Posts made by 03321

Really, 15 VCs?  I thought it would be less…that doesn’t even seem to make VCs any more important than they were in Revised (9-10 VC game).  You still almost have to take a capital, at which point the winner becomes obvious regardless of VCs, or else take every city BUT enemy capitals.

Cities under the country that controls them in '41. Capitals in bold. :-P

Germany
Berlin
Paris
Warsaw

USSR
Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad

Japan
Tokyo
Shanghai

UK
London
Ottawa
Calcutta
Hong Kong
Sydney

Italy
Rome

USA
Washington
San Francisco
Manila
Honolulu

edited - replaced LA with San Fran

Germany, Russia, Japan, UK, Italy, US in '41.  '42 is the same with Japan and Germany flip-flopped.

Yeah, didn’t see that thread was moved back until after I posted, but I thought I had seen mention of a UK bonus for controlling sea zones somewhere other than Lynxes’ post, such as one of the people that posted after seeing the game at Gen Con, I suppose I was mistaken though.

I remember mention of a UK objective involving “controlling” certain sea zones.

Maybe it’s one allied ship in each sz 10, 9, 1, and 2?  Or sea zones 10, 9, and 8?  Ooooh Kriiiiieghund.

@squirecam:

And I would prefer to redeploy the UKR fighter in AAR. But it does not get moved.

Setup is setup, and it should not be changed.

You can bid inf to Ukraine, though, making it dumb for Russia to attack.  That changes the setup.

Despite that comment I don’t think tinkering with the China ftr’s initial placement needs to be done, especially not right now.  It just seems like a unit that will be really desirable to take out in the 1st round…the same way it was in Revised, and if it’s not killed on J1, could be a pain for Japan.

Well, think of this…Germany’s complex is hit for 5 damage.  Assume that they can produce all the units they want without restraints due to the 5 production damage.  Now, with the 5 IPCs you can either (for simplicity) buy a tank or pay off the damage.  You buy the tank.  If you are hit for 5 damage again next turn, you now decide to payoff all 10 damage for 10 IPCs.  You now have all the damage paid off, and bought a tank in the 1st of the 2 rounds.

If you instead chose to pay off the 5 damage in the 1st round, you only have to pay off 5 damage in the second round.  And because you have 5 more IPCs to spend in the 2nd round than you did in the first example (where you paid off all 10 in your 2nd round), you can buy a tank.  In this example, you have also paid off all the damage, but bought a tank in the 2nd of the 2 rounds.

To me, the advantage is clearly in the 1st option, deferring the payment as long as possible.  In the first example, the tank can be 2 spaces farther on its way to battle than in the second example.  Aside from that the end result is the same, all the damage was paid off.  This works the same way even in circumstances with large amounts of bombing damage.

@Imperious:

OK another question:

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs 6

so what is her total?

“Germany’s IC in Germany takes 8 damage” would be better wording.  To answer your question: Germany has 29 IPCs.

Germany gets shanked for 8 IPC

her total is 35

she repairs all 8

so what is her total?

27 IPCs

@Flying:

With CAP you won’t be bombing Germany if you are bringing 2 fighters and 1 bomber vs 2 fighters and AA gun, that’s suicide. CAP is worst rule out there. I consider the AA gun as AA gun + fighters on patrol. 1/6 chance to shoot down a plane is quite high already.

Make 1 round of dogfighting (all fighters hit on a 1 or hit on a 1-2) followed by 1 round of AA vs. surviving bombers.  Would be better than fighters not attacking at all.

Or make any fighter in the territory raise one AA fire’s punch by 1 on a one-to-one basis like artillery supporting inf.

Bombing in the game is substantially more destructive than it was realistically, so defense also needs to be more powerful.  The “1/6 chance to kill a bomber is high” argument doesn’t really work.

@squirecam:

Techs, therefore, should be equally good. (or, therefore, equally bad). But more than, that, they should provide a specific benefit that is NOT overpowering. (Nor overpowered in the hands of a specific country).

Each tech should be useful to most if not all players, while not overpowered.  But they don’t have to be equally good, especially when they are randomly rolled for.  I tend to think that the US will not have heavy bombers very often because of the hopeful need for a pacific navy combined with the randomness of obtaining it.

@squirecam:

As to the point about Bombers being effective even w/o being HB, this too is a concern. Again, LHTR limited bombing damage by 1 country. Now, its back to USA being able to take Germany out by 20 every turn.

And, BTW, even through ALL of the bombing the allies did, Germany was STILL able to manufacture tanks, planes, munitions etc. It is not historically accurate (not to mention fun) for one person to bomb the other player’s IPC into submission. You cannot take away all of the production of a WHOLE COUNTRY just by bombing. It doesnt work that way.

Germany has the option of only restoring 15 of the 20 damage done, and producing 5 units that turn, or other such combinations, meaning successive bombing runs won’t be doing 20 IPCs-worth of damage each turn.  If Germany wants to buy fighters (part of your historical example) they need even less production capacity.

@squirecam:

Its also dumb that 6 fighters would stand by and let the IPC be bombed without scrambling and attempting to shoot down the bombers. But because there is no CAP, this situation is again facing us….

I agree with this.

Hopefully the ability for US to buy bombers even more cheaply will be balanced by the supposed need to not neglect the pacific, where ships + fighters should be more important than bombers since they protect the transports US will need to reclaim islands.  It does seem that UK can buy a bomber every turn or 2 and use them either as support for ground invading Europe or SBRs, though.  @12 IPCs bombers offer more offensive punch/cost than fighters now.

But yes, the same goes for Axis, as they can buy bombers also.  If UK puts a complex in India a Japanese bomber or 2 can force the UK to spend 6 IPCs to get back to normal production rather than the 3 IPCs UK would have lost before.  But since Germany needs a lot of ground units to deal with Russia and Japan needs a lot of ground units to deal with China and a possible India 'plex, plus navy to deal with the Pacific, it seems to me that lower costing bombers offers more to Allies than Axis.  And as far as Japan bombing Russia, they first need to push deep into China and have a secure enough position to stage bombers.  It seems they’ll be more worried with other efforts than bombing Russia.

silly you, cruiser can’t reach hawaii, unless you meant DD from the other island

corrected from next post :-D

@Imperious:

Given that the Italian fleet is still in its 1941 start position, and North Africa looks exactly like it does in the 1941 start position, I do not think that is the 1942 scenario at all.  If it is 1942, then the start for Italy and Germany in North Africa is identical to 1941.

The Italian fleet basically stayed in port the entire war aside from a few sorties, so it stands to reason that its the same from 41 to 42.

Also, in the spring of 41 and the spring of 42, the african campaign was essentially at the same point. The battles went back and forth until August 42 when than ended.

Pretty much what I was thinking.
@Imperious:

The German forces are engaged in more than a few Soviet territories, so it assumes at least a turn or so of battles.

It could be the other scenario, but i see alot of German ships and in 1 year thats not justified based on what Germany produced.

Germany’s surrounding Leningrad and pushing on Stalingrad and Moscow, were they not that far in mid-1942?  I seem to be less a history buff than most around here : /.  But again, it looks pretty much like the Revised set up as far as ownership/boundaries.

As far as the navy, I don’t see many more ships for Germany?  As I said, I would disregard that one down by Brazil as just sitting there and not part of the game.  Aside from that I can only really see 2 ships south of UK (same 2 subs as 1941 I think), the Baltic fleet (looks same as 1941 to me, maybe one more sub), and 2 ships by Gibraltar (trans+DD?).  That’s only an addition of one destroyer and one sub.  It’s kind of fuzzy up there and ground troops are in the way so I could be wrong.

And I’m not trying to force the belief that this has to be the 1942 setup.  I just seem to be more open to that possibility than you guys.

@Imperious:

yes but now i am taking Hawaii by invasion, and also of these E USA planes only the bomber can participate because remember the map has central USA. So thats Carrier, 1 fighter, 2 bombers against the new fleet consisting of:

His fighter from EUS can land on the carrier, his fighters from WUS and sz 44 can both land back in WUS.

Other than that it looks decent, but I really don’t think I like taking Hawaii and planting your fleet there.  Unless I’m looking at the movement wrong.  I would probably take E Indies + Borneo with the Caroline inf instead.

I think I see one Russian fighter up in Leningrad, little hard to tell but it looks like a fighter.

I’m not sure you understand my point.  I think that pic COULD POSSIBLY be the 1942 setup.  Just trash the German units in the Atlantic as well as the giant British tank (carrier) in Trans-Jordan.  And now that I look, the US bomber in UK.  Yes, that’s a lot of stuff in places it shouldn’t be if it is actually the setup.  Maybe they did it on purpose in anticipation of picture thieves.  I dunno.  But the pacific looks a good deal like Revised setup.  Submarine off Solomons, carrier+fighter+destroyer off Caroline, battleship+trans off Japan, battlehips+2fighters+carrier off East Indies, UK trans/carrier/fighter/destroyer off India, Hawaiian navy looks similar, just 1 DD instead of 1 sub.  Pretty much all the same, and maybe that’s just to throw any picture takers off as well.  Heck, for all we know the pics we’ve been looking at for 1941 aren’t the actual setup either.  But yes, it’s cool to speculate at the actual setup and possible strats, and for that this pic gets a bit fuzzy up in the european area, difficult to tell what spots each unit is in.  All I’m saying is it doesn’t look too far off a possible setup if you exclude certain pieces that seem completely out of place anyway.  And for being in the middle of a game…lots of pieces are in places that would have been very awkward moves by players.  And the Russian sub is still up by Archangel! :P  I dunno, maybe it is maybe it isn’t, seems possible to me, though.  If it is, Russia has a bomber, zomg!

@Imperious:

If its 2 transports 3 men and 1 dd, ill bring it all to Hawaii and invade with 2 CV and 2 fighters, 1 on Hawaii, and 4th fighter on west coast dd/transport.

USA loses 5 IPC and has no counter attack against Japanese carrier fleet.

You might be forgetting air from EUS, which can now reach your navy if you station it at Hawaii.  He can bring 2 bombers, 3 fighters, 1 carrier, 2 DD vs. your (assuming you kill his BB and only lose DD and don’t lose your fighter to west coast) 2 carriers, 4 fighters.  A very favorable fight for him that gets rid of half your transports and most of your carriers/fighters.

How do you know those German bombers are in play?  I certainly don’t think the tank in Brazil is in play…and the artillery in one of the neutral SAmerican spots can’t be in play.  I’d think that ship down by Brazil isn’t in play either.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/362810

that pic?  It looks plausible for the 1942 setup if you just knock off the German stuff in SAmerica and the bombers in the atlantic.

sz 8 sub + ~4 fighters takes out sz 13 battleship, sz 14 trans picks up 1 inf + 1 tank or art, drops off in egypt from sz 15 with battleship (can send 1 air there to make sure you don’t lose anything), egypt gets 1-2 air + the 2 inf and 2 art/arm.