League General Discussion Thread

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Jacob16 said in League General Discussion Thread:

2 quick questions for the pros, Am I allowed to have my USA subs not submerge here and take them as my first casualties against the planes?

No. The subs are not in the battle as there are no Japanese sea units involved.

And second, if there is a russian tank in northwest persia and a uk transport in SZ 80, can the russia tank on its turn blitz through persia (already owned by the UK) and load onto the UK transport?

No. A unit may not move into the area that they are to be loaded from and still load. They must start their Turn in the intended loading area.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Jacob16 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Also maybe a dumb question, but can chinease units enter korea?

No. Chinese units may only enter original China territories, Burma and Kwantung.

[Jacob16]

@AndrewAAGamer Thank you. If there was a japanese cruiser present would that change things? Would I then be able to not dive the USA subs and keep them as casualty choices for the hits from the japanese planes?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Jacob16 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@AndrewAAGamer Thank you. If there was a japanese cruiser present would that change things? Would I then be able to not dive the USA subs and keep them as casualty choices for the hits from the japanese planes?

No. You could choose not to dive but the only unit that could hit the subs would be the cruiser.

It takes a destroyer to allow plane hits to be taken on subs.

[Betano]

Guys, looking at this variant WW2 Path To Victory , I am very glad about what you have achieved and how much you have improved G40. I just have a few suggestions that I would like to share, always with the utmost respect, since this seems to be a living project.

Victory Cities and fortifications
Historical Victory Cities should have an added defensive value representing fortifications. In reality, places like France, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow resisted enormous armies thanks to their fortifications. Right now France, for example, falls too easily, without reflecting this historical reality. This defensive value should be separate from the IPC value of the territory.

Scorched earth and Soviet fortifications
Soviet defense was based not only on destroying infrastructure during retreats, but also on quickly building new fortified positions. Adding two or three levels of fortifications would enrich the strategy and give players more depth in defense planning.

Strategic Bombers
Reducing Strategic Bombers to only 3 points of damage and lowering their cost seems wrong. It should be the opposite: Strategic Bombers should be more powerful, not less. They should not feel like “big tactical bombers.” Historically they were among the strongest weapons in war. With only 1 hit point and reduced damage, their value is diminished. Their striking power should be maximized to reflect their real importance.

Aircraft Carriers
From Classic onwards, carriers had at least some attack and a defense of 3. Now they have no attack and only 1 defense, while remaining cheap, which feels unbalanced. At the very least, they should have 1 attack and 2 defense, since carriers historically had strong anti-air defenses, similar to cruisers.

These are just a few points, and they are small compared to the excellent work already done. In my opinion, these adjustments would make the variant even better. Of course, each group can adapt as they wish, but I wanted to share my perspective with respect, because I’m really enjoying the game and think the map itself turned out perfect.

[simon33]

@Betano said in League General Discussion Thread:

Strategic Bombers
Reducing Strategic Bombers to only 3 points of damage and lowering their cost seems wrong. It should be the opposite: Strategic Bombers should be more powerful, not less. They should not feel like “big tactical bombers.” Historically they were among the strongest weapons in war. With only 1 hit point and reduced damage, their value is diminished. Their striking power should be maximized to reflect their real importance.

I mostly disagree with this point. B-17s, B-24s and B-29s or any other level bomber got few bomb hits on tactical units in the entire war. Look at the added value of the B-17s in the Battle of Midway! The bomber in classic was supposed to model all kinds of bombers in one unit which is where we get the all round awesome unit.

One hit was a big one of course, on the USS Arizona.

He-111 and G4M did carry torpedoes at a few points which did enable them to hit ships at sea.

@Betano said in League General Discussion Thread:

Aircraft Carriers
From Classic onwards, carriers had at least some attack and a defense of 3. Now they have no attack and only 1 defense, while remaining cheap, which feels unbalanced. At the very least, they should have 1 attack and 2 defense, since carriers historically had strong anti-air defenses, similar to cruisers.

You’re ignoring the value from the 2hits here I think. However, I do agree that it is a real limitation that the loaded aircraft carriers have strong defence and weak attack, That is totally ahistorical and worse where there is ground for the planes to land on.

[Betano]

@simon33 My point is that the Strategic Bomber in this variant is extremely undervalued compared to its historic role. By “historic” I mean both in the previous versions of Axis & Allies and in real history. I believe it should be stronger and more expensive, not something that every nation can easily afford. With the changes in this variant, the opposite happens—at only 12 IPCs it becomes accessible to everyone. When I talk about historicity, I refer not only to real historical context but also to how the unit has traditionally been represented in earlier Axis & Allies editions.

[Betano]

@simon33 Strategic bombers were not designed to destroy tanks or troops on the front lines (that was the role of tactical bombers or close air support).

Their true purpose was to strike critical infrastructure: factories, oil refineries, ports, railroads, and industrial cities.

There are countless historical examples: the destruction of the Romanian oil industry at Ploiești, the bombing campaigns over the Ruhr, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, etc. All of this severely weakened the production capacity of Germany and Japan.

So, to say that “strategic bombers did not do much damage” is to ignore that their function was not tactical but strategic.

[simon33]

Those were my exact points!

[Betano]

@simon33 Well, looking at it from that point of view, yes, their strategic damage continues to benefit from the +2, but I don’t know what’s happening, they are being knocked down very frequently and the low cost helps their redeployment. I dare say that the strategic damage they do rarely exceeds their cost.

[barnee]

@Betano said in League General Discussion Thread:

I dare say that the strategic damage they do rarely exceeds their cost.

I think that’s why there cost was lowered. To encourage more Strat Bombing or at least one of the reasons.

A lot of people felt Strat Bmbrs overpowered in oob G40, there solution was to lower the Attack value to 3 and then lower the cost so they would still be bought.

Idk for certain. You’d have to ask Adam or the kid.

For a House Rule @Black_Elk came up with a A0 C5 Bmbr that did strat bombing only. Might be something a little more of what you’re thinking.

No +2 to the bombing run and can’t attack anything else other than Infrastructure.
It’s biggest drawback is it can’t Air battle. Be nice if it could at 1 in 10 or 12.

Anyway, seeing how this is League, I don’t think anyone would be interested in it :)

This for the G40 map but in case you are interested :)