Noll/Axis/jim vs ghr2/corr/jen Alpha 3

[corriganbp]

Do you only use rush strategies?

Are you tired of playing against sea lion?

Anyone want to try the Krieghund modifications?

[jim010]

I am tired of Sealion.  That’s why I explored the Turn 6 Russia Rush (which I think is pretty good) or this Turn 6 Australia.

I also believe that if the game is not already decidedly an Axis win by turn 8, they are not going to win.  And that an Axis win will almost always be on the Europe side.

Are Krieghund’s ideas going to be ‘official’?

[jim010]

@corriganbp:

Do you only use rush strategies?

I also like how these turn 6 rushes usually cause panic creating opportunities for mistakes that just make things worse.

[Jennifer]

What are the Krieghund modifications?

As for rush strategies, I think with the insanely over paid Americans, the only hope the Axis have is to hit the allies hard, fast and get those VCs before America can ramp up.

I think (untested, pure opinion) if we were to give England +2 fighters and make S. Africa and Egypt worth 3 IPC each (yes that makes them valid for Major Complexes for England) and maybe find some other territories to increase the value of for England, then drop America by an equal amount of money, the Axis wouldn’t need these desperate grabs for power and could line up more casual assaults.  Just my opinion though.

That said, Jim, maybe you want to drop down to Turn 7 rushes?  Gives you more firepower to bring to the ballgame.

[jim010]

The problem with a turn 7 Moscow rush is that the first of the Siberian units are now entering Moscow.  And Corrigan’s move of getting bmbs there, well … odds there are better turn 6.  And turn 8 is too late with all of the Siberians in Moscow now.

A turn 7 Sydney is hard to picture.

I advocate uniting the UK fleet in 111, and the Italian fleet in 97.

[jim010]

Don’t forget that Sealion is a rush tactic too.

[corriganbp]

Sea lion is and isn’t a rush.  A rush tactic usually ends the game when it works while allied players have come back to get the win post sea lion.

I like the consolidated navies, but it makes england so much stronger that you need to do something to help the axis.

my proposal for this is delayed DOW rights for the USSR (R6) and USA (collect income phase of R8).

however, these haven’t been thoroughly play tested yet.

it is possible to win with the Germans with the Siberians in Moscow.  And many russians players are getting more aggressive against japan these days.

[corriganbp]

ah yes, and we also use a consolidated UK economy

[jim010]

I am a very happy camper when those inf hit japan instead.

You’ll need to pm me to discuss what direction we’ll take this game as Jenn wants Russia.

[corriganbp]

1.) UK fleet in 91, 98, 110, 112 move to 111 (includes tac bomb on cv)
2.) Naval base in Scotland
3.) airbase on Gibraltar
4.) fighter on Malta and gib removed, moved to Scotland
5.) interceptors shoot at 2
6.) USSR Dow rights delayed to Round 6
7.) USA DOW rights delayed to collect income phase of Round 8
8.) One consolidated income for UK, to be used as they see fit
9.) Modified Turn Sequence:
Germany
USSR
Japan
Democratic Allies - with coordinated attack
Italy - starting with the 1st Italian turn, Italy/German turns are combined.
10.) Germany gets 5 IPCs for London NO
11.) USSR NO per Krieghund, 3 ipcs per original axis or pro axis neutral on the atlantic board.
12.) amphib assault rules, all attacks at -1

[corriganbp]

I admit that my modifications are more ambitious than fixing sea lion.  I am trying to make the game feel more like WW II, with a very strong english navy in the atlantic, and a period of time where the focus of the war is on North Africa and China.

Kreighund’s more modest proposal is:

french cruiser in 112 to 110
brit cruiser in 112 to 111
german transport fr 113 to 114

USSR NO - no more ipc bonus for allied friendly neutrals, or true neturals, instead include all axis and axis neutrals on atlantic map.

[corriganbp]

my proposed rules for neutrals

friendly neutrals are no longer persuaded by invasion.
instead invest 1-5 ipcs lobbying for entrance to war, roll the investment or less and convince them

can only influence friendly neutrals in your sphere of influence.
south america –> USA sphere of influence
if mongolia becomes allied friendly thru a violoation of neutrality --> USSR
other friendly allied neutrals --> UK
axis friendly neutrals --> germany

allies can’t violate true neutrals
if the axis violates true neutrals, they become allied friendly AND there is an automatic investment of 3 ipcs per round in lobbying them, only 2 ipcs can be added so there is always a chance that the neutral won’t enter the war.

[Jennifer]

Of late I’ve been switching over to destroy Russia first - and in that case, I generally suicide attack the Siberian units with all my planes long before they get back to Moscow, so a round 7 or even a round 8 attack isn’t so bad anymore.

I hear Krieghund has some rules suggestions to balance things out - though I cannot find them.

[corriganbp]

Krieghund’s suggestions are two posts above yours Jen.

If you want I can send the link.

[Jennifer]

@corriganbp:

Krieghund’s suggestions are two posts above yours Jen.Â

If you want I can send the link.

Above mine in what thread???  ARGH!  The futility of being active!

[corriganbp]

Kreighund’s more modest proposal is:

french cruiser in 112 to 110
brit cruiser in 112 to 111
german transport fr 113 to 114

USSR NO - no more ipc bonus for allied friendly neutrals, or true neturals, instead include all axis and axis neutrals on atlantic map.

[jim010]

Not good enough.  Move the BB from 110 to 111 and put the carrier back in Gib and I’d be happy with the UK.

[Jennifer]

Move the SZ 98 fleet to SZ 91, move the Italian DD/TRn back and don’t touch anything else and I’ll be happy with England being balanced.  You can still do Sea Lion, or Modified Sea Lion (round 4 instead of round 3) but England can be more secure - not to mention you don’t negate England hitting the Italians in Taranto if they want to live on the edge.

[jim010]

I could live with that.

[Jennifer]

So for this round, should we go with those two changes?