2nd edition strategy Allies

To each his own
I agree 2nd edition badly needs to be houseruled, and I am also doing one but have been busy winning another league championship, but I do not agree that 20 in bid units to the Med, North Africa is so terrible, and as I already said I don’t need you to agree with me because I don’t even play with you, so don’t bother to argue.

Adding a bunch of small National Objectives is a really good idea.
I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.  Maybe that’s just a preference you guys like to play with and isn’t meant to balance, I don’t know, but you list it under “balanced mod”

I see you also fixed the retarded Russian NO money from Italian African cheeeeeeeese
My opponent in the league championship game is milking those to the max  :-P
All part of the game….

But I do laugh when you say the bid is bad for historical interest, because the whole game is so ahistorical regardless of whether you have a bid or not or whether you play with your houserules that that argument is laughable in my opinion

@Gamerman01:

I agree 2nd edition badly needs to be houseruled, and I am also doing one but have been busy winning another league championship. . .

You mean the game thats been proceeding at glacial pace for months now? How do you find time for anything else?!

@Gamerman01:

I do not agree that 20 in bid units to the Med, North Africa is so terrible, and as I already said I don’t need you to agree with me because I don’t even play with you, so don’t bother to argue.

Sharing ideas/perspectives = arguing? hmmm.

@Gamerman01:

I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.

Don’t know what you mean by “equal.” As in both sides can do it? Definitely agree there. But, from a balance perspective, the purpose of increasing the fighter defense to 2 is to limit Dark Skies. It seems to work too, since the fighter stack that inevitably grows in Russia is usually enough to deter strategic bombing runs, when the axis player only has spam bombers to send at it. A small point, perhaps, but it relates to balance (among other things).

@Gamerman01:

But I do laugh when you say the bid is bad for historical interest, because the whole game is so ahistorical regardless of whether you have a bid or not or whether you play with your houserules that that argument is laughable in my opinion

Obviously, the game at least purports to be historical. A setup that completely stifles Italy’s engagement in Afirca from the outset is less so. Its a question of degree. For example, your endorsement of eliminating the Russian NO for occupying Africa suggests that you share a concern for historically. Efforts to improve historically while also improving balance and gameplay = good. Glad you got a laugh from it. ;)

@Tolstoj:

Thank you all again! This has been very helpful!

But in my opinion less is more, so I think I would rather remove some units then add a few: perhaps removing Italy’s battleship (exactly 20 IPC’s ;)) in the next game will give us a more balanced game. This way we don’t have to alter much.

And I like the idea of extra bonuses for the allies, and as a historian (I wrote a book about WW1 and my book on WW2 is almost finished) I think I will add bonuses to Britain as a Lend-Lease construction. This will also balance the game, for the US is busy in the Pacific…

I would remove two Japanese Air (FT and Tac) over the Italian Battleship. Whatever you try, I  Hope it works and the next game is better for all players.

I think bids is a healthy part of any axis games. It does not really matter that much who has the advantage with perfect play from each sides, the only thing that matters is which side has the advantage with the skilllevel of the players. No axis game is ever going to be balanced for every skill level. I remember the first few times I ever played the original axis, I thought it was fairly well balanced then.

So, no matter what axis I play, I always include a bid, that way each player can bid based on their opinion on who has the advantage.

Cow has a good house rule where all the South American territories including neutrals and standing armies are under American control to start the game. It’s easy, clean, and gives the Americans a more realistic economy while expanding their Atlantic range when not at war.

@regularkid:

You mean the game thats been proceeding at glacial pace for months now? How do you find time for anything else?!

Classy.  So you’re disappointed my game isn’t ready yet for you to play?  Why else would you care?

Sharing ideas/perspectives = arguing? hmmm.

You’re arguing.  Call it whatever you want, I don’t care.

@Gamerman01:

I think it’s interesting if you think changing fighters in air raids to a 2 is a balance issue - bombing seems to be somewhat equal between axis and allies.

Don’t know what you mean by “equal.” As in both sides can do it? Definitely agree there.

That’s what I thought.  You think the Axis does a lot more SBR than the Allies.  Hasn’t been my experience.
Again you insult me.

Thread is over anyway.  Original post was addressed and finished a long time ago.  Just devolves into yet another discussion about balance and bidding.  So stupid

Thinking about this, I do have time to respond to this  :-D
@regularkid:

Obviously, the game at least purports to be historical. A setup that completely stifles Italy’s engagement in Afirca from the outset is less so.

Really??  Italy starts with lots of units in Africa.  Historically the Allies DOMINATED the Mediterranean, so much so that the Axis couldn’t reinforce their Africa holdings.  Without the bid, it’s horribly ahistorical.  A lot of players dominate huge areas with Italy and Italy becomes a major player.  That’s ridiculous historically speaking.  So admit it - the reason you don’t like the bid to the Med is just because it’s fun to get Italy going and have more dynamic gameplay.  Don’t even try the “historical” card there……  That’s absurd.

Its a question of degree. For example, your endorsement of eliminating the Russian NO for occupying Africa suggests that you share a concern for historically.

Yes I do to some degree, just as you rightly pointed out.

Efforts to improve historically while also improving balance and gameplay = good. Glad you got a laugh from it. ;)

Yes, agree again

Gamerman, as your comment shows: one doesn’t have to be a great historian to be a great G40 player. :) I do congratulate you on your (imminent?) League Championship. And, yes, I’m curious what your variant will entail. Sneak preview?

@Gamerman01:

Historically the Allies DOMINATED the Mediterranean, so much so that the Axis couldn’t reinforce their Africa holdings.

It sounds like you might be talking about historical outcomes rather than historical starting conditions. Its kinda like saying “Historically the Allies DOMINATED the Pacific, so much so that the Axis couldn’t reinforce their Pacific holdings!” Really you could say that about any theater in WW2, couldn’t you?

When we talk about “historicality,” here, we’re not talking about ensuring historical outcomes. We’re talking about creating historical starting conditions, modelling them as closely as possible within the context of a balanced, fun-to-play game, and putting players in roughly the same  situation, presenting them with the same dilemnas, decisions etc. as existed at the start of the war. How a player chooses to respond to those conditions is of course up to him.

@Gamerman01:

Without the bid, it’s horribly ahistorical.  A lot of players dominate huge areas with Italy and Italy becomes a major player.  That’s ridiculous historically speaking.

Actually, I find that in most games where Italy comes to dominate Africa (after a successful Taranto), it is because of substantial support from Germany. Which is perfectly fine, historically speaking. However, the notion that “the Allies DOMINATED the Mediterranean” from the outset, and your implication that the outcome was a forgone conclusion, is just plain wrong.

“Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.”

-Winston Churchill

The First and Second Battles of El Alamein, described by historians as the major turning point in North Africa, occurred in the summer and fall of 1942, respectively. In gameplay terms, thats round 5 or 6 (not round 1, before Italy even has a chance to act. lolz). Notable events that illustrate the point:

• Axis taking Crete in first-ever major air invasion, May 1941.

• Axis beseiging Malta almost to the breaking point, with a planned invasion of the island in Spring 1942. The invasion was called off only because Axis, through rround-the-clock bombing of the Island, managed to secure shipping lines to North Africa, and Rommel campaigned to make Egypt/Suez the top priority.

• Rommel’s German/Italian forces successfully beat back UK forces to within 250 km of Cairo in Summer 1942. Notably, this caused such a panic in British military command, headquartered in Cairo, that the Brits frantically burned confidential papers in anticipation of the entry of Axis troops into the city (“Ash Wednesday”). Hardly what Allied “domination” of the region looks like.

In short, your blanket assertion that allies simply “DOMINATED” the theater glosses over this long and rich history of military successes and setbacks for both sides. And the typical UK bid in the Med often truncates that history, as well–to the great detriment of historicality and gameplay enjoyment, in my opinion.

wow i really like the new and revised NOs, they are simple and make a lot of sense and i will be looking to get other leaguers to go with them. thanks regularkid, adam, et all!

regular kid, i downloaded your attached saved game with the “NOs built in”, but i don’t see anything new or different. can you explain what you mean by them being built in? where do i see them in this saved game?

I like the revised Nos.  Russia is too weak. If I had my way, I’d place at the start a bunch of units in the hinterlands that Russia could pull up.

Also, a MInc in Novosibirsk could help a lot.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ujxn3r0e5sekcVPS8CbkH3KByB1iVrNJimiwA3e_BiI/edit#gid=2

Well, sure, here’s what I have going for my house-ruled game.  Since I last worked on it early this year I have had many different/new ideas though.

Your quote from Churchill proved nothing.  I already said the Italians had a lot of ground units to start the game with in North Africa.  Even with a bid to the Med/North Africa, it’s not a foregone conclusion that Italy will be smashed.  If the UK goes all out to crush Italy early, it comes at a steep price.

I said at the outset I wasn’t interested in an argument, but it seems you are one of those people who can never be wrong.  I do not want to argue with you.  I know a lot more about WWII history than you give me credit for - in fact, I sense a repeated pattern of insults from you to me.  It looks like just insulting me, you have doubled your post count total for this site.

I would be interested in a list of naval battles and dates in the Mediterranean starting from spring of 1940.  The domination I was speaking of was domination of the MED, not North Africa.  I am not aware of any great Italian victories over the Allied fleets in the Mediterranean

@Gamerman01:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ujxn3r0e5sekcVPS8CbkH3KByB1iVrNJimiwA3e_BiI/edit#gid=2

Well, sure, here’s what I have going for my house-ruled game.  Since I last worked on it early this year I have had many different/new ideas though.

Your quote from Churchill proved nothing.  I already said the Italians had a lot of ground units to start the game with in North Africa.  Even with a bid to the Med/North Africa, it’s not a foregone conclusion that Italy will be smashed.  If the UK goes all out to crush Italy early, it comes at a steep price.

I said at the outset I wasn’t interested in an argument, but it seems you are one of those people who can never be wrong.  I do not want to argue with you.  I know a lot more about WWII history than you give me credit for - in fact, I sense a repeated pattern of insults from you to me.  It looks like just insulting me, you have doubled your post count total for this site.

I would be interested in a list of naval battles and dates in the Mediterranean starting from spring of 1940.  The domination I was speaking of was domination of the MED, not North Africa.  I am not aware of any great Italian victories over the Allied fleets in the Mediterranean

Indeed, one of the great “fails” of WWII history was the Italian navy’s inability to do anything.  They were strong on paper but weak in execution.  Interesting history there.  The Italians designed their ships to be sexy, fast and lightly armored which made them sitting ducks to UK air power.  Plus their chronic lack of fuel further hampered them.  They had bad leadership too.  But for German intervention in 1941, the Italians would have been completely ejected from Africa and their country blockaded.  IMO.

They outnumbered the British 10 to 1 close to Egypt and surrendered.  The British could hardly handle all the prisoners.

Gamerman01 and regularkid,

You’ve both had your chance to disrespect each other, and your conversation is no longer relevant to the op’s topic… so lets remain gentlemen and move on.

@axis-dominion:

regular kid, i downloaded your attached saved game with the “NOs built in”, but i don’t see anything new or different. can you explain what you mean by them being built in? where do i see them in this saved game?

Hey! thanks for the compliment, Axis. Adam mentioned that you’re an outstanding player, so your endorsement means a lot.

The saved game file does have the NOs built in–i.e.,when you play it, the game recognizes the Nos and calculates income accordingly (and also your fighters will roll at 2 during air raids). You can confirm that you have the correct version by checking “Game Notes,” which lists the NOs and credits at the top. However, y_ou won’t see the revised objectives listed in your “Objectives Panel,”_; you need a separate “Objectives.Properties” file for that (which I can email you if u would like it), but the NOs will work just fine without it.

After several months of play testing and fine-tuning, the NOs are pretty much in their final form now. However, we’ve been mulling over one possible tweak to  “Mediterranean Shipping Lanes” (which currently gives +3 to UK if Malta, Cyprus, and Crete are allied or pro-allied control. The idea is remove Cyprus from the NO, and require direct allied control (no pro-allied) of Malta and Crete. This NO would also be reciprocal, allowing Axis to achieve it for an additional +3 to Italy.

As always, feedback regarding this and other NOs is welcome, and if you playtest it, please share your experience!

Enjoy! :)

ok i get it now! i will be pushing to play with this mod in my 2016 league games (which starts this November actually). i’m hoping i can convince others to give it a shot, and maybe it’ll catch on. again i think it is a very elegant and well-thought out mod, so i’m super excited about it. and while i don’t know your background and experience with the game, i do know adam is a master at the game, so i can trust it’s been properly play tested. your programming it into the file is much appreciated!

@Karl7:

Indeed, one of the great “fails” of WWII history was the Italian navy’s inability to do anything.  They were strong on paper but weak in execution.  Interesting history there.  The Italians designed their ships to be sexy, fast and lightly armored which made them sitting ducks to UK air power.  Plus their chronic lack of fuel further hampered them.  They had bad leadership too.  But for German intervention in 1941, the Italians would have been completely ejected from Africa and their country blockaded.  IMO.  Â

In WWII, I think basically ALL surface ships were “sitting ducks” to air power.  What, were six battleships “sunk” at Pearl Harbor and the US shot down 27 of 300+ aircraft?  It was turkey shoot.

Even Taranto the UK used 24 WWI (yes World War “one”) biplanes to attack the Italians.  The HMS Illustrious only had 24 or so of them and each carried a single torpedo.  That is all they needed to wipe out the Italian battleships.  In Axis and Allies Global basically to simulate that, the tactical bomber north of Egypt would have to have more fire power (all by itself) than the entire Italian fleet in the Med.  And that was basically the history of what happened.

I mean the Yamato was what the largest battleship ever built and the Japanese brilliant strategy in using the wreckage of what would be our future Starblazers is to “sink it” close to a shallow beach and have a stationary unsinkable set of huge gun turrets.  That was the plan for operation Ten-go, real smart.  It just took a few planes to sink it and kill 1000 men.  WWII basically ended the surface ship as any kind of serious threat in military combat.

Really enjoy your post, but would point out that of course the battleships at Pearl Harbor were sitting ducks.  They were sitting in the docks and it was a surprise attack.  Japan and the USA weren’t even at war yet.

Not saying your points aren’t valid - just that I don’t think Pearl Harbor is a good example

And aren’t aircraft carriers surface ships?  :-)