Multinational Carrier operations questions.

There have been plenty of times where all 6 missed or 1 ship got tubbed.  Some players argue that the kami should be turned off as an easy Axis nerf against their advantage, especially in G41 and G42.

I’d opine that the best effect of the kami is to keep them in your pocket to deter USA attacks, since they are less effective in most actual situations (killing 0-1 ships) than they potentially could be (causing USA to decline to attack because you still have them and he can’t be certain he’ll make odds).

Thank you guys. I thought it was legal the only thing that was tripping me up was the whole we don’t own the sea zone before the turn but you can’t own a sea zone so it is fine to land on a carrier that has taken a sea zone. Or that is my understanding. Thanks again for the info. It was one thing I was not sure on.

Well some interesting facts.

All agree that in Europe 1940 the axis need a bid.
All agree that japan is hard to stop unless US invest heavy in the pacific.

In global nearly all players give the bid to the allies on the europe board and nobody gives the bid to the pac board.

Has anyone tried the “China first” proposal I made? I used this solution in AA50 as a bid alternative, and I think it works well in G40 too, but haven’t received much feedback from actual games other than my own group.  Maybe its because the HR forums are a wasteland of forgetfulness? haha.  
:-D

The basic idea is pretty simple, everything else stays the same, but China moves first in the turn order!
So in Global that’d be…

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France (then back to China)

I’m not saying that this change does away with the need for an Allied bid entirely, but it surely makes the bid range a bit narrower, and a lower. I mean if you can bring it down from 15, back into the single digits that’s a definite positive right? And China is a lot more fun to play this way. Its not like you’re getting “11 infantry in Yunnan”, but it does allow China to pull back and consolidate their starting forces, and build 1 round worth of additional units. It gives them their artillery in the first round, and bonus for control of the Burma road. What’s more it gives them a much better chance to secure their National Objective in subsequent rounds. This adjustment in turn order, also affords the Chinese an opening attack option in they want to get balsy!

The reason I really like this approach is because it doesn’t mess with the Europe side of the map (e.g it doesn’t break the med.) Doesn’t change the situation outside of the Chinese theater, since those units are restricted on where they can move. And most importantly, it gives Japan more to worry about. Sure, you’re probably going to kick a lot more ass as Allies if you give UK an extra carrier in the Med, but if that kind of bid strikes you as overly distorting you might try this instead. It’s pretty easy to implement and makes China a lot more effective as a player nation, which eases the pressure on the other Pacific nations. China has an advantage (over India) in that it can’t be strategically bombed or convoy raided into non-existence. Also, you can preserve the illusion that the OOB force distribution of units on the gameboard, actually corresponds to something in reality. As if the units OOB units where chosen for some reason by the designer, to be at least vaguely historical. This change in turn order of just one Nation, allows to avoid bringing too many extra units into the board outside of the normal purchasing/placement mechanisms. Its at least as easy to explain to your opponent as a standard bid, and if you still want to bid anyway, then go for it. But the change is so simple, and it really does give Japan more to chew on, and it seems like the Pacific side of the map is the one that is grabbing all the attention lately in terms of balance.

Also, for the history buffs…I feel like this tweak gives a slight nod to the fact that the War had been going on in China, even before all of Europe and the rest of the world was embroiled in the conflict.

“July 7, 1937 a day that lives in”… I don’t know, the first turn of G40 at least? hehe. There are crazy numbers of potential players in China. The materials are produced there more often than not. Why not roll the dice and see if a China first approach will work? Anathema to all Americans, like me! But in the game’s turn order I think it is kind of cool ;)

Hi Pherman. Like The Methuselah said, nothing is official.  That said, not many (no one) here would allow an Anzac Inf on Egypt. The accepted rule is that the territory needs to be owned by the nation placing the bid unit. Ultimately, is between the players to decide.

@kcdzim:

In addition to what was already stated by Moralecheck -

While the game engine may sometimes allow it, you are not technically allowed per the game rules to load during the combat phase if those units cannot or will not be used for an amphibious assault during that combat phase.

Yes, I understand. I was assuming that they could be offloaded at some point that turn, but either way it would have ended up being the same if I loaded them in combat move or non-combat, since they could do nothing either way.

Thx WarDog, just wasnt sure I made my self clear!

Love the work u doing here btw, gr8 help when u got a major rule problem!

Cya around PPP

Lanchester’s Law on wikipedia is the game theory I was thinking about.

@The:

I’m wondering if a power loses its capital and then captures another power’s capital where do the IPCs go?

Because the 1st team lost their capital and IPCS
second team lost their capital and IPC but first team can’t have any IPC because they don’t have their capital

Would the power that captured the 1st teams capitl get their IPC?

See page 20 AAEurope 1940 second paragraph under the “Capturing and Liberating Capitals” section, last sentence: “You collect these IPCs even if your own capital is in enemy hands.”

Note: Not an official answer, just trying to help.