Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
3 thoughts to slow the allies
-
1) all factories for all nations start as minors
2) the US doesn’t get its NO until collect income US4
3) the US’s NO ramps up. 0 turn 1, 10 turn 2 until it reaches and holds at 30 turn 4.
These are options my group is kicking around for our next games.
-
For 1. Germany builds CV and 2 transports. Uk builds 2 ftrs and a tank and flies in the tac. It has 9 units, with a defense of 30. Germany attacks with 3 inf, 3 art, 4 ftr, 3 tac, 1 bmr, with an attack of 36, assuming a plane dies to AA. Germany takes UK every game.
-
every game would assume no bad dice, I don’t want to live in your vanilla reality :)
not sure this is a bad thing, apparently sea lion doesn’t win the game for axis in the oob setup, maybe this would do it, or at least slow the US down enough to come dig the germans out.
again, these are just options we’ve come up with as house rule ideas, it doesn’t all have to be from the Tao of Larry and his alpha setup. We don’t think that IPC / TUV balancing alone will do it, we are toying with subtle rules mods.
-
Well, it’s a very good chance. Additionally, since the US only has minors, it will be extremely slow in retaking the UK.
-
Try this one: for every turn Japan is not at war with the United States, it gets a 5 ipc or 10 ipc NO, depending on how unbalanced you think the game is. This makes more historical sense than 1 or 2.
BTW, option 3 increases the US’s income by 30(since it’s collecting 10 and 20 more than it would have)
-
sorry, I should have pointed out that the US ramp up would free japan to attack anywhere on J1 without giving the us a boost of 30. A J1 attack now cuts 30 IPCs from the US over those 3 turns.
-
sorry, I should have pointed out that the US ramp up would free japan to attack anywhere on J1 without giving the us a boost of 30. A J1 attack now cuts 30 IPCs from the US over those 3 turns.
Would the US still get the full 30 if Japan declared war on the US itself?
That would make a J1 better than a J2 or J3(since US collects same money anyway). I’d prefer to keep Japan’s options open
-
Regardless of what Japan does on J1, US only gets +10. J1 attack, +10/20/30 for US1/2/3 collect. Yes this helps the US if there’s no J1, but from our games we feel a J1 is needed, at the least on some UK possessions.
We were also thinking that if this doesn’t even it out enough, we would toy with the US getting no NO money until turn 4 (the standard 30 of course) regardless of a J1/2 attack.
-
I have a dumb question to the comment on:
For 1. Germany builds CV and 2 transports. Uk builds 2 ftrs and a tank and flies in the tac. It has 9 units, with a defense of 30. Germany attacks with 3 inf, 3 art, 4 ftr, 3 tac, 1 bmr, with an attack of 36, assuming a plane dies to AA. Germany takes UK every game.
If the UK simply builds 9 inf (and still brings over the inf and tank from canada) and Germany does what was said, my calcs show only a 25-30% chance the Germans take UK on G2. Although certainly possible, maybe not the best move as it is still draining the Eastern Front.
Am I missing something?
-
I have a dumb question to the comment on:
For 1. Germany builds CV and 2 transports. Uk builds 2 ftrs and a tank and flies in the tac. It has 9 units, with a defense of 30. Germany attacks with 3 inf, 3 art, 4 ftr, 3 tac, 1 bmr, with an attack of 36, assuming a plane dies to AA. Germany takes UK every game.
If the UK simply builds 9 inf (and still brings over the inf and tank from canada) and Germany does what was said, my calcs show only a 25-30% chance the Germans take UK on G2. Although certainly possible, maybe not the best move as it is still draining the Eastern Front.
Am I missing something?
Yes. I was responding to his suggestion that everyone starts with all ICs as minors. Thus, i had the UK build the most defensive units possible
-
The only change I would toy with is the steady increase of USA’s NO for being at war, starting at 10 then increasing by 10 until it hits 30, 3 turns later. It would open up the possibility of going to war sooner in the Pacific and allow Japan to cripple people faster instead of waiting around for a couple of turns. I don’t like the factory reduction, the game is slow enough as is.
-
Wouldn’t ramping up the USA income allow an agressive and/or stupid(depending on how it turns out) Japan player to have a legit shot at taking and holding the west USA if they pushed everything into that? Assuming they were able to hold Japan at the same time.
-
Not sure you could hold it, plus it’s 2 turns from sz6 to L.A., more than enough time to scramble more defense from E.US. you bite off more than you can chew with that and the UK/ANZAC have a warm, empty bathtub to play in called the S. Pacific for a very long time.
We were doing a little after action the other day, trying to come up with ways to balance the game out. Again, this is OUR opinion, but we’ve played quite a few games of global in our group, switching players etc, and just like P40 was to us, the game is stacked to one side.
If you don’t agree, play the OOB or Alpha and enjoy it. In fact, IF you DON’T agree that the game is UNBALANCED, I would ask you to keep that to yourself in any replies. This is me asking for any suggestions anyone has come up with to make the field more level, and offering up the ones we came up with on the quick.
-
Well you wanted to know how to slow the allies down. Fucking around with the USA would do it.
Suggested Topics
