Alternate 1941 Set-Up

@cloud7707 I dig this. I like how you added it on the real rulebook, that makes it so legit. I definitely want to try it out, but gosh darn it Russia deserves that bomber!

In your games, do the Allies still generally do KGF?

taamvan,

Excellent analysis on the differences between G40/G42 vs Oztea’s 41. I think in some ways, the 41 setup has “almost” fully realized the potential of the Global board. I like how it initially looks. It makes think of coming into a high level situation brief on in-progress ops. I imagine a table top board would seem very busy at first (I’ve only seen it on triplea, even there it’s cluttered). But like all axis and allies board games, they clean up real quick along the frontiers. Â

I did notice how this setup forces the Axis to stick to realistic solid objectives; but dangles out some “mirages” like Cairo.  I’m of the opposite opinion. I think I’d even evacuate the german tank and 1 infantry on turn 1. Rarely I see people really invest in Cairo and going for the middle east, but on the forums some people talk about it. I’m never good at that.

I don’t know which way the game leans axis or allies. I’ll have to play it out a few more times before I’ll have a definite opinion. Do you remember which sides won at your club? Regardless, it seems very balanced and the US could get real aggressive anywhere it wants immediately. The US does start out with an Army, but Germany has a sizeable European garrison for defense and a nice navy in the Baltic for reinforcing Finland. Russia starts with a destroyer/sub combo in the artic, so they have a chance to kill a german sub in sz 125 and can therefore almost be guaranteed to collect their 5 IPC bonus for a few turns. Also, over time, the allies gain a few more IPCs as the French territories get occupied by allies. Russia might be tempted to stack it’s much larger mobile army at Amur on round 2, but I think it better to move it to Europe.

I had to rewrite it.  Oh well, I made it more brief.

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

18 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 8  Allied starts with 11

2/4 Japan - Tokyo
1/1 Kiangsu - Shanghai
1/1 Iwo Jima
1/2 Okinawa
1/1 Caroline Islands
2/1 Korea & Manchuria
2/2 India - Calcutta
2/2 Philippines - Manila
3/2 Western US - San Francisco
1/1 Kwangtung - Hong Kong
2/2 New South Wales - Sydney
2/1 Hawaiian Islands - Honolulu
1/0 Aluetain Islands
1/1 Solomon Islands
1/1 Dutch NG & New Guinea
1/1 Marshall & Gilbert Islands
1/1 Java
1/0 No Chinese units
1/0 No UK controlled ports
0/1 No JA units outside Jpn, Ch, & Kor

I found a post which say that SBR AAA kill ratio was 10% max:

What Larry says have flaws, and contradict to to base mechanic.

It should be like this:

1. Attacking fighter escorts roll dice, each 1 is hit, and defender move casualties to casualty zone.

2. Defending AA-gun roll dice, each 1 is hit, and then defending fighters roll dice, 2 or less is hit. Attacker choose his casualties.

3. Surviving bombers roll SBR dice against factories.

In real world, the attacking airfleet would first face the intercepting fighters, and then the escort fighters would do dog-fight. Later, the bombers would face AA-fire at the target. This AA-fire killed historically less than 10 % of the aircrafts. Using Larrys rule where AA-guns target bombers, you could be lucky and roll two 1’s and kill both attacking bombers, and get an unhistoric result of thousands bombers killed and no harm to the factories. Since its an abstract game, let the attacker pick a fighter as casualty to represent a % loss, and still have bombers survive to SBR.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1706&start=8
He is talking about an older version of SBR (AA50 Anniversary).

@lnmajor:

Advanced Fighter Design. Great Idea in air combat, but your making a fighter stronger than your med. bomber in ground attack and as strong as a regular bomber in ground attack. Fighters should not have the same ability to inflict damage to ground and naval targets as a strat bomber or tac bomber, IMO

yep. make them 3-4-5-14 w/ the special escort/intercept. or 3-4-4-12.

Thanks!

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?