Sea Lion global game

@bakerbei

I already started a post, messaged you in chat about it. Do you have a dicemail registered already with TripleA?

@redrum

That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:

@govz

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

@WILD:

@knp7765:

This is why we modified the Russian NO with our own house rule……

I know this is out of place, but the Russian NO is very much part of an over all Med strat….(one that shouldn’t exist IMO).

Yea, the 3 IPC bonus the Russians get for Italian African territories, and Med islands is ridiculous (it has been a major gripe sense it was introduced). This theater was never a realistic or historic goal for the Russians, and it is exploited way to much as ppl get more familiar with it. This NO was changed partially to boost the Russians if there is a Sea Lion (kinda like a penalty), but now it is being manipulated even w/o Sea Lion.

IMO Finland, The Balkans, The Mid East, and Eastern Europe (Orig German territories) are a realistic goal. I’l even buy Original Italian possession in Europe like Albania, parts of N Italy and maybe even Rome could also be added to the list (but the Americans beat them to it for the most part).

What we are experimenting with (not an original house rule by any means) is that Russia gets a bonus for any Orig German, Orig Italian, Pro Axis Neutral , and Pro Allied Neutral territory that Russia is in control of equal to that territories IPC value (could also include True Neutrals activated by the Axis, or liberated by Russia from the Axis). This makes the Italian Med islands worthless, and Libya/Ethiopia hardly worth going after. It will tone down some territory bonuses for the Russians (like Bulgaria), but allows them some new territories to target as well that were more in tune with their goals IMO.

Obviously Finland was a major goal, but so was the Balkans (Bulgaria, Yugo, Romania, maybe Albania, and Greece) especially once they beat back the Germans (like in a Sea Lion attempt, or a failed assault on Moscow). In The Mid East it still allows the Russians to gain NO bonus for control of Iraq (reduced), and now Persia for added income once at war (could be as late as R4 before they could be in either because they have to pause in NW Persia). The NO bonus for Iraq, and Persia could also simulate the lend lease coming up through the Persian Gulf. I know that Persia being Russian isn’t very historical as it was British controlled (Russia did invade what is NW Persia though). My thinking here is that if the UK doesn’t take Persia early (leaving it for Russia), then the Allies are out some English Pounds and a couple of inf needed early on. If Germany does a G3 Barbarossa, then by time Russia gets to Persia it would be Rus4 (6 or more IPCs lost to England if they activated it UK1). It would be a viable target however for the Russians to Liberate Persia from the Axis after going for the Oil Bonus, to get a bonus of their own).

In the event of a Sea Lion (or failed assault on Moscow), the Russians would still get good bonuses for the orig German, orig Italian, Pro Axis Neutral, and now some Pro allied Neutral territories in the Balkans & Mid East (average of 2-3 IPCs each). If they crack into Northern Italy, or Greater German territories then their NO bonuses rise even more.

The med island thing is no big deal, since 1 axis plane in SITA stops any russian landing.  But, I do like the NO changes you proposed.  It should only affect Original axis in Europe, and all neutrals in Europe/Middle-East. (No islands).

@Zallomallo:

In the meantime the Soviets will be unstoppable.

Unless they go 100% China ;)

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

THANK YOU! At least one other person acknowledges this and YES i realize the Pacific ocean is bigger than the Atlantic you jackwagon! US transports should have to travel further and linger out in the Atlantic in the U-boat kill zone where US air power cant reach. Germany then would have a chance at slowing down US landings with relatively cheap.

Yes but i forgot about that so you would keep enough to rebuild it or enough to build 3 fighters which gives you two hits out of three.

If you rebuilt t what would you build?

3 figh 50 ipc
3 arm 38 ipc

Shouldn’t rebuild it

maybe

1 arm, 2 fig 26 ipc
11 def value so nearly two hits