of which one you get.
Time saving is a solid argument. 1942, no NOs gives a quick gameplay. And probably is the best balanced combo of rules
Also I like HBs reduced. It invalidates tech complainings
I was thinking about this the other day also. If you are on an SBR and you take a couple of fighters with you to defend them you are leaving yourself to AA firing at ALL of your aircraft, then you will take another round of fire from the defending interceptors which have double the chances of hitting you (attacking, “escorting” planes at 1 and defending interceptors at 2).
After 2 rounds of fire at your planes/bombers, I think that if you have Heavy Bombers, you deserve to roll 2 dice instead of “rolling 2 and choosing the highest one”
That rule was used in the Revised tourney because the HB were too devestating. But in this game, there is only a 3% of getting HB anyway and with the fact that you have to go through 2 rounds of fire via the AA and intercepors, players who get HB deserve to roll 2 dice! Don’t you think??? :?
Non HBs SBRs are not so devastating now (after all, there are some tech than counter them) and you can anyway spend money in tech even with max damage. But I think the main complaining is about HBs vs fleets. I still think is not so big issue (there are also some techs here and there that counter it and bombers cannot conquer land and bomb fleets at the same time)
I prefer HBs picking best of 2 dices and no escort rules. It lets some space for SBRs and it’s not enough strong to make tech complainers have a solid argument against them
But I think the main complaining is about HBs vs fleets. I still think is not so big issue (there are also some techs here and there that counter it and bombers cannot conquer land and bomb fleets at the same time)
I prefer HBs picking best of 2 dices and no escort rules. It lets some space for SBRs and it’s not enough strong to make tech complainers have a solid argument against them
I forgot about that fleet thing… I kept thinking HB was only for SBRs :-o
Yeah if HB can roll 2 dice in battle- land or sea they will be very overwhelming…so the stated change “roll 2 dice and pick the higher one” is best- I stand corrected. :-)
However it is important that if you have 2 or more bombers with HB (using the above rule), then you have to roll EACH bomber separately otherwise it messes up the probability.
Example if I have 3 bmrs with HB and lets say I roll all 6 dice at the same time and I get: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 One could pick the top three die rolls: 4, 5, 6 = 15 damage. Versus rolling each bomber separately- example bmr1 gets: 1, 2 bmr2 gets: 3, 4 bmr3 gets 5, 6. Now taking the highest of these rolls separately yields: 2+4+6= 12 damage!
:-)
However it is important that if you have 2 or more bombers with HB (using the above rule), then you have to roll EACH bomber separately otherwise it messes up the probability.
True
Non HBs SBRs are not so devastating now (after all, there are some tech than counter them) and you can anyway spend money in tech even with max damage. But I think the main complaining is about HBs vs fleets. I still think is not so big issue (there are also some techs here and there that counter it and bombers cannot conquer land and bomb fleets at the same time)
I prefer HBs picking best of 2 dices and no escort rules. It lets some space for SBRs and it’s not enough strong to make tech complainers have a solid argument against them
There needs to be a “non-luck” counter to bombers. Escorts happen to fit perfectly.
And bombing itself is the problem, not heavys.
When Germany has 35 IPC, but has to spend 16 just to be able to buy 6 infantry, thats a gamebreaker.
There needs to be a “non-luck” counter to bombers. Escorts happen to fit perfectly.
And bombing itself is the problem, not heavys.
When Germany has 35 IPC, but has to spend 16 just to be able to buy 6 infantry, thats a gamebreaker.
You could say the same if Japan SBRs USSR (and maybe a bit of UK) until the Stone Age. Japan has more income than USA to buy bombers and USSR has less income than Germany to resist damage. Germans could make SBRs against UK at the same time …
Of course, USA could have a small trouble if Japan attacks mainland America while USA is too busy building bombers …
Of course, USA could have a small trouble if Japan attacks mainland America while USA is too busy building bombers …
In 1941, with NO and 5 transports, this is a valid option.
In 1942, without NO, and 1 transport, its a pipe dream. USA will never fall.
Of course, USA could have a small trouble if Japan attacks mainland America while USA is too busy building bombers …
In 1941, with NO and 5 transports, this is a valid option.
In 1942, without NO, and 1 transport, its a pipe dream. USA will never fall.
I forgot we where talking about no NOs
It’s more difficult, sure, but you can still buy 4 trannies and 1 inf J1 1942 scenario. That buy works even if you finally cancel the invasion on mainland America
Of course, USA could have a small trouble if Japan attacks mainland America while USA is too busy building bombers …
In 1941, with NO and 5 transports, this is a valid option.
In 1942, without NO, and 1 transport, its a pipe dream. USA will never fall.
I forgot we where talking about no NOs
It’s more difficult, sure, but you can still buy 4 trannies and 1 inf J1 1942 scenario. That buy works even if you finally cancel the invasion on mainland America
I agree you can buy 4 transports. But USA already has 3 bombers. They can easily buy 2 more and still have enough for land units. Japan does not have enough income without NO to really conquer the USA. They just have a threat to do so.
I agree you can buy 4 transports. But USA already has 3 bombers. They can easily buy 2 more and still have enough for land units. Japan does not have enough income without NO to really conquer the USA. They just have a threat to do so.
Agh … I also forgot the starting USA bombers. Well, I guess Japan can counter with her own bombers then and smash USSR (they work against fleet anyway)
A SBR party …
I agree you can buy 4 transports. But USA already has 3 bombers. They can easily buy 2 more and still have enough for land units. Japan does not have enough income without NO to really conquer the USA. They just have a threat to do so.
Agh … I also forgot the starting USA bombers. Well, I guess Japan can counter with her own bombers then and smash USSR (they work against fleet anyway)
A SBR party …
Its really a different animal, playing from 41-42 and with/without NO.
I guess you could bomb USSR with them, but you will never be able to “out-bomb” the allies. Just too much income disparity (and the relative safety of the USA) to overcome.
Anyway, its a moot point, since escorts/interceptors pretty much solve the bombing problem in a no-tech/no-obj game.
Anyway, its a moot point, since escorts/interceptors pretty much solve the bombing problem in a no-tech/no-obj game.
Yes, escorts make SBR unusable :|
Anyway, its a moot point, since escorts/interceptors pretty much solve the bombing problem in a no-tech/no-obj game.
Yes, escorts make SBR unusable :|
No, not really.
Lets take 1942. USA has 3 bombers (and three expected fighters) for its first turn. USA can buy 2 fighters (20) and a bomber (12).
Germany cant have a fleet, protect Germany with fighters, protect the Italy fleet, and protect Rome from bombing.
Whatever the Axis cant protect, you attack.
Once the fleets are gone, If Germany keeps most of its fighters in Germany, you Bomb Italy (while easily preventing bombing of UK/USSR as well).
Sooner or later your fighter screen will be too much for Germany to prevent.
What you cant do is merely send in your bombers without any worry whatsoever. That would never happened anymore in real life. In 1942-43, Unescorted bombers took so many casualties that the USA stopped bombing until sufficient fighter screens could help.
Bombers are too powerful without this rule. If you want air superiority, you have to earn it.
I’ll go right into the main issue here, balance…. :evil:
Allies are favored in both 41 and 42, but it’s not impossible for axis to win w/o a bid, I tried an allied CA strat, and an allied BB strat, did not work, but I think the most important reasons that I lost a couple of games with this setting is that I did not play the conservative strats, same overall strats as in Revised.
I think it’s probable that the allied bias is at the same level, or maybe a little bit less than in Revised.
