B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

@Gunngrinner

Hi Gungrinner

What a bummer. At least the Germans won’t be able to buy anything next turn either :)

Welcome to the site :)

@SJS063:

can any 1 post a link to where I can find new unit descriptions in the game like mech inf and tact bombers etc.

If you’re talking about how the units function, you’ll find them in the “Unit Profiles” section of the Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, which are downloadable here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/downloads

If you’re talking about what the units look like, consult the Piece Directory table at the back of the rulebooks, or for large and more detailed silhouettes click on the charts in this thread to expand the pictures:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

@capnstak:

Is there a significant difference between the two or could I use the videos from Alpha 3.5 rules and apply the same way as with 2nd edition?

It should work.  The big difference is that the UK has 1 less Infantry in Egypt in 2e, and 2e has the rules about the Soviet-Mongolian defense treaty.

FM7 - to answer your question - Italy opens Barbarossa on I3, and Germany follows on G4.

To both FM7 and Spend - too much for my poor brain to handle tonight - I like the discussions - it gets molecules moving. I’ll try to take it all in and answer within the next couple days -

Yeah, that is correct.

I guess the concept was that the U.K. could sacrifice the occasional fighter withour screwing up the Russian N.O…  If Germany decided not to attack a given Territory to have the U.k. Fighter deny the N.O… then Russia is still ahead because they weren’t attacked.

Anyway, the U.K. could land on U.K.4 as I would think that %100 of Russian PLayers would declare war on R4 if Germany had not declared war by then.

This is the ultimate A&A.

Hope for 1941 and 1942 setups… :-D