Posts made by baron Münchhausen

Nice of you IL.

Thanks for the offer.

Good draft Argo, I like all this configuration of islands.
It will clearly inspired my Baron AA50&1942.2 inspired by DK’s based on IL’s.

To get an exact corresponding strength between A2 D2 M2 vs A3 D3 M2, one would  have cost 4.5 IPCs while the other 5.5 IPCs.

5 pips for 5 IPCs was overall correct, but 6 pips for 5 IPCs was too cheap.
Any M2 A2 D2 was weak for 5 IPCs.

In D12, you would have get
4/12 C5 vs 9/12 C6 is about same strength.
Meanings in D6s: 2/6 Cost 5 vs 4.5/6 cost 6.

Interesting idea for Ceylon into both SZs.
But it becomes impossible to built there if it is a new TT.
I cannot have both ways but still, I will think about this split island on my customized map.

To help UK, East Indies should be link to India SZ so it allows to reach Indonesia in one move of 2 SZs.

Just to give the whole picture of Indian Ocean, a picture of AA50 map.

@Black_Elk:

One of the things that’s kind of frustrating about the AA50 map is that the sea zone design in that region doesn’t really allow for Singapore or the strait of Malacca to be modelled with an HR.

Unlike Gibraltar or the Danish straits which have a workable sz border that would allow for an HR some sort for straits, Sumatra and Malaya-FIC dont have a clear east/west divide that you could close off. Its too bad, because that might give the British a reason to try and hold onto that pearl and maybe fight forward sometimes.
Short of that I guess dividing the sea zones for more distance would be cool

Based on your comment, I slightly revised the map, so to reach India in 2 SZs Move, from FIC East Coast you have to rather travel through Strait of Malacca (which would require to own both Malaya and East Indies). Or, turn around Java and Sumatra, so it would require 3 SZs Move, or be in Borneo SZ to make it to India via South of Java Sumatra in 2 SZs move.

Is it this kind of thing your were thinking about?

Adding a SZ but making Java Sumatra a natural frontier was one of my intent.
The picture was based on DK’s which was based on AA50.
Maybe this might help to have a view of the area.

Hi SS,
here is a file with first sheet which includes the automatic calculations of all your numbers in D12s.
Just enter them. You will get the Enigma strength on the right columns.

The other two are D8s.

HTH

You can also change some names, to better fit your units.

You can write down below the first all special units, and post the file here.
I might be able to adjust according to your units capabilities.

SS_YG_Baron_roster_Enigma Vann formula_D6_D8_D12_D10.xls

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

These Subs might have a hard time…
Does it worth the investment to raid Convoy?

Blockers depends on cheap fodder. As far as I can remember, yours are 6 IPCs. So, 12 IPCs in DDs (or DD+Sub) or a single Cruiser (9 IPCs) or 1 capital ship seems enough. But who wants to block with capital ships?

How Cruisers can chase Subs?
They can submerge if no DD is present, no?

Italy and Germany purchase land-base planes most of time?

This game Axis is winning, right?
Was also the case last time, right?

Cruiser M3 seems to give Allies more tactical options.

😂😂😂

Here is an opening post talking about your topic (follow the quote link to read all the thread):
@Black_Elk:

These points all came up in my last game

1. Aircraft are overpowered on this board. The distance between Berlin and Moscow, and sz 45 and Moscow, is 3 moves. Fighters can move 4, so they can defend one capital while threatening the other provided there is an adjacent space to land. USA fighters can defend Moscow while threatening Berlin. Japanese fighters can defend Berlin while threatening Moscow and so on. There is no anti-aircraft mechanism on this board, so fighters are only at risk in normal combat.

2. Bombers? They can’t strat bomb, so the unit is already nerfed on this board and not really representative of the unit’s unique ability on all other boards. Their reach at 6 is even more significant, given the short distances and many shucks on this gamemap.

3. The game suffers from the lack of artillery. Artillery would have made more sense than the bomber, if the goal was to keep the unit roster simple. Not having any unit between the 3 ipcs of inf, and the 6 ipcs of a tank leads to consistent infantry purchases. Since it is often impossible to spend the remainder on anything but inf, even when you start to grow. Which leads to the most basic point about 1941…

4. Infantry walls! The lack of artillery, and the steep cost of tanks relative to the overall income/production of the gamemap means that this board reverts back to the most static form of Classic style gameplay. The dynamism introduced in Revised with the artillery unit is lost on this board. You are back to pushing stacks. Honestly, the board feels so much like classic. The only difference is that here, ships are even more expensive than they were in classic, relative to the overall cashflow. The battleship at 16 seems cheap, until you consider that this is now the equivalent of the entire US economy for 1 round. At least in classic they could afford 1 and still have some change left over for an infantry unit or two. Not so here.

So basically, as an introduction to Axis and Allies, I’m not sure how I feel about it. I like aspects of this board, but I don’t see how it is particularly fast paced. The flow in Revised felt more dynamic than here, even with the short distances the game can last a number of rounds, where the stack push race just plays out in basically the same way it did in Classic, trying to gain that slight edge on inf fodder. I guess if the goal of the map is teach new players that basic mechanic, then it is a success. But A&A had come a long way from that in the last few iterations. So this feels like a step backwards.

Has anyone else had this experience?
Or has anyone tried playing this map with artillery included? To see if it changed things

Let’s go boys, you can win!!!

:-D :-D :-D

The wizard of the code is striking again!
Thanks for your dedication Barney.
I hope some people will like to spice up their game with a few touches of your long hours of work.
+10 ;)

@Leatherneckinlv:

It’s Sireblood’s idea….tested it a few times…it’s brilliant

With OOB BBs A8 D8 C20 and Cruiser A6 D6 C12. It is like having twice 2hits warships at 16 IPCs (D12s) with Att7 Def7.
A kind of Heavy Cruiser, clearly make this unit more dangerous than Battleships only for cost.

Enigma Formula:
2hits warships at 16 IPCs (D12s) with Att7 Def7
Combined fleet purchase of 1 BB+1CA, 4 hits:
(367/16^2)1.618034= **1.593 powerhit**
vs
Battleship
(368/20^2)1.618034= **1.165 powerhit**

compared to OOB 1 hit Destroyer (D12s) A4 D4 C8:
364/8^2= **2.25 powerhit**

Ok, so this is not too much OP.
Just that BBs fleet is much weaker.

SS Cruiser A7 D7 M3 C9
36*7/81 = 3.11

Cruiser A7 D6 M3 Cost 10
Offence: 36*7/100 = 2.52
Defence: 36*6/100 = 2.16

SS 1 hit Destroyer A3 D3 M2 C6
36*3/36 = 3.00

SS Submarine A4 D2 M2 C7
Offence: 36*4/49 = 2.94 Surprise strike: 4.41
Defense:36*2/49 = 1.47 Surprise strike: 1.95

1 hit Destroyer A3 D3 M2 C5
36*3/25 = 4.32

Submarine A4 D2 M2 C6
Offence: 36*4/36 = 4.00 Surprise strike: 6.00
Defense: 36*2/36 = 2.00 Surprise strike: 2.67

It is just that some hard core player usually have some prefered G1 and J1 purchase, since it is known. It allows Axis players to forsee and planned as usual.
No change on their side. Only on Allies parts which naturally modified their play and purchase pattern due to income increase on first round.

To me it appears less debatable to be agreed upon by Axis players, by not changing anything for them.

Below  you get the link to AACalc:

10 Subs vs 3 BBs
98% vs 2 %
No match at all.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=10&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

3 BBs @4 vs 10 Subs @1
42% vs 58% odds of survival.

Three BBs as core fleet might be the way to work in synergies to get the best out of the 2 hits unit.
Eventhough 6 Fgs vs 3 BBs is not that high at 62% vs 38%.
IMO, it is an highly specialized purchased which provide a nice hit absorbing capacity for strafing at the expense of versatility in other fields like Fgs.

IMO, an appropriate counter with StBs and Subs would get ride of such behemoths.
4 StBs 2 Subs vs 3 BBs =  80% vs 15% and 5% even
Yet, it is your houserule, and it is an appropriate way to deal with it when all players assumed it is OP.
But I’m not convinced it is the case.

Do you really need to lower down Germany?

Going with OOB for Germany and Japan let’s Axis player planned their purchase as usual.
There is already a good bid for Allies. Especially for Russia (any ground units at the centre is a bliss) and UK (+10) is far more able to rise India defense with another Fg traveling through Russia.