GW36 Exploit - The Jeanne d'Arc Exploit -

So I tried to address a similar problem with the Monroe Doctrine. My group and I still have not gotten Monroe reaction by US down to 100% because the rule designer clearly didn’t think or test this shit out enough. (not shocked based on responses).

Non allies attack Americas: I’ve been told that the US doesn’t actually DoW by definitions of the words but take military action while at peace, think of it as a proxy war but both sides are directly involve like the Suez Crisis in real life. US may go down and engage and remove any hostile nations in the Americas and then they end up annexing the territories they took since they are active by rules and thus US was able to gain income while still being at peace.

France or Commonwealth (or any other official Allies): I put in the house rule that they cannot attack the Americas because the game doesn’t allow nations inside Alliances to fight each other so unless Monroe is the only situation where US will fight French and Commonwealth troops, I tell my group they simply do not wish to piss off the US and thus cannot attack the Americas.

@Caesar-Seriona You’re probably right haha. But I feel like there’s no way the designers meant for that to trigger war. I won’t inundate with yet another “official” clarification question, as I feel I do that a lot already, but I’m with you, I’d play that Lithuania doesn’t trigger that ability!

@Whitshadw:

Once Italy is at war I do tend to Lend Lease what ever I can to them. This further aids them in power and projection as well it secures the southern approach. Just a thought if you wanna try it out.

Yeah! As Germany I also Lend-Lease every turn if I can spare it, I try buff up the Riga Marina via Lend Lease overland, a German Submarine since they are so cheap.

Feel free to ignore my previous post. The move was predicated on the alignment of the balkan minors however their alignment is based on the taking of Paris only. The speed that they may be aligned increases if at war with USSR.

@Gargantua:

@Tigerman77:

Have you played and got Japans income over $100?  In our games and most games I’ve heard about the Allies win or are in a position to win around turn 12-13.

On average, America can’t declare war until the end of it’s round 4, and can do nothing, until round 5.

USA - R1  = 13 (average roll) + 5 for fall of france = 18
USA - R2 = 13 (average roll) + 30 for Japanese attack on DEI/UK  = 61
USA - R3 = 13 (average roll) = 74
USA - R4 = 13 (average roll) = Over 80, Declares war on Japan
USA - R5 = Usa can actually attack Japan.

So, Japan has from J1 to J5 to get to 100 IPCs.

Starts at 41 IPCs  +

+5 for DEI
+5 for Singapore
+5 for Calcutta OR Sydney  (you will probably lose 1 by J5)
+3 Siam
+2 Singapore
+3 Saigon
+1 French Indo China
+2 Hong-Kong
+8 (on average) From Chinese Territories, could be more if China is defeated
+16 from Dutch east indies territories
+1 from Rabul
+1 from New Guinea
+1 from Brunei
+3 from either Calcutta or Sydney
+1 from Bangeledesh or Queensland
+2 from Phillipines (Might as well attack this on J5)

=100 IPC’s

That’s without an excursion into Russia, which is common, usually results in +5 or +6.

Japan gets to 90-100+ every game without having to put in too much effort, and before the USA can attack it.

I would love for you to post a turn by turn break down of a game you play. You seem to have very different experience than other people. I am of course not saying you are doing anything wrong. I’m just thinking a turn by turn break down might either A) point out things other people aren’t trying and bring your issues to light for everyone else or B) find mistakes you are making so they can be corrected to make for a better playing experience for yourself and everyone else.

Hi, Ben,

Yeah, Wikipedia plays a big part in my research.  But I stumble across other websites as I’m hunting for things also.  Sometimes I find declassified official documents from the time.  I also use other games in my collection, like War in Flames and Battlewagon, where the designers did the research, and came to their own conclusions about how to fudge things.  I used to be in Military Intelligence when I was active duty army.  I spent six years at NSA (“In God we trust.  All others we monitor”)  :wink:  So I developed the habit of confirming intelligence from multiple sources whenever possible.  I’m still in the National Guard, actually.  But I switched my MOS to MP so I didn’t have to drive so far for drills.

Midnight,

Good job on the research.  Every time I start to do it for land forces, I get distracted by all the different sources, and how they use different methods for listing things.  Yeah, with the way A&A works, where the infantry of one country is equal to the infantry of every other country (unless you are using the elite units in Global ’39), then you have to reflect differences in troop and equipment quality by using different ratios to represent one unit.

One idea I’ve toyed with is using the same ratio for everyone’s infantry, (like 1 for every three divisions) but then reflecting the differences in firepower by assigning different ratios for artillery.  For instance, at the start maybe Germany gets an artillery unit for every 2 infantry, and France gets one for every 5 infantry, or something along those lines.  The problem there, of course, is that the French (and Russians) really really liked artillery, and it made up a bigger percentage of their overall forces.  So it would not be entirely satisfying from a historical perspective.  For the same reasons, I am reluctant to just start them off with a bunch of SS units.  Although I suppose I could just not call them SS units.  But I’d know.  I’D KNOW, and it would bug me  :-D

Very nice!!!

Any update on this?