Stop the presses: Glemax has Axis and Allies revised… finally!

@Krieghund:

It’s true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren’t, they’d dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can’t afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can’t.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany’s so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there’s no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn’t sound like a very fun game, does it?

The strategy you’re describing sounds perfectly viable to me.

He leaves minimal men in W.Europe and S. Europe because he has overwhelming force the next turn to get it back so he realisticly don’t lose money. Me and my bro tried to land UK in Western E/ than fly 6 fighters(U.S) and some of their ground units to stop Germany from retaking it.

Then I feel it is quite feasible to beat your uncle if all he does is build mainly tanks + 1 fighter here and there. What you’re going to want to do is take out his navy and take Norway with the UK on the first round, provided he doesn’t have his fighters within range to kill your navy. After Norway is taken, just keep landing as much as you can in W. Europe. This will take the pressure off of Russia in a jiffy. He can’t use his 8 tanks per turn both to take W. Europe back as well as invade Russia. At first the landings may seem ineffectual since it’s just the UK, but after a few turns the landings grow substantial because of the US, and it should no longer be economical for him to retake W. Europe. After that, S. Europe falls, and things collapse for the Germans.

If you can’t land in W. Europe, then just take it slow and mass troops in Karelia to protect the Russian’s northern flank until the US comes. A joint defense of Russia and UK together should be more than enough to stop the Germans from taking Moscow. Once you’re ready then march towards Germany with masses of troops.

TripleA is King. :mrgreen:

http://maddlinks.com/triplea/
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=44492&package_id=119711&release_id=397012

http://www.java.com/en/

http://www.mirc.com/

Get it from the downloads section, grab java for free, grab mIRC for free, join the TripleA channel and youre set for hours of ana online goodness.

Caspian Sub has posted Policy Paper #14.  It’s about Allied responses to German navy purchases.

It’s in the files section.

Enjoy:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

@3d6:

In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

I think the 3 in defense for infantry is better than your idea. Why do you think the opposite?

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!

I think it is a perfect match to let the Germans have Jagd Panzers (Tank Destroyers) to counter the Russian Assault Gun advantage, not vice versa since now the Russian player control the game! When I say “control the game”, I mean that the Russian player can choose when and were the German Jagd Panzer advantage will come in to play! The attacker always has the initiative! But at the same time the German player may safe his advance against counter-attacks on his way into Russia!
:wink: