@wittmann:
I, too, meant doubling the NO, but also restricting the Spread of Communism to Europe and Iraq.
Is there a reason for that?
Historically, the USSR did spread communism to territories controlled by the Japanese, in particular Korea. I think rather than restricting the spread of Communism to just Germany and Pro-axis, it should apply to German, Japanese, and Pro-axis territories.
Better question: Why did I buy extra French units from HBG? I’ve never even used them…
Haha! Now that is dedication to the French
5 cent carriers were such a good deal! I bought 4 of them. I bought another $7.00 of French units too.
Then I realized… dafuq did I need 6 Carriers for? France never even builds one, let alone 6!
http://axisallies.com/research-rolls/#more-662
What do you think about this? I’ve never ever heard of reserch being done that way, but I’ve never really thought about it, I guess it makes sense… a little
I actually like this a lot. Even if you only buy one die… you’ll most likely get a tech by turn 6. It makes tech worth it.
what if we also have two different games going at the same time that way no one gets too bored
Definitely the second option. Playing France is really sad (even though I love playing France) because there is nothing you can do all game except use one fighter and some infantry.
China is almost the same, except you can at least purchase units and use artillery.
ANZAC is at least an actual power. If you make ANZAC a separate player and let them also control the two weakest Allied powers, they actually have a good amount to do.
I dont know personaly i think it is already close when you play 1 vs 1 as the allies have so much more to do then the axis. I did it once with 6 players and half the time we where playing games on our phones because we where bored.
Then why do you play the game? For me, I love A&A, so watching the other players do their turn is fun. To try and discover their strategy, see where they succeed and fail… this is the joy of board games.
How does japan get more income in pacific then in global?
I thought that the NO’s where the same and the russian income is not that much. Compensates for the fact that russia can help china in pacific and that india can be reinforced from europe. That most people butcher india to kill italy first is a choice not a fact :)
US needs to split its income to really hold back the axis everywhere, They need to slow down japan with the help of the rest while building up to start harassing germany and italy.
With spending about half the income the US can build a fleet together with the UK to counter dark skies pretty fast. Yes you will drop less units in afrika at the start but your goal isnt to hit where germany is strong it is to hit where they are weak untill you build up enough to attack him head on.
I still don’t see how this is a counter to Dark Skies. If the US can get an invasion fleet capable of taking Rome or West Germany (as you suggested) by TURN 3, then the Axis are in trouble no matter what strategy they used. How would building land units have helped? It’s not like buying Bombers prevented Germany from taking Moscow on Turn 3! “Oh, if only I had bought 20 tanks instead of these bombers. I could have taken Moscow before that inevitable Turn 3 Italy invasion!”
If anything, Dark Skies would be the optimal counter to such a US strategy, as it can easily counter attack anywhere the allies land, whereas land units would be unable to reach anything more than two territories from Berlin and West Germany.
Of course, I still don’t believe a turn 3 invasion of Europe is a viable Allied strategy.
If Germany does not attack the fleet, the Allies are most certainly not “storming through Europe”.
Let’s assume that all 8 of your loaded transports are tank + inf, which offers the highest defensive power to your invasion force. Let’s assume none of them are destroyed in the invasion. Let’s assume you land all 8 of your carrier fighters in Normandy to defend.
So you have 8 Infantry, 8 Tanks, and 8 fighters defending. If Germany attacks with their 12 Bombers, 4 Tacs, 4 Fighters, and only 4 Land units, they have a 70% chance of victory! And this is with the Allies throwing everything they have into Normandy. If Germany uses just a couple more units, or if the Allies kept some of their fighters back or used some artillery or lost some units landing, they’d have an even lower survival chance.
Why would i want to land in normandy? Why not just western germany if you have it lightly defended or norway. Or Rome also a verry nice city to invade.
From gibraltar i can hit a lot of area ill take what suits me best not what you can counter best.Hit West Germany, same result. Can easily be countered. West Germany will also be better defended, so you’ll lose more troops than Normandy and be worse off. Norway might be harder to take back, but not if there are still German troops in Finland or if Germany has a couple of transports in the straits. And taking Norway would be that easy even if Germany hadn’t gone Dark Skies, so I don’t see how Germany did worse there.
Rome might be a problem if Italy doesn’t have enough troops to defend it.
The problem is that anywhere you can hit from Gibraltar, the bombers can counter attack.
West germany is where your bombers are at unless you want them out of position so you suddenly have to protect your bombers as well. And Rome is also a verry nice target getting italy out of the game for a while.
Your bombers will not make a huge difference against russia, besides if you are going to be funny ill land 3 AA guns with my army, now your bombers can face 3AA guns and a few land units your 4 inf alone are not enough so you will lose 1-2 bombers before we even start throwing dice.
Sure the bombers are powerfull but they are a 1 shot thing, once used they lost most of their power.
If the bombers are in West Germany, there’s no way your landing force is going to succeed. You’re facing land units stationed in West Germany to prevent an invasion, any units I built the turn before, and 12 Bombers. Against your 12 US land units? No way.
Like I said, Rome might be a problem, but only if Italy doesn’t have the units prepared to defend itself. Additionally, I don’t see how this is a fault with Dark Skies. Any Axis strategy could fall prey to the Allies using this strategy you’re proposing to invade Italy turn 3.
Go ahead and land 3 AAAs. I’ll laugh. Statistically, I’d only lose one fighter, and then you’d be three tanks or artillery short on defense. 4 land units, 3 fighters, 4 Tacs, and 12 Bombers against 8 Infantry, 5 Tanks, and maybe a few (5) fighters? You’ll lose big time. There’s an 94.5% chance the Germans live, and they’ll average 1 Tank and 7 Bombers left if Germany used 2 Tanks and 2 Artillery as their land units.
Regarding the Excel file, you all are certainly welcome to use it! I’ve also integrated the rules and charts into electronic versions of the original 2nd edition rulebooks but I’ve not posted those because I’m not sure if that’s OK/legal to do outside of my own private use. :? If it is OK, I’d be happy to post those as well.
I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but OK. I mean that it’s illegal in the sense that writing Transformers fanfiction is illegal: It probably violates a copyright law, but Hasbro is never going to do anything to you because you aren’t making money off of it and they won’t waste the time and effort to sue you.
I think it looks good Baron. I especially like the incentive to intercept even if you’re likely to lose a plane. It never made sense to me that people would choose not to fight battles that IRL, would have been fought. It’s not like the RAF would have said “Nah, we don’t need to intercept those bombers. We need our fighters for D-day!”
I’ll probably use all these HRs except the decreased attack/defense stats and fighter boosts, but only because I try to avoid HRs that conflict with the stats printed on the board. My current fix for preventing Str Bombers from being used in combat is allowing them to fight only one round before retreating.
Just some thoughts from someone who hasn’t really done the math nor played enough rounds to actually see this tactic through.
Can US really be at war, at their own initiative, with Germany on turn 3 (Combat/Movement phase?) so they can actually move to Gibraltar at all? Or are there any second edition additional rules that I have missed?
And then on down to the tactics on getting a strong fleet supporting units into Normandy or other mainland european regions:
Am I correct in assuming that Germany loosing it’s entire bomber force against, let’s say, a strong naval presence from US/UK equals a lost game for Germany? I am aware that Japan can still grow to be a monster and win the game for the axis anyhow but let’s keep focus on europe for now. Creating a fleet according to Nippon-kokus suggestion (or similar) would create a situation that requires Germany to respond with their bombers. Once there is a strong static fleet that Germany can’t attack without risking it’s entire air force it’s quite easy for the allies to maintain that ratio of units so that it stays safe. And what happens then? The US can land units basically every turn once the shuttle is running. 8 or 10 units are not frightening, I admit. Easily countered by Germany but the way I see it is that Germany from then on are forced to use their bombers plus land units each turn against a landing force. Using german bombers on that front every turn makes them unusable against the russians. I can certainly see where there could be a bit of trouble breaking through russian lines.
The way I see it, if the US can do this, why would Dark Skies really matter? Would buying 20 Infantry and 10 Tanks be any different? Germany still couldn’t kill the Allied fleet, would still have to divert forces from Russia, would still face the Allies landing every turn…
…and on top of it, It’d be harder for Germany to counter attack.
Seems like Dark Skies is still an optimal strategy against a US invasion.
If Germany does not attack the fleet, the Allies are most certainly not “storming through Europe”.
Let’s assume that all 8 of your loaded transports are tank + inf, which offers the highest defensive power to your invasion force. Let’s assume none of them are destroyed in the invasion. Let’s assume you land all 8 of your carrier fighters in Normandy to defend.
So you have 8 Infantry, 8 Tanks, and 8 fighters defending. If Germany attacks with their 12 Bombers, 4 Tacs, 4 Fighters, and only 4 Land units, they have a 70% chance of victory! And this is with the Allies throwing everything they have into Normandy. If Germany uses just a couple more units, or if the Allies kept some of their fighters back or used some artillery or lost some units landing, they’d have an even lower survival chance.
Why would i want to land in normandy? Why not just western germany if you have it lightly defended or norway. Or Rome also a verry nice city to invade.
From gibraltar i can hit a lot of area ill take what suits me best not what you can counter best.
Hit West Germany, same result. Can easily be countered. West Germany will also be better defended, so you’ll lose more troops than Normandy and be worse off. Norway might be harder to take back, but not if there are still German troops in Finland or if Germany has a couple of transports in the straits. And taking Norway would be that easy even if Germany hadn’t gone Dark Skies, so I don’t see how Germany did worse there.
Rome might be a problem if Italy doesn’t have enough troops to defend it.
The problem is that anywhere you can hit from Gibraltar, the bombers can counter attack.
If Germany does not attack the fleet, the Allies are most certainly not “storming through Europe”.
Let’s assume that all 8 of your loaded transports are tank + inf, which offers the highest defensive power to your invasion force. Let’s assume none of them are destroyed in the invasion. Let’s assume you land all 4 of your UK carrier fighters and your French fighter in Normandy to defend.
So you have 8 Infantry, 8 Tanks, and 5 fighters defending. If Germany attacks with their 12 Bombers, 4 Tacs, 4 Fighters, and only 4 Land units, they have a 95% chance of victory! And this is with the Allies throwing everything they have into Normandy. If Germany uses just a couple more units, or if the Allies kept some of their fighters back or used some artillery or lost some units landing, they’d have an even lower survival chance.
This is a good idea nerquen.
An alternative would be to give USA the Shipyards and/or War Bonds tech at the start of the game. This might accomplish the same thing but avoid bidding (e.g. if you are drawing sides).
In triplea games, adding these techs requires just 1 edit at the start of the game so its easy to do.
Giving War Bonds at the start is basically like a 5 IPC bid with this system. Easier to do, but harder to adjust, since you can’t really “bid” with it. Same with the Shipyards. What if giving War Bonds is not enough, but Shipyards is too much? Then you can’t do anything.
Unless 5 IPCs turns out to be the balancing bid, I think we should leave the techs out of it.
China - tech rolls
That’s a new one. Now I’m starting to seriously consider this… would the Artillery tech be worth it? What about War Bonds? So many possibilities…
France - CV (seriously, why does the game include French carriers?)
Better question: Why did I buy extra French units from HBG? I’ve never even used them…
@Baron:
Also economically, Global’40 seems not to model WWII quite right, as in a couple of turns Axis typically reach comparable income as Allies, so there is no economical pressure on Axis to push for a fast military progress, often even opposite is the true: in the end game Axis use the advantage of stronger economy to slowly outproduce Allies. It is not an exception that both Japan and Germany make more that US, so it feels quite weird for US to attempt any serious offensive against either of the two. Historically Allied economy was significantly stronger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II , GDP of Allies about double of that of Axis). With proposed bidding system US would get extra economical bonus, so would help to feel more historical. So I believe bidding for extra Allied economy shall be more thematic than bidding for extra allied military.
Why not giving 1 IPC for each Zero IPC territories to all Powers?
There is much more 0 IPC Allied Territories, (Russia has 4 such 0 IPC) this will give them a big boost which can makes for a more favorable Allies economic advantage for the first rounds. Axis will need to be more aggressive to reach out these territories.
Russia has 4, 0 IPC TTs.
USA has 7, 0 IPC TTs.
UK has 7, 0 IPC TTs. (on Europe map)
UK has 4, 0 IPC TTs (on PAC map)
ANZAC has 3, 0 IPC TTs.
SUM: 25 IPCs
Russia could get 6 IPCs from Mongolia (if no more neutral).
Persian, Crete and Eire territories can also provides additional IPCs to Allies.Italy has 4, 0 IPC TTs.
Germany has none.
Japan has 5, 0 IPC TTs.
SUM: 9 IPCs
Don’t forget France!
Hmmm… this seems like a nice idea. Actually makes taking some of those 0 territories worth it. Normally there’s no reason for anyone to go into Sicily, but if Sicily is giving the Italians money…
I wonder what would happen if you raised the value of every territory by 1? It would open up more IC opportunities… Probably make Russia ridiculously powerful though.
Alright, I finally got around to completing a full game with these rules. The results:
Soviet Union Victory! The game was close, with the last few turns being a race to see whether Russia could hold Berlin for a full turn before the US could capture and hold a capital. In the end, Russia was able to hold Berlin the turn before the US would have won for holding Rome. The game was 11 turns long, I think. I kind of lost count.
France was definitely the big loser of this game, never capturing a single victory city, and being almost completely wiped from the board by the end. Though France started fairly strong, its navy (the most expensive at the start) was too spread out to accomplish anything, and it slowly lost its African territories due to an inability to reinforce them. The final blow was when France, seeing a weak Northern Italy, send out too many forces on the offensive and lost its Capital to Germany.
Italy also did poorly. Though it easily dominated the Mediterranean, it lacked the economy to support its efforts against a UK that was going almost full Egypt. When France invaded Northern Italy, Italy withdrew as many of its forces from North Africa as possible to defend its Capital. After that, Italy managed to stave off a German assault and even counter attack back into a then dying Germany, but the US came in and crushed Rome just before the end.
Germany did quite well, before it fell apart. Early on, Germany held the line with France and Italy, while still throwing most of its forces at Russia. It managed to gain some good ground, and was greatly helped initially by the Finnish and Bulgarian troops. However, after France made it’s move on Italy, Germany was forced to march into Paris to prevent France from gaining control of Southern Europe and fighting Germany with all its might. This unfortunately destabilized the Western front, and Germany began losing ground in Russia while fighting with France and Italy. A rush to try and take Paris and Rome before the Russians took Poland failed, and Germany was eventually completely wiped from the board.
The United Kingdom struggled initially, as Italian forces opposed it in Africa. However, the UK put a Minor IC in Egypt and was able outproduce Italy over time. Eventually it took complete control of Africa as Italy pulled out to defend its European territory. The UK managed to defend against a US invasion, and at the end game launched an invasion of Belgium and took Normandy and West Germany. It was maybe one turn away from a victory at the end, but Russia and the US had just barely beaten it to meeting their objectives.
The United States was the “clock” of the game: with no opponents at the start, the US had a few turns to build up an invasion force to conquer Europe. It was a race for the other nations to win before the American behemoth arrived to crush them. Unfortunately, this made America really boring to play, as they had no action until the end of the game.
The Soviet Union had a great game. They struggled against the mighty German war machine at first, but in the end, their single-minded assault on Berlin won out. They were able to reached a staggering 50 IPCs a turn as they captured Berlin, and managed to hold it a full turn just ahead of the capitalist Americans.
So, what needs changing? Not much. The Major powers all seem pretty balanced, as any of them could have won if they had used an ideal strategy. Additionally, most of the game they were all at about 30 IPCs, with the US having slightly more and the UK having slightly less.
The Minor Powers need help though. Their starting advantage of having the most units quickly wears off, and then Italy is left neutered with IPCs hovering at about 14, and France loses IPCs over the course of the game as its colonies are taken.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a good way to balance it well. I believe a National Objective system might help, giving France and Italy NOs that are relatively easy to accomplish while giving the Major Powers NOs that require a lot of work.
Historically Accurate? Check.
Simple? Check.
Balanced? I’ll have to see…
It sounds good, if it’s balanced, this could be the new bidding scheme I’ll use in my home games.
You can get away with 2-3 rounds of bombers which gives you around 10 bombers.
US can easy counter this with 2 carriers and 2 destroyers build round 1-2 with 1 airbase on gibraltar and 3 fighters or a UK carrier you will not destroy his fleet. And 10 bombers will not be enough to overcome the 15+ unit advantage russia has. Mutual annihilation is in favor for the russians as they produce closer to the front and they need to survive where germany needs to make ground.
How many times must it be said? If Germany cannot kill the fleet, they ignore it and the US wasted their IPCs. The Germans have no reason to attack a US turn 3 fleet.
Furthermore, after turn 3, Germany is putting most of it’s IPCs toward ground troops in Russia. Germany can outspend Russia easily and push Russia back. How can Russia win?
IF germany does not attack the fleet then the US will be in position to attack with the land forces in the transports.
Germany then has to face 4+ transports full of units and russia that has been building for 3 rounds in land forces.
And those transports will keep comming, and you know pretty well where a fleet can go from gibraltar in 1 turn.
Those 2 carriers are not wasted ( 4 fighters to support the invasion) and the cruiser is there at the start.So those 10 bombers are they better VS russia then 20 inf 10 art that you could have bought?
You think 4 Transports of units will survive a counter attack by 10 Bombers + Land units and other planes? The fact is that by Turn 3, the US simply can’t build a large enough fleet and a large enough invasion force to survive a German attack without spending nothing in the Pacific.
You can get away with 2-3 rounds of bombers which gives you around 10 bombers.
US can easy counter this with 2 carriers and 2 destroyers build round 1-2 with 1 airbase on gibraltar and 3 fighters or a UK carrier you will not destroy his fleet. And 10 bombers will not be enough to overcome the 15+ unit advantage russia has. Mutual annihilation is in favor for the russians as they produce closer to the front and they need to survive where germany needs to make ground.
How many times must it be said? If Germany cannot kill the fleet, they ignore it and the US wasted their IPCs. The Germans have no reason to attack a US turn 3 fleet.
Furthermore, after turn 3, Germany is putting most of it’s IPCs toward ground troops in Russia. Germany can outspend Russia easily and push Russia back. How can Russia win?
@IKE:
Yeah I don’t see it either guys. I’m sure Nippon and I will keep working on it but we just don’t see how you deal with the massive Russian stack without adequate ground purchases. Germany can only make it so far before they are forced back. If all their fighters/tacs are sitting in Russia trying to protect the weak stack from a counter attack, they’re not threatening the Atlantic or Med.
The units Germany starts with is more than enough to hold Russia at bay for turns 2-3. After that, Dark Skies calls for only 1-2 Bombers a turn, with the rest going to ground buys. It isn’t like Dark Skies is 100% Bombers.
Even if Germany buys 1 Bomber per turn, they can still out buy Russia on ground units. How can Russia hold them back? Especially since the bombers purchased in Germany’s first 3 turns prevent the Western Allies from coming to Russia’s aid?
@Arthur:
3 full carriers = 108
4 destroyers = 32
airbase = 15
3 fighters = 30
Total: 185 ipcs, 40 defense strength, 19 hit pointsGermans attack with 18 bombers and 8 other planes, losing ~10 planes = 110 ipcs
If you could have a couple of subs, this ratio of 1.7:1 can get a bit better. If you are also sinking the Allied transports, the math gets even better. You can probably get closer to a 2:1 trade. The Axis certainly can afford that sort of economic trades.
If the Allies put even more ships off of Gibraltar, ignore them and counterattack wherever they land. In the game that I am playing, the Allies have a big carrier fleet off of Gibraltar and a massive stack of ground units of Spain. Germany can counter with 40 ground units + 25 planes if I ever step into Normandy. He is laughing at the money that I had to waste building up my six carrier Navy.
Wondering where you got those 18 bombers from, depending on then the US is in the war this can be done turn 2 with some efford turn 3 with ease.
Now your planes cannot attack as they cannot land anywhere afterwards so your left with just bombers So 10 bombers vs 3 full carriers + a cruiser and 2 destroyers.
Ill put some trannies there just to take gibraltar and moroco so you cant land your planes.Even if you got mutual annihilation with the fleet and maby even trade favorable 1 vs 1.2 i dont care you have lost 3 turns of german buys, russia did buy 3 turns so have a huge stack and there are US forces in afrika. And with no bombers to threathen me again i can buy fleet with UK or US without much protection and drop even more boots in europe or afrika what are you going to do about it, rebuild your bomber forces? How long will it last before russia starts knocking on your eastern door because you dont have enough troops to stop them.
So then in that case, Germany simply doesn’t attack your fleet. Why should they? Turn 2-3, US has no invasion force capable of threatening Germany. You just wasted your first few turns buying a useless navy, and now Japan is probably taking over the Pacific with your lack of Pacific buys.
