Posts made by almashir

I’m not sure if this should go in the House Rules topic, or if that would confuse people who are not familiar with Global '39.  I’ll move it if a moderator tells me to do so.

Anyway, I’ve used some of these in other versions of the game, and they’ve worked fairly well.  I want to try them out with Global '39, but I want to make sure I’ve made appropriate modifications.  So if anyone sees any game breakers here, please let me know.

Modified Turn Sequence

Certain powers take their turns at the same time, and can combine their attacks and have their units ride on each others’ transports and air transports.  If two or more Allied/Axis powers participate in an attack on an enemy territory at the same time and capture it, they must decide among themselves which power gains control of the territory.  If they cannot agree, the player from whom the territory was captured gets to decide.  Likewise, if they cannot agree which/whose units to lose when taking casualties as a result of combat, the opposing player gets to decide which units they lose.  The turn sequence is as follows:

1.  Germany/Italy
2.  Russia/Communist China
3.  Japan
4.  Britain/FEC/France/ANZAC/USA/China

Defender Retreats

At the beginning of any round of combat after the first, the defender may declare that he will attempt to retreat any or all of his units. The units he declares to be retreating do not get to fire in that round of combat. They can still be taken as casualties, but he can opt to take casualties out of his non-retreating “rear guard” units first.

Example: A Russian player is defending a territory with 10 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter. The German player is attacking him with 6 tanks, 2 fighters, and 12 infantry. Due to astoundingly bad dice rolls by the German player on the first round of combat, the Russian loses only 3 infantry and the German loses 2. The Russian, not counting on the dice gods to continue to ignore the law of averages, assumes he will lose 5-6 more units on the next round. So he declares that he will retreat his tank, his fighter, and 2 of his infantry. On the second round of combat his 5 “rear guard” infantry score 1 hit on the Germans, and the German units score 6 hits. This eliminates the 5 Russian infantry left behind, plus 1 of the infantry that was trying to retreat. So the Russian successfully retreats 1 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.

Russian-Japanese Non-Aggression

Japan cannot declare war on Russia unless the Axis controls at least one of the following at the beginning of the Japanese turn:

1.  London
2.  Moscow
3.  Washington, D.C.
4.  San Francisco
5.  Bombay
6.  Every territory on the map with a Chinese roundel printed on it.

Russia cannot declare war on Japan unless the Allies control at least one of the following at the beginning of the Russian turn:

1.  Berlin
2.  Both Rome and Paris
3.  Tokyo

If the conditions are met to declare war but the player chooses not to exercise it immediately, he loses the opportunity if he has not done so before the other side re-captures the relevant cities/territories.

Amphibious Landings

Land units that are not marines, SNLF, or commandoes attack with a 2 on the first round of combat when making an amphibious landing.  If the combat lasts more than one round, they attack normally on all subsequent rounds.  Artillery also loses its ability to support infantry to raise their attack value on the first round of combat during an amphibious landing.  Tactical bombers may not be paired with a tank to raise their attack value on the first round of combat when the tank unit is making an amphibious landing.

Air Transports / Airborne Assaults

Air transports cost 7 IPCs to build.  They have no attack or defense value, and may move up to 4 spaces per turn if carrying an infantry or paratroop.  If they are empty, they can move 6 spaces per turn.  If you do not own air transport pieces, use a heavy bomber with a piece of masking tape on the wing.

During the Non-Combat Movement Phase an air transport may be used to transport one paratroop or regular infantry from one friendly controlled territory to another friendly controlled territory.  This ends the air transport’s movement for the turn, even if it moved less than 4 spaces.  Air transports cannot carry tanks, artillery, mechanized infantry, AA guns, or marines.

During the Combat Movement Phase an air transport that starts its turn in the same territory as a paratroop may load that paratroop and air drop it onto an enemy-controlled territory.  If there is an AA gun in the territory, the air transport must first survive anti-aircraft fire before dropping the paratroop.  If the air transport is destroyed by AA fire, the paratroop is destroyed with it.  If a paratroop is dropped into an enemy controlled territory that contains no enemy combat units, there is assumed to be a “garrison” unit in the territory.  The garrison unit defends with a 1, and must be eliminated before the paratroop can capture the territory.  The garrison unit is ignored if there are also units attacking the same territory that are not making an airborne assault.  When air dropping  paratroops, air transports may not make “suicide runs” (i.e., They must have enough range to land in a friendly controlled territory).

Rail Movement

Each power can transport a certain number of units by railroad during the non-combat movement phase each turn.  Being transported by rail uses a unit’s entire movement allowance for the turn.  Units can move by rail any number of territories per turn, as long as all territories are connected and friendly controlled by a nation that takes its turn at the same time as the player using rail movement.  In other words, German units cannot rail through Japanese controlled territories, and Russian units can’t rail through Nationalist Chinese controlled territories (although they can rail through Communist Chinese controlled territories).  Units may not rail move into or through a territory unless it was friendly controlled at the beginning of the player’s turn.  Rail movement may take place across canals and straits, provided the appropriate territories were controlled at the beginning of the player’s turn.  Rail movement may not take place across impassable areas (i.e., Sahara Desert).  Rail capacity for each player is as follows:

Nationalist China – 1 unit per turn.
Britain – 2 units per turn.
USA – 2 units per turn.
Russia – 2 units per turn.
Communist China - 0
Germany – 2 units per turn.
Italy – 1 unit per turn.
ANZAC – 1 unit per turn.
Japan – 2 units per turn.

Lend-Lease Modifier

If there are no Axis subs or surface ships in the convoy box between sea zones 3, 5, and 14 at the start of the US turn, then add two to the die roll when giving lend lease to the Russians.  For the British, it would be the convoy box between sea zones 27, 31, and 32.

Alternative Factory Production

Major IC: Instead of producing 10 units of any kind, the factory can produce 10 times the printed economic value of its territory. For instance, if the Major IC in Britain is undamaged, it can produce up to 60 IPCs worth of units per turn. That’s 10 tanks, or 20 infantry, or 6 fighters. Western Germany can produce 50.

Minor IC: Can produce 6 times the printed value of the territory.

(Note: The minor IC in Bombay is converted to a major IC.  However, the first 9 IPCs built there each turn must still be infantry.  The major IC in Karelia is converted to a minor IC, but additional minor ICs are added to Kiev and Stalingrad.  The major IC in Fukuoka is converted to a minor IC, but an additional minor IC is added to Sapporo.)

Now this obviously necessitates changes to strategic bombing and repairs. So each point of bomb damage reduces the multiplier by one. Example: If the factory in Western Germany takes 4 points of damage, it can only produce 6 times the value, or 30 IPCs worth of units. Repairs restore the multiplier at a rate of 1 times the economic value per IPC spent on repairs.

Hey, Koningstiger,

That sounds like a good idea.  How about if there are no Axis subs or surface ships in the convoy box between sea zones 3, 5, and 14 at the start of the US turn, then add two to the die roll when giving lend lease to the Russians?  For the British, it would be the convoy box between sea zones 27, 31, and 32.

Well, there is the lend-lease rule.  The odds of losing some or all of the IPCs make it somewhat unappealing, but it does give the allies a chance to pull Russia’s bacon out of the fire.

Hi, koba,

Thanks for the reply.  Yeah, that’s kind of what it looked like to me.  But the initial setup plus the German double super blitzkrieg turn at the start almost seemed like the designers were laying down a triple-dog-dare on the Germans to try it.  :lol:  I’m glad to hear it’s not that common.  I’m one of those dweebs who likes the game to present roughly the same set of options and challenges as the leaders of the time faced historically.  While the RAF gets a big chunk of the credit for preventing an invasion by bloodying the Luftwaffe’s nose, I think the main reason the invasion didn’t happen was the sheer size of the Royal Navy.

Hi, everyone,

I got the map for Christmas.  It’s awesome, but I haven’t had a chance to play yet.  Looking at the starting setup, the Royal Navy starts just out or range of most of the Luftwaffe, which is a good thing for preserving their sea power advantage.  However, this means the RN is also not in a position to block a German invasion on turn one, if the German player decides to build nothing but transports and land 14 units in London before the British player has a chance to do anything.  On the other hand, the penalty of immediate US entry seems like it would be a fairly ominous deterrent.

For those of you who have a few games under your belts, is a turn 1 Sea Lion fairly common?  If so, does it seem to be worth the penalty for the Axis of immediate US entry?  It seems like it might be a problem for the Germans to commit that much of their initial construction (plus starting air power) to taking London.  Paris might actually be able to hold out for a turn or two.  This could be bad news with the US in the war, and the USSR a turn or two closer to being able to do a reverse Barbarossa while a big chunk of the Wehrmacht is out of position mopping up France.  Not to mention what immediate US entry would do to Japanese war plans.

"5. For Landing at the end of the turn, must you have an air base since the beginning of the round, or can you land on a newly built airbase (built in the same turn the airplane takes off)? Because if you built a new carrier, you can land on them

Newly built or even captured airbases can be landed on.

I know this restricts the role of all aircraft a little but that is why the Airbase cost is so much lower with these optional rules. One cool perk to these rules are if you capture an airbase your planes can land in that zone immediatly!"

This seems to imply that all aircraft can only take off from and/or land in territories that contain air bases (or sea zones with carriers).  Is this correct?  And the airbase cost on the setup charts I’ve seen (6.1) still show that they cost 15 IPCs.  Is there another set of rules and setup charts that is more recent than that?

My second question concerns Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.  The way the rule is written, it seems to imply that they each get a set number of IPCs each turn to buy units for themselves (Hungary – 3, Romania – 6, and Bulgaria – 4).  And if Germany activates them, then Germany gets the printed IPC value of these territories to add to its own income.  Does that mean both happen simultaneously?  Or is it a one-or-the-other situation?  In other words, once Romania is activated, is it actually worth a total of 10 IPCs for the Axis (6 to be spent in Romania plus 4 for Germany).

Radar231,

GUAM!!  D’OH!!  You’re right.  I completely missed it.  And I counted them out about 4 times.  LOL.  Thanks.  That would have driven me nuts.  Although I probably would have caught it eventually once I had the physical map unrolled in front of me.

Thanks, dboss.  That’s good to know, because I priced plexiglass, and it would be over $100 to get enough to cover this monster.  I’m already going to have to fork over some cash for, at a minimum, a big piece of plywood to lay over my 30" x 72" folding tables.  Fortunately, plywood is available in 4’ x 8’ sheets.

Hi, folks,

My map is at the house in my wife’s closet, and I have to pretend I don’t know what she got me for Christmas.  In the meantime, I have a couple of questions.  First, I have counted the US IPC totals on the online map, and I keep getting 40 on the Pacific side, but only 39 on the Atlantic side.  The set-up chart says the total should be 80.  Here’s what I see on the Atlantic side:

Great Plains - 2
Deep South - 2
Appalachia - 6
SE US - 4
Washington - 8
New England - 4
Cuba - 1
Panama – 2
2 convoys at 5 each

Am I just missing something, or is there a misprint?  If it’s a misprint, I guess we could add a U.S. national objective for 1 point.  Maybe “U.S. Treasury Secretary finds loose change under couch cushions after martini is spilled on them upon hearing that Germany invades Poland?”

My other question is:  How hard is it to get the map to lay flat?  Would a stack of quarters on the corners be enough?  Or will I want to get some plexiglass to put over the whole map?

Thanks.

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

Hi, Ben,

Transports are a bit tougher, since purely civilian ships (even luxury cruise liners) were pressed into service during the war.  I could probably find numbers for total tonnage used during the war, but I doubt it would accurately reflect what was actually in military service during those first few months.  A lot of it, like the evacuation of Dunkerque, involved ships that were not officially contracted to military use, since there was just no time, and everyone was improvising.  Maybe there could be a Dunkerque rule, where the British can declare emergency evacuation for one turn, and all their transports in sea zones adjacent to France have double capacity for that turn?  Nah.  On second thought, that’s probably an unnecessary complication.

Land units are also a bit more difficult, since weapons, training, command and control, communications, and tactical doctrine varied widely.  So you can’t rely on raw numbers so much.  For instance, at the beginning of the war many of the German tanks used were inferior in armor and firepower to their French or British counterparts.  But they massed them, and used the Luftwaffe to break strong defensive positions when they outran their artillery support.

Navies, on the other hand, used fairly standardized ship designs in a lot of ways.  For the most part, a heavy cruiser would have 8” guns, a light cruiser would have 6” guns, and destroyers would have 4” or 5” guns.  Battleships and battlecruisers would have 11” – 16” guns (or 18” monstrosities on the Yamato and Musashi).  There were differences in armor thickness, speed, damage control capability, radar, fire control, and crew quality.  But, for the most part, you could still count a cruiser as a cruiser and a destroyer as a destroyer in surface engagements.

Airpower was another matter.  At the beginning of the war, the Japanese Navy had the most proficient pilots and the Zero was the best naval fighter.  It had better maneuverability, longer range, and more firepower than anything else. They paid a price for this, however, in that the design stripped out almost everything else, like fire suppression, radios for all but the squadron commanders, and armor to protect the pilots.  This last one really came back to bite them, since to get those superior pilots their training pipeline took years to get a new flyer to his first operational squadron.  So when they started taking losses, they couldn’t replace them fast enough.  By contrast, the American training pipeline took about 6 months for basic proficiency.  And when US pilots survived a few months of combat, they were rotated back the States to train new ones, so they could share their experience.  As experienced Japanese pilots became more and more scarce, they were kept in combat until they burned out and died.  Eventually the US captured an intact Zero up in Alaska, and reverse engineered a lot of its advantages into the Hellcat, which could stand up to a Zero in a dogfight.

As for the ratios, mine are not the same as out-of-the-box Global 1940.  The battleship ratio there seems to be mostly 1:5 instead of 1:4.  But by that standard the US Navy is severely underrepresented.  And, to a lesser extent, so is the French Navy, and even the British slightly.  I went with a 1:4 ratio since battleships tended to operate in pairs (divisions), with 2-4 divisions making up a squadron.  Going to a 1:2 ratio would probably put too many on the map, especially if you changed the cruiser and destroyer ratios accordingly.

I’ve been visiting these forums for years now, but I finally explored the Global 1939 topic a few days ago.  After reading through everything I have to say I like it.  The designers struck a good balance between satisfying a need for historical accuracy and keeping the rules as simple as possible.  I downloaded the rules and charts, and when my wife asked me what I wanted for Christmas - well, the map (the big version) is on order.  :-D  She’s going to have to hide it well to keep me from peeking.

That said, there are a couple of changes I’ll likely make as house rules.  If someone reading this has playtested something similar and found that it ruins the game, please clue me in.

Instead of bombers carrying airborne units, I like to use air transports.  I had been putting a blue chip under a bomber to represent them, but I ordered air transports for all the countries a few months ago (Except Japan.  I’m waiting for HBG to start allowing us to order individual pieces from the new Japanese expansion set.)

Air transport:  Cost – 6 / Attack – 0 / Defense – 0 / Move – 4 (during combat) or 6 (during non-combat and flying empty).  Can carry either 1 infantry or 1 marine or 1 paratroop during NCM.  Can carry 1 paratroop during combat movement, and must survive AA fire before dropping it if the enemy has an AA gun in the territory.  The out-of-supply rules should keep airborne units from being used unrealistically.

The other thing I’ll probably change is the size of the fleets relative to each other.  Overall, they are pretty close, but they might need a couple of tweaks.  I did some research, and the ships each nation actually had in service in September 1939 are below.  I counted battlecruisers the same as battleships, and combined heavy and light cruisers.  Ships undergoing maintenance or refit were counted as available.

Battleships:  USA –15, Britain –15, France – 7, USSR – 3, Germany – 2, Japan – 10, Italy – 4, Holland – 0, ANZAC - 0

Cruisers:  USA – 36, Britain – 64, France – 19,  USSR – 5, Germany – 11, Japan – 36, Italy – 22, Holland – 5, ANZAC – 5

Destroyers:  USA – 127, Britain – 181, France – 78, USSR – 39, Germany – 22, Japan – 107, Italy – 73, Holland – 9, ANZAC – 6

Subs:  USA – 58, Britain – 65, France – 81, USSR – 100+, Germany – 62, Japan – 68, Italy – 64, Holland – 24, ANZAC - 0

Carriers:  USA – 5, Britain – 6, France – 1, USSR – 0, Germany – 0, Japan – 7, Italy – 0, Holland – 0, ANZAC - 0

Now, to convert these to ratios that make sense for A&A, I’m thinking about the following (rounding fractions of .5 or more up):

Battleships –1:4
Cruisers – 1:9
Destroyers – 1:12
Subs – 1:30
Carriers – 1:4

These ratios will require a bit of adjustment, based on a few historical realities.

First, although the Germans had a relatively low number of subs compared to other nations, they tended to be more modern, and were built to operate at longer ranges than most subs of other navies.  Also, they were geared up for sub production and had more under construction than anyone else - over 50 due to come off the assembly lines within a few months.  Therefore I’d give them a ratio of 1:20, and count their new construction, which would give them 5 subs at start.

Second, British fleet carriers at the beginning of the war tended to carry fewer aircraft that US or Japanese fleet carriers, and a couple of the ones they had were actually light carriers.  So I’d leave the British with two, and start them off loaded with just one aircraft each.

Third, the Soviet fleet was largely leftovers from the Tzar’s navy, and the ships hadn’t been properly maintained, much less upgraded to modern standards.  I’d downgrade their 3 old battleships to a single cruiser, giving them 2 cruisers and no battleships.

Fourth, the 5 Dutch cruisers were actually all light cruisers, with one of them stationed in Holland and the others in the Far East.  So I’d put no Dutch navy on the European map except a single sub, and downgrade their fleet in the Pacific to be represented by a single destroyer.

So, in A&A terms, I’d give each navy the following:

Battleships:  USA –4, Britain –4, France – 2, USSR – 0, Germany – 1, Japan – 3, Italy – 1, Holland – 0, ANZAC - 0

Cruisers:  USA – 4, Britain – 7, France – 2, USSR – 2, Germany – 1, Japan – 4, Italy – 2, Holland – 0, ANZAC – 1

Destroyers:  USA – 10, Britain – 15, France – 6, USSR – 3, Germany – 2, Japan – 9, Italy – 6, Holland – 1, ANZAC – 1

Subs:  USA – 2, Britain – 2, France – 3, USSR – 3, Germany – 5, Japan – 2, Italy – 2, Holland – 1, ANZAC - 0

Carriers:  USA – 1, Britain – 2, France – 0, USSR – 0, Germany – 0, Japan – 2, Italy – 0, Holland – 0, ANZAC – 0

That gives the British quite a few cruisers and destroyers, but I think that can be balanced out by having them scattered around the Empire at the start.  But the Home Fleet should still be big enough that it is not crippled on G1.

Edit:

Sorry.  Just realized I put a big long rambling post in the FAQ, so I moved it to a new topic.

I previously posted this idea under house rules on Larry’s website.  Below is an edited version:

I’ve been toying with the idea of house rules for factories for quite a while. I like the idea of having major and minor factories. But I think their production capacity should be somehow tied to the economic value of the territory in which they are located. Britain being theoretically capable of cranking out 10 battleships in India seems a bit odd to me. Or, for that matter, Australia cranking out 3 (or any, if you are looking at historical accuracy). So here goes:

Major IC: Instead of producing 10 units of any kind, the factory can produce 10 times the printed economic value of its territory. For instance, if the Major IC in Britain is undamaged, it can produce up to 60 IPCs worth of units per turn. That’s 10 tanks, or 20 infantry, or 6 fighters. Western Germany can produce 50.

Minor IC: Can produce 6 times the printed value of the territory.  Minor ICs can be built in any territory with a printed value of at least 1.

(Note: I’m also considering reducing the Major IC in India to a Minor IC, but adding another Minor IC to West India. This would prevent battleships and carriers from being produced there, which seems realistic to me. But if the British player wants to spend the money on upgrading it, that would also seem realistic, since it’s a major investment. Australia would need two Minor ICs in Queensland plus New South Wales instead of 1.)

Now this obviously necessitates changes to strategic bombing and repairs. So each point of bomb damage reduces the multiplier by one. Example: If the factory in Western Germany takes 4 points of damage, it can only produce 6 times the value, or 30 IPCs worth of units. Repairs restore the multiplier at a rate of 1 times the economic value per IPC spent on repairs.

Now, what I’m wondering is if this is going to play havoc with game balance. It will almost certainly mean some players will have to adjust their favorite strategies. No more cranking out 3 bombers per turn in South Africa, for instance.

I figure this probably won’t make much difference for the US player. Yes, he can theoretically crank out 320 IPCs worth of units between the East Coast and Central US. But I figure that under the current rules he can basically spend every dime he’s likely to get there anyway.

Also, since minor ICs can be built in territories with a printed value of 1, Russia can now build factories in the Urals or the Far East.  Not very efficient maybe, but 2 infantry or 1 tank per turn is better than nothing.

Just started reading this thread from the beginning.  Interesting idea, and it sounds plausible.  I’ve often thought strategic bombers should be reduced to an attack value of 1 in naval battles, for the sake of realism and historical accuracy mostly.  But, after reading this, something like that might be necessary just to keep bombers from completely taking over the game.

I guess my problem is that focus too much on what would be historically realistic, which is probably why I frequently lose to strategies that involve something weird.  Building nothing but one type of unit would be included in my definition of “weird.”  Personally, I’m fond of gearing limits, similar to what you see in World in Flames, if anyone has ever played that.  Basically, you’d have to keep track of what you built on the previous turn, and could only build two more of a given type of unit than you did last turn.  I’d probably simplify it to three categories:  air units, land units, and naval units.  So, if you built two ships last turn, you could build four this turn, and six the next turn.  If you built no planes last turn, you could build two this turn.  So you couldn’t build all ships one turn, and then immediately reconfigure your production system to build all infantry the next.  But that’s probably way too much bookkeeping for a beer and pretzels game like A&A.

Also, I want to experiment with factory output.  Instead of a specific number of units, maybe make minor ICs produce units whose cost equals 6 times the printed value of the territory in which they are located.  Major ICs would produce 10 times the value.  Okay, I’ll stop going off-topic now.  I can’t help it.  It’s a medical condition.  :-D

Gargantua wrote:

“If Germany invades Switzerland, bring USA 1 turn closer to D.O.W.”

I think I like that.  It’s simple, and it doesn’t involve a special rule to give Switzerland a bigger army than its IPC value would indicate.  But it might have to be two turns, or maybe instantaneous, to be a real deterrent.  I guess that would have to be tested.

I wouldn’t even mind that much if they would at least SELL me an extra set of playing pieces for a reasonable price.  About, oh, I guess it was 20 years ago now, I bought an extra set of A&A pieces from Milton Bradley for about $10, if I remember correctly.  It didn’t include poker chips or dice, but that was fine.  Shoot, WotC could even have a fairly decent mark-up on them, and people would still buy them.

Well, it’s probably too late for most of you, since you already bought a copy, but I ordered two copies from coolstuffinc.com for $64.99 each.  Since my total order was over $100, I got free shipping.  I just checked, and they are still offering it at this price.  Plenty of units; plenty of chips; a second rulebook (so more than one player can check things at the same time); and an extra map in case I spill beer on one of them.

“I’m pretty excited about the collapse rules, but I think the check for collapse phase going first in a player’s turn is harsh. I think it should happen at the end of their turn, so they at least have a chance to prevent it from happening… But, oh well. I guess I’ll have to see how my group can try to avoid collapse, even with it being the first phase of a player’s turn.”

Hmm.  That might end up being a problem, especially for smaller nations like Italy or the Ottomans.  I wonder if it’s possible, with a deliberate strategy and coordinated ganging up, to cause a collapse of one of these powers before they even get their first turn?  It might require extreme sacrifices on other fronts, but it might be worth it to eliminate a power completely (or at least cripple their economy).

Well, I played the first two turns of a game last Saturday that adjusted the navies to be closer to historical ratios and deployments.  We were using the 2-move land unit/extra move from naval base system.  Starting navies were adjusted as follows:

Germany:

SZ 5:  2 subs
SZ 7:  2 subs
SZ 10:  2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 1 transport
SZ 23:  1 cruiser

Britain:

SZ 2:  1 cruiser, 1 transport
SZ 9:  3 battleships, 4 cruisers, 1 transport
SZ 14:  1 cruiser
SZ 19:  2 cruisers (1 of these actually represents some old pre-Dreadnaught battleships), 1 transport
SZ 29:  1 cruiser, 1 transport

France:

SZ 15:  1 cruiser
SZ 16:  1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 transports

Russia and Turkey each subtract one cruiser, and all other nations are the same as OOB.

Turn 1 AH built a sub, fighter, plus infantry and artillery, and kept their fleet in port (I forgot to do the amphibious invasion on Tuscany to block the units in Rome from reinforcing Venice.)  They invaded Venice, Serbia, and Romania, but did not capture any of them outright.

Russia built a fighter, plus infantry and artillery, killed the Turkish cruiser without taking a loss, and reinforced their borders somewhat.

Germany built a sub, a fighter, and infantry and artillery.  They attacked the Canadian fleet in SZ 2 with the subs from SZ 7, the cruiser from SZ 23, and one other cruiser from SZ 10, and sunk it with no losses.  The 2 subs from SZ 5 moved to SZ 10, which is where the newly built sub was placed.  On land, they attacked Poland, capturing it.  They also attacked Belgium and Lorraine, contesting them.

The French (played by my 20-year-old son) built a battleship and spent the turn ferrying troops from Africa to Portugal and Marseilles, leaving fleets to protect them. The British (also played by my son, who has apparently been reading Mahan) built 2 battleships, and attacked my cruiser/sub raiding force with 2 of the battleships from SZ 9, bringing the transport along.  The dice gods were not smiling on him, and he only sunk 1 sub and took 3 hits, sinking one battleship and damaging the other before he quit attacking.  The British also loaded an infantry and artillery from India onto a transport, dropping the infantry off in Arabia, with the artillery continuing on toward southern Africa.  The Turks crushed the force in Arabia, sent an infantry to activate Bulgaria, and reinforced their borders.

The Italians, (played by a guy at the game store who had never played any A&A game before, but seemed to get the gist of it quickly), sent their whole fleet, including transport, to SZ 2 to kill my sub and cruisers.  They did, and only suffered a damaged battleship.

Turn 2 the CP stayed in port, with the Germans building a battleship and the Austrians building another sub.  The allies continued ferrying troops from Portugal and Canada into France.  The Germans got their snouts bloodied a bit in Lorraine and Belgium, but were hanging on.  They captured Livonia.  AH took some losses in Venice, but also held on, and finished capturing Serbia and Romania.

This is about where we had to quit, which was a pity, because it was just getting fun.