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

G40 :anguished:

Yes as some neutrals that have no markers have no military according to G40.

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…

to answer why im not attacking the US fleet off Hawaii……just too much risk at this point and have more die points in range of the Carolines…im waithing for him to move away from Hawaii where id have more die points and more ships in range…besides its the start of T-4 and i have China completely out of the game and gonna start harrassing the USSR. If he moves to the Carolines i will strike and if i win that battle convincingly the war could be over.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.

well, italy runnign wild is EASILY made up by the fact that germany made 70+ ipcs worth of transports that will hardly do anything to help him vs russia besides threatening Novgorod.
With US entering the war soon, italy will be beaten, you would just need to conserve your afircan forces and try to slow down or contain italian advances.  You dont need to hold egypt, you just need to prevent him from getting too much more.  Usually of germany tries to sealion, Japan does not bother you on J2 to prvent US from entering earlier.  The extra money you wil collect from controling your stuff in the pacific can be used to make stuff than can reinforce persia.  Eventually when germany is going full bore on russia, you can just leave a strong garrison on uk and start wearing italy down and investing your money into africa/persia from the europe side.

@Tendron:

Hey everyone, we are in a middle of a game and we would like to know if a transport can move through an island (that has an airport for scramble) to drop troops on another territory. Or can the defender use the scramble ability to stop the transports from doing so?

IE : Say german has transports and wants to send them to Moroco. But those transports need to pass by UK that has an airport (with the new Alpha rules, the fighter can come out to fight). However, Germany has not intention of attacking UK, it wants to attack Moroco. But can such a move be done when opponent has an airport that can scramble on your way? Or does scramble can only be used to defend the seazone when attacked?

ty

Scrambling cannot stop combat movement and is only used to defend a seazone from attack (or against amphibious assault, by instigating combat in that seazone).

Keep on Channel Dashin’.

To add…  The airbase in Gibralter (if in Allied hands) can absolutely defend the seazone from an Axis amphib assault on Morocco.

Mark: We will be starting the game around 9 or so this morning, so I will let you know how it goes. I usually spend some time going through various scenarios in my head and speculating as to which side should have the greater advantage when doing changes like this. Without really looking at the board, I am thinking it will be the Allies, because for one their are many more of them so they stand to gain more by teaming up/attacking the Axis at the same time. Furthermore, one of the 3 Axis players (Japan) can’t really use this advantage, b/c they are pretty much isolated.

With that in mind, I am considering weakening the Allies a bit and see how it pans out. One idea I have is reducing the major IC in India to a minor, and adding another minor IC in West India as well. I will probably also add a couple extra infantry in India to start out with too. This will allow India to serve as a legitimate garrison for the UK, with allowing them to dominate…at least thats the plan.

I am considering this approach b/c I believe the Allies will dominate the Atlantic, and Germany will be hard pressed against a combined US/UK invasion plus Russia breathing down their necks, so my thinking is that by weakening India’s offensive capabilities a bit, Japan will be able to pressure Russia more from the east, thus making up for the imbalance in the west.

Like I said, this will take some time to get down, but I think the two-turn system will be worth it in the end. I really wish A&A would move to this system in the first place, as I know many that use it, or would like to use it.

Let me know your thoughts!..