Pacific '40 Achievements

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

If you can build rail centers, players get a risk/reward thing going on that develops player options. They buy something and it benefits them, the enemy can negate them and it costs them using as bomber which in turn costs the enemy the use for another purpose he did not intend.

If i did this “stop land units moving two spaces” you disrupt all currently known strategy…basically invalidate it with one sentence, then you make combat moves problematic because tanks are usually behind the front lines because they move two and they are protected behind the front lines ( in the case of the German-Russo conflict). With your idea the whole panzer army needs to be on the front line and have lost the options to move north or south two spaces, and just have to fight whats next to them. You with that rule ruined the game. thanks.

It appears you never played global 1940?

Just please stick to the actual rules and find a pretty idea that adds to what players can do in the game that was not already accounted for.

How about an idea regarding neutrals? or Tech changes to alter SBR raids ( perhaps jet fighters taken in as escorts fire at 2?)  ?  ?

Something from that mind, that generally smart mind you have…

I refer you to my comments on the linked post.

The OP said it - virtually all adjacent industrialised areas were linked by rail. In the game, only a few routes over mountains and through jungle would not have such connections.

So the only use for markers I can see is for damaged links via interdiction i.e. bombing. Otherwise assume all tts are connected by rail. I never really understood the implication in the original game design that soldiers marched to the battle zones and that tanks drove there.

Generally I favour unlimited non-combat rail movement between friendly tts. It’s much simpler and doesn’t need counters or record keeping. One dynamic it changes is the relative value of armour, since this now travels at the same rate as infantry - the speed of the trains carrying them.

The other main counter argument is the relative movement of ships and aircraft. If a turn allow a train to rail artillery from Berlin to Moscow, how far should a ship be permitted to travel in the same turn? Should ships have any limit on their movement range? My solution is that every ship must demonstrate that it passes from, through or to a friendly port to refuel every turn. What’s to stop Japan loading up 10 transports and dropping them off in California? Why, the US Navy of course. The same thing can be applied to aircraft; rather than a maximum range peer turn, they must demonstrate fuel stops at set intervals on a turn. These idea also require more rules regarding enemy interception, radar range and so forth.

In general these rules mean many more units getting into battle per round. There is much less of units stalling in “mid move”, something that virtually ruined 1914 for the Central Powers until the revised rules came along.

Typing from a smartphone is the best way to respond LOL! So sorry for the typos and grammar.

Anyways Hotspurs. I really encourage you and others to play around with the game.

And how is game balance threatened when both sides can do the same thing? It may upset game tradition, but I don’t see how it hurts game balance. The Brits put a large capacity IC in South africa. Hmmm…the Germans put a large capacity IC in North Africa. Now you’re both fighting somewhere else. Where’s the imbalance?

Next round you always get extra units but because they were the best Attacker/Defender last game they get extra units next turn.

I have play tested a revised artillery unit with improved defence capabillity. When an infantry defends along with an artillery, the infantry’s defens increases to 3. Artillery do still support infantry on attack. Remember that the artillery unit we have today were made when the armour unit still defended on a 2, in A&A Europe.

Artillery was mostly a defensive unit during WWII and proved to be the basic weapon of fighting tanks. However, in A&A, it is usually only used as an offensive unit, mainly to give large infantry formations more punch, not for anti-tank defences or counter-battery fire upon enemy artillery. The task of destroying enemy tanks and artillery batteries can also fall to attack aircraft, but unless they are already on patrol overhead, they are usually not quick enough to save friendly forces from damage. More often, ground-based counter-battery fire would suppress the enemy artillery batteries and force them to move, while aircraft would follow up later with a strike to destroy the rest of the enemy artillery.

Once Germany had been thrown on to the defensive in WWII the burden of combat shifted away from aircraft and tanks to the infantry and artillery. This were not because the former were not needed but rather their short supply forced reliance on the latter. However Germany had a shortage of artillery and therefore carried severe penalties. The inabillity to conduct effective large-scale counter-battery operations,as well as the loss of air superiority, was primary cause of German failure in both the West and the East. The early hopes of victory through mobility were replaced by an insatiable demand for the firepower of artillery.

@Zhukov_2003:

i have played this way

Who won? Was Karelia a dead zone?