Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Bardoly
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 712
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Bardoly

    • RE: Strategic bombing in AA50

      @Rakeman:

      @Bardoly:

      Thank you Krieghund for your answer.  The Fact Sheet was very unclear about this.
      With this, I have to agree with Funcioneta that this can be quite detrimental to the smaller ICs, but at least Germany can never be SBR’d in 1 round for all of its $ now.

      Couldn’t in LHTR either.

      In LHTR, in order to do 20 damage to Germany, USA and UK would each have to dedicated 10 IPC worth of bomber damage.  In this game, USA or UK needs to dedicate that much.  Big difference.  USA sitting back shipping bombers off while UK invades Northwestern Europe should be a viable strategy.  We’ll see.

      Yes, but LHTR was the fix which castrated SBR/Rockets.  This rule change seems to have struck a balance between having a strictly SBR capaign to eliminate all of a country’s cash (usually Germany, but occasionally Rusia, and rarely England) which is a little boring, and the opposing view in which just about the only time someone SBRs is when their bomber has nothing else to do.  I mean how often does Germany need to produce 10 units in 1 turn?  Almost never, unless it it the end of the game for them.  Usually 6-7 is okay, which means that if they repair 15 (less than 6-7 because the cost of repairs means that you can’t build as much) so as to produce 5 units, then the next turns SBR can’t do more than 15 points of damage.

      Yes, but LHTR was the fix which castrated SBR/Rockets.  This rule change seems to have struck a balance between having a strictly SBR capaign to eliminate all of a country’s cash (usually Germany, but occasionally Rusia, and rarely England) which is a little boring, and the opposing view in which just about the only time someone SBRs is when their bomber has nothing else to do.  I mean how often does Germany need to produce 10 units in 1 turn?  Almost never, unless it it the end of the game for them.  Usually 6-7 is okay, which means that if they repair 15 (less than 6-7 because the cost of repairs means that you can’t build as much) so as to produce 5 units, then the next turns SBR can’t do more than 15 points of damage.  This rule change seems to be more fair, and especially if Germany gets Radar and/or the IC repair tech, then that really limits the effectiveness of the SBRs.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Strategic bombing in AA50

      Thank you Krieghund for your answer.  The Fact Sheet was very unclear about this.
      With this, I have to agree with Funcioneta that this can be quite detrimental to the smaller ICs, but at least Germany can never be SBR’d in 1 round for all of its $ now.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Strategic bombing in AA50

      So Funcioneta, are you saying that the IC’s hit points are equal to double that of the IC number on the territory?  If that is correct, then doesn’t that mean that if Japan SBRs an Indian IC (which would be 6 hit points if this is correct) but they only do 4 oints of damage, then the UK can still produce 2 units, and at the cost of only 1 IPC, they may build the full total of 3.  Or are you saying that the IC can be bombed into negative hit points?  I’m still not clear on this.
      Thank you.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Strategic bombing in AA50

      @axis_roll:

      @shermantank:

      I personally like the new rule for SBR. It may not initially affect the places bombed, but if left uncared for, that can really hurt by reducing IC potential production.

      RE: SBR (without any modification via techs)

      It is an interesting change, and it is more powerful now… it’s just takes a while for it’s affect to really be felt.  But once it gets going, it’s basically the same as the old system.

      With bombers only 12, that makes it’s cheaper, an hence, easier to implement.

      Which side can implement it easier?   Looking at IPC levels, the allied dollars can easily be spent on air power (especially USA).  Gets them into the game quicker…like the real war.

      Sharpen up that AAA rolling ability.

      How can you say that the new SBR rules are more powerful?  It seems to me that now you can only SBR/Rocket Germany for a maximum of 10 Hit points per round!  If you do more damage it is just lost, right?  And then if Germany only wishes to produce 5 units, then he pays 5 to repair 5 hit points, and then the next round, you can only inflict a maximum SBR/Rocket damage of 5.  Am I reading this rule correctly?  Or, do the IC’s have unlimited Hit Points, so you can SBR/Rocket them for 60, which means that Germany couldn’t build anything at all, because all of his IPC’s couldn’t even repair his IC.  Can the IC go into negative hit points?

      It seems to me that this new rule has actually weakened SBR/Rocket attacks a lot, but at least Heavy Bombers will still be powerful in normal fighting.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: AARHE demo

      Thank you for your timely responses.
      In reference to #2, You are right, but why isn’t Iceland on the AAHE map?

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Countering Operation Sea Lion

      Well Ranor, then what is the problem with just attacking Ukraine and W. Russia and leaving Belo alone?

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Countering Operation Sea Lion

      ncscswitch,

      You seem to think that if the Russian Fighters fly to England, that it gives Germany a large advantage.  If you believe that, then why should players even bid for the Axis?  It seems that the OOB game is actually fair except for the SBR problem.  Also, even without the Fighters fighting, Russia should still be able to take out W. Russia and Ukraine no problem, and possibly take Belorussia as well.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: AARHE demo

      Thank you for your responses.
      My friends and I have had the AAHE w/Italy map printed out and have played a few games on it already, and we really like having a third Axis player (even if Italy is weak economically).  We have a few other questions/suggestions, and I couldn’t find an AARHE w/Italy thread, so I’ll try again here.

      #1  Just to double-check on Neutrals.  If Germany roll a “1” for Spain on G1, raising Spain to a 3, then you are saying that the Spanish troops are immediatly converted over to German troops without raising the diplomacy level to -5?  If this is true, then with Spain starting at -2, Sweden starting at -2, and Turkey starting at -1, then what do the Allies have going for them in the way of neutrals?  The ones with the largest armies and important positioning (especially Turkey with its control of the Black Sea) are all quite close to being swayed by the Axis.

      #2  Tekky, you said, “Yes, nothing stops US from taking South America.”  This is quite ridiculous for the Allies (the supposed good guys in a supposedly more historically accurate version of AAR) to be able to take and conquer neutral countries.  Now Germany, of course, ignored neutrality for the most part (i.e. Belgium), so I would not be adverse to allowing the Axis powers to conquer neutral territories, and then if the Allies "liberated the territory later, then the Allies would receive the IPCs from that territory.

      #3  What is the point of the neutral territory Eire (Ireland)?  Maybe it should have a value of 1 IPC, and/or the sea zones around it could be adjusted a little bit to give it some use.

      #4  After playing the game both ways, I have to say that allowing the Axis/Allies take their turms simultaneously doesn’t work that well in my opinion.  Yes, the game does proceed a little faster, but it really seemed that the game lost quite a bit by having 3-way attacks by the Allies against Japan in Asia and by having an American Atlantic fleet attacking Europe with British land units every turn.  My solution is to let Italy go first, but adjust the initial setup a titch so that Italy cannot reinforce Ukraine or W. Russia heavily to gaurd against R1’s attack against those 2 territories. Perhaps move the Italian fighter to Algeria so that it can’t reach Ukraine or other small changes.  Taking away the 1-2 punch of US/Russsia by putting Italy in-between helps keep from having US/Russia’s turn be too powerful.

      #5  Lend-Lease.  When playing on The AARHE w/Italy map, it doesn’t make sense to say that the free 12 IPC/ turn given to the Allies for US has to be shipped to SZ4 for Russia or SZ34 for UK.  We are playing that you can just take it to England which means that US can set up a relay of 4 Transports going to UK (2 in SZ8 and 2 at EUS switching places each turn).  So far in our games, this hasn’t been a game breaker, because for the US to pull this off, they usually have had to give Japan a free rein in the Pacific (because you have to invest a lot of $ in an Atlantic fleet to protect the transports).

      #6  This may have been addressed in another thread, but I read quite a few, and didn’t see it, so.  In AARHE, you collect IPCs at the begining of your turn.  I like this, but a lot of $ is now taken out of the game which used to be available to purchase more units/ technology.  Also, with techs taking effect at the end of the turn, I like this also, but now you have 2 good reasons to not even try for techs. (You don’t have enough $, and it takes too long to get it.)  I think that a change needs to be made in starting IPCs; there needs to be a way in-game to increase the # of IPCs you have availible (I wrote a post in House Rules); and/or tech die rolls should be cheaper.  The following is a partial list that I am working on for technologies which shows one way that the tech dice price could be lowered.  The number after the power’s abbreviation is the cost for 1 die to roll for the above tech.  I have not added Italy to this list yet.

      1. Mechanized Infantry – Your Infantry are now Mechanized Infantry with +1 Movement and the ability to blitz.
        USSR – 5            UK – 4            US – 3            GER – 4            JAP – 5

      2. Dug-In Defenders – Your Infantry/Artillery on your home territories (i.e. USSR on red territories) gain +1 Defense.
        USSR – 4            UK – 4            US – 4            GER – 4            JAP – 4

      3. Heavy Artillery – Your Artillery are now Heavy Artillery with +1 Attack, +1 Movement (no Blitzing allowed though,) and the ability to combat (for attacking and/or defending, but only during the first round of combat) in adjacent areas with a -1 modifier.
        USSR – 6            UK – 6            US – 6            GER – 5            JAP – 6

      4. Heavy Tanks – Your Tanks are now Heavy Tanks with +1 Attack.
        USSR – 4            UK – 5            US – 5            GER – 4            JAP – 6

      5. Heavy Transports – Your Transports are now Heavy Transports with the ability to hold up to 2 Infantry +any 1 land unit or any 2 land units.
        USSR – 6            UK – 4            US – 3            GER – 5            JAP – 4

      6. Super Subs – Your Submarines are now Super Subs with +1 Attack and +1 Defense.
        USSR – 6            UK – 5            US – 4            GER – 3            JAP – 3

      If you follow something like this, then you could just combine all of the technologies and NAs by making the usual NAs for a power cheaper for that power.

      #7  Some possible solutions to Germany being a 20 would be to increase W. Europe and Vichy France both to 4 or 5 each and maybe E. Europe also then reduce Germany’s IPCvalue an equal amount.  Maybe split Germany into N. Geermany (which would be the capital) and S. Germany.  E. Germany/W. Germany might be a little more historically accurate especially when the Allies take W. Europe, but it would slow troops way down from crossing from one side to the other for Germany.  Another one would be to make Berlin its own territory completely inside of Germany and give it its own IC (but no AA).  Germany could be 15, and Berlin could be 5 (if no other changes were made).  This option might be a little difficult because of map size, but it would increase Germany’s defenses by nullifying the amphibious assault which takes the capital.  It makes sense too, because all of the other capitals which border sea zones are actually quite near the ocean, but Berlin is not.

      #8  Maybe Vichy France should start with an IC so that Germany at least has the option to build in the Mediteranian if it wishes.  I don’t think that this would give the Axis too much.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Has anyone tried +1 to the IPC value of the territory when you build a new IC?

      I had another thought which may be parallel to yours, Tekky.  What if ICs only cost 5IPC, but could only build units equal to 1/3 of the IPC value of the territory (rounded to the nearest whole number, but always with a minimum of 1 even on Greenland or other non-IPC producing territories).  By paying for and placing a white chip under the IC, each IC could be upgraded a max of 5 times (a red chip) with each increase adding another 1/3 production ability, so, the production ability would be as follows:

      Cost  # of ICs on territory  Example -India (3IPC)                          increase in the territory’s IPC value
      5        1                          1/3 of 3 = could build up to 1 unit/turn    +0
      10      2                          2/3 of 3 = could build up to 2 units/turn  +0
      15      3                          3/3 of 3 = could build up to 3 units/turn  +0
      20      4                          4/3 of 3 = could build up to 4 units/turn  +1
      25      5                          5/3 of 3 = could build up to 5 units/turn  +2
      30      6                          6/3 of 3 = could build up to 6 units/turn  +3 (the maximum increase)

      Of course, the original setup ICs should probably start at level 3 (an IC with 2 wite chips underneath), but it would be neat to be able to increase Caucus an additional 3 by spending 15 IPCs, so that Caucus would be worth 8 IPCs/turn and able to produce up to 8 units/turn.

      If this would be too powerful (one can only imagine every country upgrading their capital’s ICs, then perhaps the following would be more reasonable.

      Cost  # of ICs on territory  Example -India (3IPC)                          increase in the territory’s IPC value
      5        1                          1/3 of 3 = could build up to 1 unit/turn              +0
      10      2                          2/3 of 3 = could build up to 2 units/turn              +0
      15      3                          3/3 of 3 = could build up to 3 units/turn              +0
      20      4                          1 & 1/4 of 3 = could build up to 3.75=4 units/turn +0
      25      5                          1 & 1/2 of 3 = could build up to 4.5=5 units/turn  +0
      30      6                          1 & 1/2 of 3 = could build up to 4.5=5 units/turn  +1 (the maximum increase)

      I realize that this does increase the complexity of the game, but adding a slight economic diminsion to the game could be interesting.  Another thought would be that the Axis setup ICs start at level 3, but the Allies setup ICs start at levels 1-2. At least for America anyway.

      Good/Bad?  Tell me what you think.

      P.S.  In the current game, we tried the +1 IPC value to all new ICs, and it is definantly helping the Allies somewhat (with UK having 1 in S. Africa and 1 in India and US having 1 in Sinkang) by keeping Japan tied down and UKs being able to hold Africa quite handily.  Although Russia is having quite a time of it trying to hold off the Germans.

      posted in House Rules
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: Countering Operation Sea Lion

      If Operation Sea Lion is so easy to counter, by having the 2 Russian Fighters fly to England on R1, then why do so many people say that the OOB rules are broken?  It should just be a normal, if anoying, part of the game for Russia to fly its Fighters over on R1 to counter the G1 Sea Lion, just like it is a normal part of the game for Russia to take West Russia on R1 to counter the G1 attack on Moscow.  Now I do understand that, in a bidding game, if the bid is 8+, that an extra transport added to the Baltic Fleet could still probably overpower the 2 Russian Fighters, so maybe that is why people say that the OOB rules are broken, but if the bid is <8, then I wouldn’t say that the OOB rules are broken.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • Has anyone tried +1 to the IPC value of the territory when you build a new IC?

      My friends and I are trying out some new ideas, and our most recent one is for when you build a new IC.  When you do, the IPC value of the territory goes up by +1, so that means that if you place a US IC on Sinkang, then the US’s IPC value increases from 42 to 43 (assuming that you haven’t lost any territory yet) and the new IC may produce up to 3 units because Sinkang is now considered to be a 3 IPC territory.  This seems to balance out the somewhat high cost (15 IPC) of building an IC, and it gives you some new options, because now you could place an IC on any 1 IPC valued territory and now produce up to 2 units.  The extra IPC boost doesn’t hurt either when it comes to purchasing.  This house rule may to help the allies a little more than the axis, because a Sinkang IC producing 3 Tanks a turn paired with an India IC producing 4 units can probably knock Japan off of Asia if Japan is not careful. Also a South Africa IC producing 3 units should ensure that Africa never falls.  Is this a good/bad house rule?  Tell me what you think.

      posted in House Rules
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • RE: AARHE demo

      I’ve got a couple of questions about A&A HE, and I’m not sure where to ask them, so I’ll try here.  My friends and I are trying to play with the map which includes Italy separate.

      #1  Starting:  The reference cards show Japan starting with 30 IPC’s, but Japan’s starting territories add up to be 32. Which is correct?

      #2  Starting:  If Germany now counts as a 20, then does that mean that Rocket attacks and SBRs could now take up tp 20 away?  That seems a little too powerful.

      #3  Starting:  The country setup cards don’t represent the HE map with Italy correctly.  Norway is now Norway/Finland, Western Europe is now Western Europe/Vichy France, Southern Erope is now Southern Europe/Italy, and Australia is now Eastern Australia/Western Australia, but the setup cards still show the same as A&A Revised.

      #4  Starting:  Why is there a discrepency between some setup cards?  This is basically only with Germany.  The difference is as follows:  Artillery–2 on Germany, 2 on Western Europe, 1 on Eastern Europe, and 1 on Balkans versus Artillery–0 on Germany, 0 on Western Europe, 0 on Eastern Europe, 0 on Balkans, 1 on Ukraine, 1 on West Russia, and 1 on Algeria.  This is a total difference of 3 Artillery units or 12 IPCs.

      #5  Neutrals/Diplomacy:  If you raise a neutral power’s level to +5/-5, then what happens?  The rules just say that they are now fully commited to your side, so we are playing that the troops, if any, now belong to the Allies/Axis team which raised the neutral power’s side to +5/-5 with the troops changing to the nearest Allied/Axis capital. (not counting Italy which doesn’t get a diplomacy roll)

      #6  Neutrals/Diplomacy:  What happens if the Axis sway Sweden to -3 which means that Germany now receives an extra 2 IPCs per turn and then England takes over Sweden?  Does England now receive the extra 2 IPCs?  If so, then what keeps America from runing a couple of tanks down to South America to gobble up the extra 4 IPCs per turn?

      #7  Neutrals/Diplomacy:  Why doesn’t Italy get a diplomacy die?  Or, at least let them roll at a 0 so that they could roll if they have a bonus+1, +2, or +3.

      #8  Neutrals/Diplomacy:  Why do you roll for the Sahara?  It should just be an automatic that anyone could fly over it, and anyone could cross it, but no blitzing across because of the desert.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      BardolyB
      Bardoly
    • 1 / 1