Posts made by Alfalfa29

@Flashman:

I favour one round only for air and naval combat.

With planes, up the combat value of aircraft built on subsequent turns:

Starting aircraft* = 1
Built turn 1 = 2
Built turn 2 = 3
Built turn 3+ = 4

You can mark the planes with wing stripes.

• Give each power an extra starting plane in its capital; extra F in Lorraine, extra G in Munich.

Number of surviving aircraft greater than the enemy after 1 round of combat = the number of artillery you may boost. No surviving enemy and you get to boost all artillery.

Aircraft get to attack ground targets at combat value only if there is no air combat.

This is almost precisely what I was thinking! My only suggestion would be to have 2 turn intervals for the damage increase, so starting planes and those buillt on turn 1 = 1
Those built turns 2-3 = 2
Built turns 4-5 = 3
Built turn 6+ = 4.

This would encourage players to buy planes early, rather than waiting just a turn or two and have their investment be worth triple.

Starlight sniper-
Im liking this idea more and more; you could even save on transports as US by landing them on ireland and flying them to Picardy the next turn to rendevous with a small force of infantry landed there. And if america landed a few infantry across europe, they could then create a highly mobile force which could fly about the continent shoring up weak points in the allied lines. A growing American fighter force flying between Lorraine, Belgium, Venice, Albania, perhaps even Russia or the MI would either gain instant Allied air superiority across the board (blunting massed Axis artillery attacks) or force the Axis to invest heavily in aircraft.

oztea-

i appreciate the more concise version of my suggested NO’s, and they seem historically sound. But wouldn’t this prove to be a bit overpowered? I mean, the UK as a whole receives 10 IPC’s just for domination of 4 strategic points. I dont think the UK needs that much of an economic boost in comparison to the other nations, do they?

These ideas for Spains involvement are sound, (although im not sure they should be presumed to be part of italy) and can easily be applied to other states as well. Lets see what neutrals there are. . .

Turkey: wouldnt be easily swayed, but if the USSR had fallen and germany had put them under enough pressure, they may have sided with the axis.

Latin America: All declared war just before the end. To make it simple: become pro-allied once paris and moscow both under allied control. Or once allies have 10 europe VC’s

Mongolia: taken care of with border pact

Sweden: loosely supportive of Germany with iron ore exports, but even when surrounded by german territory did not give in , so impractical to include rule.

Saudi Arabia: started out leaning towards axis, but eventually declared war on germany, and other arab states (yemen, oman, UAE) had ties to britain. not sure where theyd go. . .

Correct and add to this as needed, but I dont see the point of putting those countries on the board and not using them.

@knp7765:

Granted, I guess a nation could keep buying transports and paratroops over several rounds resulting in one country having a whole bunch of paratroops. However, that would probably be an unwise strategy for any of the nations to buy paratroops and transports only. No tanks for Germany? No combat aircraft for UK? No warships for US or Japan?
I think the other nations would welcome such a development. “Oh, you have a bunch of paratroops and transport planes? Good! Now I’m going to invade you with my stack of tanks and mechs.”

This made me laugh!

I think paratroopers are definitely elite divisions - look at the falschirmjaegers - hence the increased attack capacity. However, i agree with knp7765 that the number should not be restricted. If any nation took the extra time and resources (represented by 1 extra IPC of cost) to train and equip all their combat troops as such, they could definitely do so and make an ‘elite army’. Historically, the Wermacht started out as a highly disciplined, trained, and motivated force as a whole that swept up inferior armies, because they knew they couldnt match the rest of Europe man-for-man. As Germany became short on time and resources, however, they could no longer train their men so well, and the overall quality decreased drastically. Of course, one ‘infantry’ for Russia may include twice as many men as a german ‘infantry’, but have half as much quality, so be worth the same; which is why all german units do not start out as ‘elite units’.

Just my 2 cents.

I think this would be a good addition; not overused, but still having a niche of useful curcumstances and adding dome flavor. What I dont like is that they suffer AA fire in the same round as aircraft; if they were a common rule they may be used just to protect planes.

The USSR and japan did have paratroopers, used in teh Ukraine and the taking of the DEI, respectively. They were used by all nations as elite infantry, as well tho, so if tokens must be spent, these infantry should attack at +1 in the first round of combat of any battle.

@CWO:

Just to toss an extra factor into this discussion, one should remember that (in real life) deploying a defensive minefield around a port isn’t consequence-free for the defender.  Such minefields help protect the port from penetration by enemy ships, but they also impair the port’s capacity to handle friendly ships because they have to waste time picking their way through the minefields, something which requires good minefield charts, slow speeds and careful navigation by the harbour pilots.

You are completely right about this, but as it is ports have no restrictions on use. A naval base could service 100 carriers as easily as a single submarine. Unless youre suggesting that friendly ships should roll for mines, I am not sure that this is practical. Perhaps the conversion of a peacetime harbor to a mine-infested, artillery-ridden military base should come with a restiction on the number of ships that can use its facilities a turn. Maybe 8? That begs the inclusion of a smaller piece (port? harbor?) that has the same capabilities of the naval base, but on a smaller scale, and with less cost.

1Bean432-

That is a really interesting idea!

The Soviet Union could possibly upgrade an infantry to a tank if they win a battle and destroyed a german tank. Then again thats more like a national advantage.

The problem is that military vehicles, divisions, and ships dont magically appear just because some goal was met. IPC’s can be said to represent the resource, propoganda, manpower, or logistical advantages that were acheived.

This, like my earlier ideas, have potential if used properly. Thanks for the input!

This is very similar to my strategy for the french. However, I have used a few more extensive can openers.

Once, the allies were on the offensive in Europe but were still a ways from winning. I had 2 North African infantry in in Morocco which I loaded onto a brit transport. Then I loaded the two infantry from England onto another brit tranny. After these ships (with a CV and other escorts, mainly american) sailed into SZ 112, the next french turn the mediterranean ships sailed into this SZ, the infantry unloaded into denmark, and the fig flew a sorty overhead. So i had 4 infantry, a fighter, and a cruiser bombardment attacking denmark, where the Germans had only 2 or 3 units left over from their recapture of the territory. This successful invasion was easily the most important thing I have ever seen the French do.
I was so proud of them! :)

I, too, prefer a KJF strategy, but only to a certain extent. I buy mostly subs and aircraft (and some CV’s to hold them) as US and ANZAC to harass the japanese. rather than stacking at pearl, I will send my starting ships to Queensland and establish a bastion there, and then work with the Australians to pick off one of the Japanese Carrier groups, hopefully as it is solidifying South East asia. I will use my air to help ANZAC secure the South Pacific, and my subs to do some convoy damage once their main fleet is distracted up north, when i finally combine my reinforced fleet at the carolines. In Europe my priority is to gain naval dominance to allow the UK to ship troops across the channel and to contest the med. The Balkans, undefended 9 times out of 10 - are an excellent and oft-overlooked foothold into Europe. A factory in Greece will outflank the German east front and bite at central Europe. Ideally, by mid game the philipinnes will be American and the IJN shattered, at which point the US will shift its focus to europe to support its strategic air campaign over France with boots on the ground. The Japanese may still be strong in Asia (alternately, allied dominance of the Pacific may not be so complete), but the ANZAC will be strong enough to finish the strangulation of Japan with the remnants of the USN and rejuvenate the Asian allies.
I advise you to take this with a grain of salt, however, as I am relatively young and inexperianced at G 40.

I am not a big proponent of Taranto, as I appreciate neither the vacuum it creates nor the RAF casualties I must sustain. However, if the germans haven’t even lent a single fighter to support the italians, I can rarely resist. Likelyhood of Sealion has little effect on my decision, as I generally must withdraw the shattered royal navy to canada or the med for the first few turns either way, until i can reinforce it. Mostly I just do it when i dont feel like having fun with a combined british fleet in the indian.

knp7765,
I see what you mean about the convoys, but what do you consider as blocked? Say that same convoy - before it even reached Iceland, in SZ 117 - runs into a wolf pack. Should it be able to simply ‘go around’ and take a different route - maybe through SZ’s 116 and 122 - and require a solid strip of hostile sea zones to prevent its passage, or does that one sea zone count to sink the convoy. This only works well in such choke points as the Norwegian or Barents Sea’s. I figure the convoy  has a varying route on the open ocean, but must have the waters around its origin, check-in points, and destination clear.

Also, thanks for the point about Argentina. This is not strictly historically accurate, but, by my own logic, could have occurred. Maybe it, like Spain, could say to become pro-Axis if certain conditions are met - essentially bandwagoning, like most of South America did historically for the Allies. Its true the axis would not face complete opposition in South America; look at the little picnic the Graf Spee had in Uruguay. In looking for a more dynamic game, that rewards players not just for doing what their historical counterparts did, I would support an aligned Argentina.

I, too, think this has some definite potential, but may not be necessary.
I presume we are talking about 1940, due to the SBR’s. I think adding mines into 1940 is an excellent suggestion, but prefer the 1914 method. Many merchantmen were sunk (in both wars) by mines (700 million tons of japanese shipping), and a few warships as well. Perhaps every ship supporting an amphibious assault from a mined sea zone must suffer them, and also any transport passing through the sea zone. This last may be OP, however.

As for coastal guns, they were installed in many locations along the coasts; sometimes artillery on atolls would target surface vessels. I suggest allowing artillery in any coastal territory to act as coastal guns. If an amphibious assault is launched on it, the artillery and bombarding warships have a preliminary duel, with the artillery each firing at two or less, and ships also with normal attack values. Warship hits can only be applied to these coastal artillery, and coastal gun hits are determined by attacker, but bombarding craft are first. If no offshore bombardment occurs, coastal guns may (for the first turn only, afterwards participate in combat as normal) fire against the attacking ground troops in the preliminary phase, with hits removed immediatly. if no coastal guns are present, offshore bombardment proceeds as usual. I do not think this is overpowered. More similar to your idea, I suppose you could also allow an operational naval base in the territory under attack to allow these guns to defend at 3 for the first round, but I am not sure about this.

And I do think it would add to the game; more interaction between land and naval units is always good! (ever had a huge armada floating around in the simpler editions, absolutely useless against the german tank stank growing in Eurasia!) :)

Thanks everyone, I think you were accurate in your analysis. I probably got a little carried away by suggesting bonuses for such a plethora of territories, but keep in mind that I was intending this to be for the minority of players (like me) who want more a more detailed set of objectives that include even the seemingly insignificant aspects, such as American supply lines to Malta and the Soviet Far East and strategic perimeters in the Pacific and colonial areas being established.

As far as South America, I think it would have been huge for the Axis to establish bastions in the Western Hemisphere - South America being the easiest target. This would be a major, tangible accomplishment that proves their growing power and projection. And as you said, Narvik, these territories are not ravaged by war, and still hold many resources that could strengthen and fuel the industrial machine. Also, I see no reason to continue with the pattern of including NO’s that reflect the historiacal accomplishments. Although these are crucial, there are other objectives that could have been just as beneficial if the power in question had chosen that route, or gotten that far.

And although I acknowledge the concern about too many options, I feel that this comes down to lack of player focus. Real wars have many options, but it is up to the participants to pick one and stick to it.

From what I am hearing, all of these have merit, I just went about it in the wrong way. I could easily trim down the supply routes to the most crucial. The objectives then should be resource-rich territories and outstanding strategic goals, rather than victory cities and empire maintenance.

To knp7765, I intended this to include the territories and the adjacent sea zones, but not others, so your example sea zones 106, 123, and 127 need be clear but no others. This may not be ideal, however. Thanks for clarifying.

I know many of you on these boards wish to simplify the NO system fro Global 40, but I love them and would actually like even more of them in play. As some strategic objectives have rewards dangling over them, it makes sense that the rest are. Some might be worth only a few IPC’s, but would be cool to include. Examples:

+3 Germany for Romania (ploesti)
+1 IPC Japan AND US for every two pacific islands (not DEI) held
+5 Japan for controlling all of China
+3 IPC France for each black (orig german) territory held
+3 UK for all Africa under allied control
+3 USSR for Timguska and Novgorod (Ore deposits/industrial)
+1 IPC ALL AXIS Powers for each South American territory (unexploited resources/propoganda)
+5 IPC Germany for England

These could also include supply lines, mostly between Allies to US (if power or ally control all territories, –-> denotes traceable path of friendly territory):

+2 ANZAC: NZ, Fiji, Hawaii, WUS
+2 USSR: Persia -----> Stalingrad
+2 USSR: Karelia OR Archangel, Nenetsia, Iceland, New Brunswick/NFL
+2 USSR: Alaska, Aleutians, SFE ------> Moscow
+2 UK: FWA, South A, Madagascar, Italian Somaliland
+2 UK: New Bruns/NFL, Scotland, Ireland, Gibraltar, Malta
+3 China for current Burma Road territories (replacing 6 IPC)
+2 China: Shensi -----> Moscow OR Stalingrad
+2 China: Philippines, Kwangtung OR Kiangsu -----> Yunnan
+2 Japan (replacing current DEI bonus): Java, Celebes, Philippines, Guam(?)
+2 Japan: Sumatra, Borneo, Formosa, Okinawa
+2 Japan (4/5): Malaya, Siam, Hainan, Carolines, Iwo Jima
+2 US: Central America, CUS, Brazil, Morocco, Sicily OR Tunisia, Solomon Islands

Any other ideas welcome!

Other - Gustavus Adolphus. I think dying definitely counts as losing, and he was undoubtedly a military genius, using tactics as revolutionary for that time period as blitzkrieg or ‘Total War’ were for theirs.

Leningrad.

From a morale standpoint for both nations, it was the next biggest after Moscow. Due to its proximity and the option of flanking through Finland, it would have been the easiest to take. From there, other Lend-Lease insertion points could be cut off or captured.
Also, this would allow a unified front. If (as they did) the germans drove all the way out to Stalingrad, that army group is a major proruption from the main front line, which is easily cut off. From Leningrad, the entire army is mutually supporting and can advance together on moscow.

What if the Germans waged a war only against the Soviet Union, perhaps by baiting the aggressive Russians into initiating the combat to avoid British/French intervention? If victorious, they would solidly establish themselves as the dominant power in all of the Eurasian continent, and in an exceptional position for a later war.

You could make one! :-D Thats what I do!

But sorry, I only know about the 1942 set up.

This is an interesting idea, and accurate, but IMHO is probably too tactical a decision to affect the global situation. In a turn that represents 182 days, and a ‘bomber’ unit that likely represents several hundred planes, I am not sure that the time of day would be that crucial. Following that logic, I could tell my battleships what formation to sail into battle in, or unleash my Panzers into France a day earlier and 10 miles south of when they were expected.

I am behind you in principle and wish that more detail could be included, but feel that either all systems of the game should be adapted for tactical accuracy, or none of them.

very true.

As A&A makes no rule for collapsed defenses,  an atomic bomb drop, under any other conditions, against an enemy of any potency, would still suffer teh same flak and interceptor attacks as any other strategic bombing.

I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.

Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).

The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL  :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.