Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. baron Münchhausen
    3. Posts
    0%
    • Profile
    • Following 4
    • Followers 2
    • Topics 74
    • Posts 4,545
    • Best 43
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 2

    Posts made by baron Münchhausen

    • RE: Two minor changes we enjoy

      I still don’t see the issue.
      Battleships cannot land and help on land compared to 4 Fgs.
      3 will lost against 2 Carriers and 4 Fighters (15% vs 85%).
      These units are highly specialized and each purchase means 2 less versatile Fgs for both naval or land missions.
      In G40, you have to wait into a Naval Base to repair them. Otherwise, you need to fall back and wait an additional turn to be repaired and be again a menace.

      You might feel it is broken, but this two hits is the special capacity of BBs.

      Use Subs, you will cut them into pieces.

      Historically, many US BBs were repaired after Pearl Harbor raid and won the fight in Leyte Gulf, capping the “T” to IJN Task Force.
      Musashi and Yamato were pretty hard to sink, even with no real air support.
      If they have been used in a more combined fleet ways, they would have been very effective.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      We talked about Canada as minor power around these pages:
      https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1646373#msg1646373

      Around the time of Sea Lion, I read on web there was two fully equipped Canadian Infantry Divisions defending London against a German Invasion.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      I crunched these numbers with Enigma formula, Cruiser is just a bit stronger than DD.
      It might be interesting with M3, people will get more for the money.

      Reading my HR with Cruiser against blockers, it said: Cruiser have to survive blocker’s defense so Cruiser gain control of SZ.  Then, main fleet can cross this newly controlled SZ to launch an attack on SZ behind blocker.

      Probably one issue will be about slow TP not able to follow Cruiser, but introducing Cruiser as a way to make naval blitz might be interesting to analyze how PTO is changed.

      Keep us posted on this one, it is a major change to help cruiser compete with DD and is within Redesigned playground.

      Here is the post which includes a few conditions to follow so to blitz into a second SZ:
      @Baron:

      @Black_Elk:

      It might be worth separating the two ideas and pursuing them in isolation. On land I think the blitz concept works as outlined. At sea the idea is more aspirational, we wanted to see if a similar blitz move might be activated by cruisers, but how exactly to work that, I’m not as confident.

      In both cases the idea was to provided a special attack that makes blocking/stalling more challenging for the defender. So instead of covering with 1 infantry unit, or 1 dd to stall a massive force, here you’d have to manage the defense with the blitz factored in.

      I like it on land with the armor mech and tacs, possibly fighters. Naval blitz, if it could be worked out, would probably look a bit different and might have a separate system.

      In Pacific Naval Combat, the usual twin powers can-opener is often made by German’s StratBs against Destroyer blocker.
      After it’s done, Japan will move a lot of warships through the empty SZ to get into another SZ for combat.

      What is the real difference, if it is Japan which have to use a few of his units to wipe the Destroyer unit, then reach with his main fleet the second SZ?
      All that I see is a better coordination of units by Japan but less units available for the main Naval Combat beyond the blocker.

      There is still a gain to use 1 or 2 blockers tactics (same as dividing attacking troops amongst 2 combat zones: odds always worse) but blocker tactics is not as strong as OOB when German’s StratBombers are not in Japan.

      If you want to keep a similar blocker impact, but not an absolute one, I suggested 2 ways:
      first, it should be mandatory to control the first SZ (hence, it is different from the German’s StBs can-opener in which the SZ is uncontrolled).
      second, it could be a condition to destroy all blockers in a single combat round, to proceed to a Naval blitz.
      So, Japan would need to use more units to be sure to get the hit. And, if not, in some unlucky times, the Destroyer will still block the Naval forces in the first SZ.

      Do you see how the attacking forces will be less powerful than under the twin powers can-opener?

      So, is their other conditions to think about which can imply Cruiser, so you can have both world?

      Thinking out loud:
      Cruiser could be the naval unit required to perform such destruction of the blocker (rationalized as doing an advance scouting mission to open the way to the main fleet)?
      To perform a Naval Blitz, 1 Cruiser unit must controlled a given SZ in which pass through all the other Naval units.

      So, in a sense, Cruiser, same as Tank, is needed to perform the breakthrough. Tank help MechInf to reach the second territory.
      Cruiser help the whole fleet to reach the second SZ, but it must stay behind, in the first SZ.

      And, for instance, if there is 2 US Destroyers blockers, probably Japan must at least wipe them with 1 Cruiser and other units, such as Subs and Destroyers or even planes.
      Of course, the cheaper the better (Subs), and if Japan is unable to gain control of this SZ with her Cruiser unit (for example, all units were destroyed), then it can only move all his Naval unit into this SZ.
      In some unlucky cases, such a Naval blitz move would be costlier for Japan than just controlling cautiously the blocked SZ  by moving all his Naval Units in the first SZ only.

      So, probably blocking with 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine (14 IPCs) can become an interesting mix (and be much more historically accurate).
      Because, the attacker wouldn’t be able to protect the Cruiser (with a few planes) without also bringing  a Sub or a Destroyer, in case the the defending Subs get a hit or a surprise strike hit.

      What do you think of this?

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      Cruiser
      A7
      D7
      M3
      C9

      What is DD combat values?

      I hope Cruiser is purchased in your game?

      She is stronger and much cheaper compared to G40 OOB:
      Cruiser
      A6
      D6
      M2
      C12

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Two minor changes we enjoy

      Nice AAA paradox.
      So, besides 1 AAA no need to stack more in a given TT.
      Did players spread them?
      Stronger or cheaper, this is two ways to improve them.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      @CWO:

      If I understand correctly what YG is seeking, the requirements are for a special cruiser bonus that a) applies only to cruisers and to no other ship type; b) that does not involve a combined-arms pairing between a cruiser and another unit; c) that is historically accurate, both in terms of the technical features of WWII cruisers and their actual use in that war; and d) which does not involve an IPC price adjustment.
      Frankly, I can’t think of any historically accurate things about cruisers that would fit all those requirements. At best, there might be things that could be bent or stretched to partially fulfil what’s being looked for. One idea I’ve already mentioned is the concept of giving cruisers some kind of equivalent to the OOB blitzing ability of tanks, to reflect the combination of speed and long range which cruisers offered.

      As always, instructive and interesting dive into World War II in depth history.
      Thanks for both posts.

      The single ability specific to Cruiser and not too unbalancing seems to be linked to his extended range.
      1914 opens a window for an A&A M3 Cruiser.
      Giving a basic 3 Moves, but what kind of effect does +1M Naval Base bonus, is yet to determine.
      No bonus,
      NCM bonus only,
      both CM and NCM ,
      so Cruiser gets M4 in such last two situations when leaving a NB.
      I don’t know if any player ever play them that way.

      A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
      Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988

      This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: 1942.2 Red Bomber or USA First?

      Nope for me.
      It is very interesting you try a no move USA0 built.
      I’ll keep reading your report.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: 1942.2 Red Bomber or USA First?

      Really?
      Japan cannot get ride of an IC producing 1 unit on USA R1?

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barney:

      Here’s the Canada Boost. : ) Obviously you can always boost more or less with edit.

      “Canada Boost” which gives BC a extra 1 PU and Yukon, New Foundland each get 1 PU as well.

      “Canada Unit Boost” Gives 2 infantry to Alberta and a Tac Bomber to Ontario.

      This is a Objective. “Get 2 PUs if the Allies control 123 and 117 Sea Zones”.

      Haven’t played a lot with Canada. UK might need a couple extra dudes at start. Idk. They lose the Canada dough so …

      Will upload to triplea soon.

      Anyway just another option : )

      From historical POV, Ontario was more industrialized than Quebec and other TTs, it should deserve 1 PU. Also, I believe the main training ground for pilots was in AlSaMa rather Ontario, so I would place TcB in this TT instead (but this is a secondary issue). Maybe CWO might chimed in on these two…

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: 1942.2 Red Bomber or USA First?

      Did Japan planned for Russsia  pincher with Germany through China?
      Russia is only 4 TTs away through Yunnan, Szechwan and Khazak SSR.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: [Global 1940] Additional Unit Stats

      Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
      😊😊😊

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      I believe the main principle to follow is that a given unit cannot attack twice in different zones.

      Black Elk and I talked about giving Cruiser a special ability to get ride of blockers.
      You can commit any units against blocker and if at least one Cruiser is part of the attack, you can assume that another fleet with at least one Cruiser can CM 1 SZ pass over the blocker SZ. If all blockers are sunk, then you can resolve the other naval combat. Otherwise all ships remains in blocker’s SZ.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      What do you think about this little change on Move:
      Med. Bomber
      A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
      A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1
      Move 6 (7 with AB)
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 +1 damage
      AA gun D@2
      C10

      H. Bomber
      A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
      A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1
      Move 7 (8 with AB)
      Dog Fight @2
      SBR 1d10 +1 damage
      AA gun D@1
      C12

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      @SS:

      Ok. Will see. Ty
      Just trying to get to historical to a certain point.

      Yes. But with D12s and more units clearly improve the possibilities to be more historical.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: 1942.2 Red Bomber or USA First?

      I was thinking the same way than Reaper, Capital Letters bolded should be kept for titles or within units values subtitles.

      I agree on gradual changes on USA R0 playtests.
      Let us know how it evolves.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      Hope you will like them.
      From my POV, there are more similar to a few comparative capacities.
      I think that land-based Fgs can load a bit more armaments or payloads and have an higher range because carrier-based Fgs are smaller so have less room for fuel and rockets and small bombs.

      Hence, I rise attack to 6 and range to 5 for land-based Fgs.

      The 11 IPCs cost is from a game POV, it is easier to pay an higher cost with a more specialized aircraft which cannot land everywhere.

      It is up to you to decide if a few or all aircrafts on TTs are considered land-based.
      IMO, a few setup Fgs should remain naval (even on TTs) to keep versatile play on round 1 and 2.

      I like these too:

      Med. Bomber
      A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
      A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1 against ground only
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 +1 damage
      AA gun D@2
      C10

      H. Bomber
      A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
      A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1
      Dog Fight @2
      SBR 1d10 +1 damage
      AA gun D@1
      C12

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      Here is my shot at Fgs:
      Naval Fighter (Can land anywhere)
      A5
      D7
      Dog Fight @3
      M4 (5 with AB)
      C10

      Fighter (Cannot land on carriers but islands allowed.)
      A6
      D7
      Dog Fight @3
      M5 (6 with AB)
      C11

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      @SS:

      @SS:

      @SS:

      @SS:

      Heres some idea stats for now. We can tweak.

      Med. Bomber
      A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
      A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1 against ground only
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 +1 damage
      AA gun D@2
      C10

      H. Bomber
      A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
      A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
      D 2d12s @1
      Dog Fight @2
      SBR 1d10 +1 damage
      AA gun D@1
      C12

      Tac Bomber
      A7 . Roll of 4 or less can pic target with a return shot.
      D 5
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 damage (Air - Naval ports, Train Stations and Oil Derricks)
      C10
      AA gun D@1

      Naval Dive Bomber
      A7 A roll of 4 or less can pick target with a return shot.
      D 5
      SBR 1d8 damage ( Air - Naval ports, Oil Derricks)
      C10

      Naval Fighter
      A5 A roll of 3 or less can pick target with a return shot.
      D5
      C10

      Fig
      A6
      D6
      M5
      C11
      or
      A6
      or just leave it alone.

      Japan doesnt receive H. Bombers.

      This has been updated

      You can put your suggestions inside quote box to the right of values on same lines if you want.
      But I would like to keep Stg., H. bombers where there at for now.
      Also destroyers cant really block no more.

      I pretty agree on the basics.
      Tac Bomber
      A7 . Roll of 4 or less can pic target with a return shot.
      D 5
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 damage (Air - Naval ports, Train Stations and Oil Derricks)
      C10
      AA gun D@1

      Naval Dive Bomber
      A7 A roll of 4 or less can pick target with a return shot.
      D 5
      SBR 1d8 damage ( Air - Naval ports, Oil Derricks)
      C10

      IMO, even Dive Bomber can attack AA, from Carrier base.
      What do you think about rising power of TcB like this?:

      Tac Bomber (cannot land on Carrier but can land on islands)
      A7  Can pick target with a return shot. But ground units only.
      D5   Can pick target with return shot. But ground units only.
      Dog Fight @1
      SBR 1d8 damage (Air - Naval ports, Train Stations and Oil Derricks)
      C11
      Move 5 or (6 with AB)
      AA gun D@2

      Naval Dive Bomber (Can land on both Carrier or land)
      A7 A roll of 4 or less can pick target (any) with a return shot.
      D 5
      SBR 1d8 damage ( Air - Naval ports, Oil Derricks)
      C10
      Move 4 or (5 with AB)
      AA gun D@1

      Naval Fighter (Can land anywhere)
      A5
      D7
      M4 (5 with AB)
      C10

      Fighter (Cannot land on carriers but islands allowed.)
      A6
      D7
      M5 (6 with AB)
      C11

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      @SS:

      But now after 1 turn of play testing the Tac dice n fig to strong on first round shot. 6 naval planes could take out a fleet with no return shots

      Personnaly, I’m not a big fan of first shot, except for AAA or very special cases, like Barney and I developed for Destroyer patrol vs Subs.

      I once playtested Fg attacking first strike @1 vs plane first.
      I did not like it because it delayed the game everytime these Fg were attacking.

      So, what made you like it and saw it fitting for you planes?

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Global War 1940 2nd ed.

      @SS:

      I could try it. I have to see what it does if japan and US get there NA island bases. With that =
      Fig M5 + air b + island = M7

      @SS:

      @Baron:

      @SS:

      @Baron:

      Can you live with land planes with M5 vs naval planes with M4?

      From a non airbase ?

      Yes, AB will make land planes M6.

      Could finally get an escort somewhere in game maybe and with island bases for US they could escort SBR raids on oil derricks in the Dutch islands. Damage goes against Japans  income  or any other country.

      These ones would be like P-38 Lightning in PTO.
      Escorting some bombers.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • 1 / 1