Switching alliances for balance?

@SeaYa quick point of reference. I play test games. So no version, certainly not out of box, is completely baked. And this is proven by 2nd editions and tournament rules. That is why I have been advocating for a governing body for years. Gotta go.

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

Just yesterday I read a chapter on Madagascar in Chruchill’s series, The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate.

I don’t know if you can credit this victory to the effectiveness of marines.  Chruchill considered the operation a great success because of excellent planning and execution.  Using a far superior force against a weak colony composed of Vichy, African natives, and even Frenchmen who disliked Vichy was almost a sure win from the start.

Yes, marines are effective, but they are basically regular troops extensively trained for certain situations.

Any well-trained handful of men could have done the same job given the same circumstances.

I do not want to discredits the marines, but there is no reason why they should be counted separate or special compared to other infantry divisions.

Correct. While we all know the outcome of Axis forces in USSR, I am just pointing out here that the Just Cause for invading USSR heavily favored the Axis forces. And remember when Hitler gave the orders, the Heer was basically doing nothing but waiting to see if the air and naval power of Germany could contain UK so the army was doing nothing and neither the navy or a large air force was needed to invade USSR so why not? Personally, I would have waited for Stalin to make the first move.

@Flashman:

How motivated to fight for either side were Italians after 1943? I’d guess they all just wanted the war to end. They’d seen the back of Mussolini, but did they want to die for the King?

My preference is for a general rule that all liberated former factory sites can be used to build infantry only (captured factories removed remember). This works fine for France. Some places could be used by either side (Romania, Finland?)

What happens if northern Italy has a mix of German and Italian units; do the Germans “disarm” the Italians?

If Italy becomes Allied does it get bonus infantry to represent returning POWs (I use something similar in 1914 after Russian revolution).

What about Italians on leave in Tokyo?

I always work house rules around historical marks for game play so in order to answer your questions, it works like this:

1: Both sides had military forces loyal to their commanders, Axis Italy did not surrendered until 1945 when it fell right before USSR entered Berlin, while the bulk of it was German defenders, they used Italian forces more of a military auxiliary but they did fight. Allied Italian forces as far as I know, never fought independent from the other allies, I don’t think US and UK trusted them so as far as I know, they were incorporated into US and UK units but they did fight.

2: You bring up a good point about Italian conquered neutral countries so for the sake of my status quo, I say it would join the allies.

3: I never worked any kind of POW rules into the game because I am not sure how to work it but I usually have allied Italy start as a baby fresh power.

4: The only known case of this was Japan did ask any Italian citizen who their loyalty lies and those who said the king, went to jail. While it is very unlike Italy would have any forces in Japanese territory, for the sake of balance, I would treat it no different than if it was in German territory so I’d say it remains Axis.

I like your starting setup because it is flavorful, thoughtful, and sane, but there’s no way it favors the axis. If you are ever near San Francisco, I would bet $500 that I can beat you with this Allied setup (as in, I play the Allies every time) in at least 2 out of 3 low luck games.

After Vichy France is activated, Germany may occupy Southern France at any time. The only downside is that occupation of Southern France after the Armistice results in the disbandment of all Vichy French units on the board. While you do have to leave Southern France alone on the first turn, the income from that territory is often convoy-blockaded by the 93 sz fleet when it is taken on Germany’s first turn. So really the cost of Vichy France, in that regard, is negligible.

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.