Bonehead European setup?

[LHoffman]

@Axisplaya:

Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).

No problem, it happens. At leat I was able to decipher your intent. So does “Nova” in French translate to “New” in English?

@Axisplaya:

If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup.

Yeah, I do think that complicates things for Germany, but not significantly so. Taking out all or most of the UK fleet still is the #2 priority of G1 (#1 being taking France), so it will have to be done one way or another. At least with an extra fighter the UK can hope to do more damage to Germany.

The point of this thread was Der Kuenstler’s dissatisfaction with the Royal Navy not existing after G1. Even with a reasonable bid, the Royal Navy will still not exist after G1. I don’t see any way for them to exist post-G1 unless their starting positions are moved or a rule is instituted. Or because of something in which it becomes a  ludicrously bad idea for Germany to try attacking the UK ships.

[Guest]

@LHoffman:

@Axisplaya:

Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).

No problem, it happens. At leat I was able to decipher your intent. So does “Nova” in French translate to “New” in English?

Scotland = Ecosse = Scotia in English/French/Latin, so yeah all are the same thing.  New = Nouvelle = Nova

@Axisplaya:

If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup.

Yeah, I do think that complicates things for Germany, but not significantly so. Taking out all or most of the UK fleet still is the #2 priority of G1 (#1 being taking France), so it will have to be done one way or another. At least with an extra fighter the UK can hope to do more damage to Germany.

The point of this thread was Der Kuenstler’s dissatisfaction with the Royal Navy not existing after G1. Even with a reasonable bid, the Royal Navy will still not exist after G1. I don’t see any way for them to exist post-G1 unless their starting positions are moved or a rule is instituted. Or because of something in which it becomes a � ludicrously bad idea for Germany to try attacking the UK ships.

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too.  A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

[LHoffman]

@Axisplaya:

@Zhukov44:

3. IMO, Axis has the advantage…. �However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play. �So when a game is young, an player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… �but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player. �Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.

See there LHoffman ? you have the advice of one of the top players of this site (which i’m not).

Haha, thanks. I take Zhukov’s points into consideration, and your own. But gave a number of the same qualifiers that I did.

It is impossible to say who is equally skilled I guess, but if we theoreticall pit equal opponents against each other Zhukov’s opinion is that the Axis will win more often. That is fine; I cannot dispute it if he has played more than me and with more skilled players.

To resolve this discussion, it would be logical to have a match, or two, to see if equally skilled Allied players can defeat equally skilled Axis players without a bid… and if they cannot, then perhaps play again with one to see if they can do it then. To be scientific we should play multiple matches for each to see the typical results for each situation, but I doubt most have the time or patience for that.

[Razor]

@Hepps01:

……is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration. Â

This game miss a landing craft unit, and that is part of the issue. The real Royal Navy was not a threat to Germany in 1940 because they did not have the capacity to amphibious land combat formations into a defendet shore. They had tranny capacity to debark one division to a friendly port, and thats all. But this A&A game has a magical rule that allows for building unlimited tranny capacity in the short time a turn represent, and land a million men army on any defendet shore any time. The other part of the issue is that A&A dont have terrain  that favours the defender, not even a Blockhouse unit to make landings harder. A&A dont have winter turns neither, where landings would be impossible. The last part is the lack of a supply rule. In a real war the supply line is essential. But again the A&A unit dont need supply, it can be cut off on a desert island and still survive and even keep its combat strenght forever. In a real war 100 men without food are 100 dead men.

If you want a historicall correct set up with a huge Royal Navy, and the game to be playable, you’ll need  a set of house rules:

1. Each turn is equal to 3 months, so you need to keep track of autumn, winter, fall and summer turns. Amphibious landings can only be allowed in a summer turn.
2. Sort out what territories have mountains, and let all defenders hit on 3 or less.
3. Production limit, you can only build one tranny each turn.
4. Supply rule, you need an unbroken chain of friendly territories and seazones from a friendly factory to the units that are going to roll combat dice.
5. Make a Landing craft unit for Amphibious landings. The Tranny unit can now only debark units into friendly territories.
   5 ) Make a Blockhouse unit that defend against Amphibious landings.

Now I guess we wont see a lot of the typical Battleship sniping every turn  :evil:

[LHoffman]

@Vance:

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too. � A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

Okay… I would not say that one extra fighter would ensure it. One extra unit, be that a fighter or a destroyer, should cause the loss of one, perhaps two, extra German units. More than likely only one unit because I would divert at least one extra fighter to that sea zone to make sure all UK units are dead on the first round of combat.

Plus, don’t you need an airbase to scramble (which if I remember correctly Scotland does not have)… or has that rule been ammended?

[LHoffman]

@Razor:

@Hepps01:

……is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration. ��

This game miss a landing craft unit, and that is part of the issue. The real Royal Navy was not a threat to Germany in 1940 because they did not have the capacity to amphibious land combat formations into a defendet shore. They had tranny capacity to debark one division to a friendly port, and thats all. But this A&A game has a magical rule that allows for building unlimited tranny capacity in the short time a turn represent, and land a million men army on any defendet shore any time. The other part of the issue is that A&A dont have terrain �� that favours the defender, not even a Blockhouse unit to make landings harder. A&A dont have winter turns neither, where landings would be impossible. The last part is the lack of a supply rule. In a real war the supply line is essential. But again the A&A unit dont need supply, it can be cut off on a desert island and still survive and even keep its combat strenght forever. In a real war 100 men without food are 100 dead men.

If you want a historicall correct set up with a huge Royal Navy, and the game to be playable, you’ll need �� a set of house rules:

1. Each turn is equal to 3 months, so you need to keep track of autumn, winter, fall and summer turns. Amphibious landings can only be allowed in a summer turn.
2. Sort out what territories have mountains, and let all defenders hit on 3 or less.
3. Production limit, you can only build one tranny each turn.
4. Supply rule, you need an unbroken chain of friendly territories and seazones from a friendly factory to the units that are going to roll combat dice.
5. Make a Landing craft unit for Amphibious landings. The Tranny unit can now only debark units into friendly territories.
   5 ) Make a Blockhouse unit that defend against Amphibious landings.

Now I guess we wont see a lot of the typical Battleship sniping every turn �� :evil:

These are all very good points and ideas, which I agree with. Ideally, this would be a good solution. The unfortunate part is that things rapidly get so complicated and microscopic in detail that the game bogs down and loses some of its playability. As much patience as we all have to sit and play this game for 12 straight hours, I don’t think we’d want 3 turns to take up 12 hrs. There also becomes a good deal more technicalities to remember.

My rationale for the absence of things like supply ships and oil fields and landing craft etc… is that they are invisibly accounted for in the game. Adding them would make things more realistic, but also only more painful to keep track of. Geography and fortifications would be harder to model accurately in an “invisible” sense.

A solid idea I think, but perhaps impractical for most people.

[Razor]

Lhoffman, my reply was to derKunzler, he asked how to get the game more realistic. Of course we all want to keep the game simple stupid for fast play, but then we cant have a historicall correct set up.

[Guest]

@LHoffman:

@Vance:

If the royal navy is destroyed its OK if a significant chunk of the German luftwaffe is destroyed too. � A Scotland fighter would ensure that, or if all you can get is $8 then you might manage it by placing a destroyer somewhere to reduce the number of subs Germany can sacrifice instead of planes (z104, z106, or z119?).

Okay… I would not say that one extra fighter would ensure it. One extra unit, be that a fighter or a destroyer, should cause the loss of one, perhaps two, extra German units. More than likely only one unit because I would divert at least one extra fighter to that sea zone to make sure all UK units are dead on the first round of combat.

Plus, don’t you need an airbase to scramble (which if I remember correctly Scotland does not have)… or has that rule been ammended?

Scotland has an airbase.  If you want to see a beat up Luftwaffe, run some battle calculations with TripleA and look at the number of “Attacker units left” (i.e. german planes), NOT the “Attacker wins” percentage.  Try it with the standard setup, then look at what happens if you take out a sub or 2 from the attack, or if you add an extra UK fighter.  Now try it with or without scramble, and see at what point it is actually in UK’s best interest to scramble.  You might find that adding just 1 defender or dropping just 1 attacker is enough to tip the balance in favour of making scramble a wise choice.  Then the royal navy and airforce are wiped out, but so is the Luftwaffe.  The doctrine that UK should NEVER scramble pretty much goes out the window IMHO.  Again, to heck with Taranto if you can reduce the Luftwaffe to a size where there can be no sealion or a really hard slow Barbarossa with minimal aid to Italy.

[LHoffman]

@Razor:

Lhoffman, my reply was to derKunzler, he asked how to get the game more realistic. Of course we all want to keep the game simple stupid for fast play, but then we cant have a historicall correct set up.

Oh, my bad. You didn’t specify.

[knp7765]

Hey Vance,
That is just the point I was trying to make a while back. Yes, the Royal Navy gets just about wiped out, and perhaps the RAF if they scramble, but the Luftwaffe also gets decimated most times. Granted, there are times when the dice go weird. I’ve seen battles where some of the Royal Navy actually survives and the Luftwaffe gets wiped out in the attack. I’ve seen others where the Luftwaffe gets almost no losses and wipes out the RN. Those are oddball situations though. The vast majority end up with England losing it’s navy, and perhaps air force but the Luftwaffe also being ground down to 2 or 3 planes left. That’s not a lot to support a good Barbarossa or Sealion.

[LHoffman]

@Vance:

Scotland has an airbase.  If you want to see a beat up Luftwaffe, run some battle calculations with TripleA and look at the number of “Attacker units left” (i.e. german planes), NOT the “Attacker wins” percentage.  Try it with the standard setup, then look at what happens if you take out a sub or 2 from the attack, or if you add an extra UK fighter.  Now try it with or without scramble, and see at what point it is actually in UK’s best interest to scramble.  You might find that adding just 1 defender or dropping just 1 attacker is enough to tip the balance in favour of making scramble a wise choice.  Then the royal navy and airforce are wiped out, but so is the Luftwaffe.  The doctrine that UK should NEVER scramble pretty much goes out the window IMHO.  Again, to heck with Taranto if you can reduce the Luftwaffe to a size where there can be no sealion or a really hard slow Barbarossa with minimal aid to Italy.

No, I trust you and I agree: if Britain can beat up on the Luftwaffe then do it. I am only saying that if you are Germany you plan for that as best you can, be that bringing in more units or just going for it and hoping to God you don’t get slaughtered. I mean, in many ways it is still better for Germany to attack on G1 facing 1 extra UK fighter, because if they wait the situation will only get worse. Compounded by the fact that if Germany were to wait to attack 111 or 112 it essentially follows there will be no Sealion and therefore no need for Britain to waste money on a ton of infantry. Instead they can beef up on more ships and planes.

[Zhukov44]

@LHoffman:

To resolve this discussion, it would be logical to have a match, or two, to see if equally skilled Allied players can defeat equally skilled Axis players without a bid… and if they cannot, then perhaps play again with one to see if they can do it then. To be scientific we should play multiple matches for each to see the typical results for each situation, but I doubt most have the time or patience for that.

If enough players are playing on TripleA or on the forums, then with enough play the average or median bid emerges.  There is alot of disagreement over the bid because the pool of players for Global is very small and the skill set among these players is uneven.  I think those players with alot of experience with Revised and AA50 tend to figure out the optimal strategies faster.  Japan in particular takes experience to get right. Once there is a larger pool of players who have faced and developed counters vrs. the best available strats, then we’ll have a better idea of what the bid actually is.

At this stage I’m seeing little hope for the Allies in a no-bid game outside of dice luck or Axis mistakes.  But there is a bid number that would make the game more or less fair…we just don’t know what that is yet.

[Guest]

@knp7765:

Hey Vance,
That is just the point I was trying to make a while back. Yes, the Royal Navy gets just about wiped out, and perhaps the RAF if they scramble, but the Luftwaffe also gets decimated most times. Granted, there are times when the dice go weird. I’ve seen battles where some of the Royal Navy actually survives and the Luftwaffe gets wiped out in the attack. I’ve seen others where the Luftwaffe gets almost no losses and wipes out the RN. Those are oddball situations though. The vast majority end up with England losing it’s navy, and perhaps air force but the Luftwaffe also being ground down to 2 or 3 planes left. That’s not a lot to support a good Barbarossa or Sealion.

Yep.  With the standard setup, its too risky for UK to scramble which is why we see the royal navy being slaughtered with minimal German air losses.  Like you said, the dice are too close for comfort so nobody scrambles because it CAN be a total disaster for the allies.  The stakes are too high to take the risk.  What I am arguing is that if there is a $8 bid and UK gets a destroyer they can reduce the G1 attack by just 1 sub and that might be just enough to tip the odds in favour of scramble.  A $10 fighter would really do it IMHO.

Zhukov is right though.  We wont know the “right” bid for a while.

[LHoffman]

Besides adding a bit of balance or offeset at the beginning, I am afraid I do not understand the purpose of a bid. Can someone explain why one is given, besides balance reasons?

Is there a bidding war? If neither player waneted the Allies, does the bid function as a mollification to get the other guy to play with them or something?

Or is it simply the term for bonus cash at the beginning of the game, like in the original A&A Europe?

[Fortress]

You nailed it - If neither player wanted to play the Allies because they felt like Axis was the better, more-favored, easier to play side, then the bid works to entice them to play by even things out.

a: I want axis.
b: I want axis.
a: Fine, I’ll take allies, but I want 30 extra IPC to field a competitive game.
b: 30? You’re bat guano crazy. No way.
a: Then you take allies for less.
b: Fine, for 24.
a: 21.
skipaheadskipaheadskipahead
a: I’ll do it for 9.
b: I’ll do it for 6.
a: It’s all yours. I ain’t playing allies for less than 6.
b: Fine. I’ll put a UK sub off Cairo.

[LHoffman]

@Fortress:

You nailed it - If neither player wanted to play the Allies because they felt like Axis was the better, more-favored, easier to play side, then the bid works to entice them to play by even things out.

a: I want axis.
b: I want axis.
a: Fine, I’ll take allies, but I want 30 extra IPC to field a competitive game.
b: 30? You’re bat guano crazy. No way.
a: Then you take allies for less.
b: Fine, for 24.
a: 21.
skipaheadskipaheadskipahead
a: I’ll do it for 9.
b: I’ll do it for 6.
a: It’s all yours. I ain’t playing allies for less than 6.
b: Fine. I’ll put a UK sub off Cairo.

I thought so. Thanks Fortress.

So, next question, which really does not belog on this thread, though goes with where the discussion has progressed:  shouldn’t there then be an Allied bid put in the rules, if so many people think it necessary? Like there was in original Europe. Unless this is what most of you have been driving at the whole time, without actually stating it in explicit terms?

[Der Kuenstler]

One of the arguments for the G1 turkeyshoot I’ve seen in this thread is “its aways been that way” - I find that kind of funny. It reminds me of the old story of the housewife who always cut the ends off the ham before baking it. The husband asked why. She said “Because my mom alway did it that way.” Her grandma was then asked and she said HER mom always did it that way. Finally it got back to great-grandma who said “I did because my baking dish was so small.”

My point is because of tradition you can get attached to bad ideas. If you’ve had fun playing 50 games of global, you will be attached to the tradition of that setup, even if part of it is terribly flawed.

We should respect and honor these game testers and designers, but they are still just guys. I think Larry Harris is great, but he is not God and his ideas, like anyone elses’, can be improved upon. Has anyone seen his answer to why he changed the price of AA Guns from 5 to 6 IPCs?

“Frankly I don’t remember…I’m comfortable with them costing 6. I could live with them costing 5 too. I don’t recall where the exact seed of the idea came from however. This seems to have first appeared in Anniversary and continued from there. This was not a mistake it was a change and I simply can’t recall the exact reason.”

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1708&p=21378&hilit=remember#p21378

Does this sound like a sacred wizard of all rules - or an unapproachable game rule genious?

Most of the time it takes an outside mind to introduce a positive change to any organization, as everyone within the group has become accustomed to the “way it is” - no matter how preposterous.

Now let me show you an alternate Eurpean setup. Granted its not been tested and would need improvement like anything else, but here goes. These are setup changes only, no rule changes.

Germany -

• Move BB to SZ 114, remove tspt and add a DD
• NORWAY - add 3 INF, 1 AA gun
• WEST GERMANY - add 5 INF
• DENMARK - add 4 INF, 1 AA gun
• HOLLAND BELGIUM - add 6 INF. 2 AA guns
• Move SS from SZ124 to 119
• Move SS from SZ116-106
• Move SS from SZ130-105
• Remove subs from SZ118, 108

United Kingdom -

• UK - Remove 1 INF, 1 MECH, add 1 FTR
• Scotland - Remove 1 INF, add 1 FTR
• SZ 109 - Remove TSPT, place carrier, 2 FTR, SS, BB, cruiser, 2 DDs, French cruiser
• SZ 110 - remove navy
• SZ 111 - Remove navy
• SZ 106 - remove navy
• SZ 91 - add DD

Italy -

• Move all navy in Med to SZ 95

To illustrate using TripleA, the area around UK would look like this:

The zone by Nova Scotia would look like this:

Gibraltar would look like this:

And the Med would look like this:

Now I admit this setup would wipe out Sealion. I meant to do that. Historically, Sealion was not possible. The German High command realized that and turned towards Russia - get over it, people! Sealion did not happen, nor was it possible! The Brit air force and navy were TOO STRONG.

But now it will take the UK several rounds to threaten the German coast. There are extra infantry and AA guns there, and the UK is given more pressing problems to deal with, like the intact Italian navy in the Med and German u-boats running loose.

And best of all, no one starts off getting groin-kicked by a German jackboot before they can even look in their units tray.

[Zhukov44]

@LHoffman:

So, next question, which really does not belog on this thread, though goes with where the discussion has progressed:  shouldn’t there then be an Allied bid put in the rules, if so many people think it necessary? Like there was in original Europe. Unless this is what most of you have been driving at the whole time, without actually stating it in explicit terms?

Well, there is some debate on this.  Some would prefer Larry Harris ‘balance’ the game and release an updated set-up.

I don’t mind there being imbalance and a bid.  Bidding is definitely confusing for newbies…but that’s just the thing, newbies to the game don’t bid…bidding is for experienced players.  Bidding improves the game in the following ways

1. Fair way to decide sides
2. Bids and bid strategies help keep the game fresh.  A bid of 10-12 is excellent because there is such a wide variety of bid placements to experiment with.  Where one decides to put the bid can have a big impact on how the game plays out, and all this helps keep things fresh.  A healthy bid was actually a big part of what made Revised and AA50 so interesting and popular.

[LHoffman]

@Zhukov44:

2. Bids and bid strategies help keep the game fresh.  A bid of 10-12 is excellent because there is such a wide variety of bid placements to experiment with.  Where one decides to put the bid can have a big impact on how the game plays out, and all this helps keep things fresh.  A healthy bid was actually a big part of what made Revised and AA50 so interesting and popular.

Agreed.

[ghr2]

Sealion was possible, as long as germany wiped out the RAF.  The problem was that hitler changed the objectives in the middle of everything.  He told the luft to stop bombing strategic targets and to start terror bombing cities like london.  Before this, the UK air defense system was close to collapse.  But when germany changed to civilian targets, this gave the RAF time to get back up to strength.

Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.