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

    Best posts made by baron Münchhausen

    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      I think an attack on ships should be preceeded by an AA defense equal to half the ship’s defense.

      And I like the idea of TAC/NAV being allowed to chose target.

      Another thing I thought of was to fix a scale for the units in game so we can have some more interesting OOB.

      Any level of AA which is higher than up to @1 on aircraft, is going to create a lot of aircraft attrition. I saw this happened many times in various playtests. So, it implies to compensate for the accelerate losses of aircraft. Keeping 10-11-12 IPCs values is too high and was balanced for a game which was meant to shield aircraft casualties in many many ways.

      As I wanted something like 1914 dogfight for Fighter while TcB being able to target enemy’s ground units (at least, but I’ve tried just 2 times with targeting warships too: need more playtests on that point ). I developed my own working house rule but on 1942.2. It works relatively well. But cannot say for G40 kind of scale.

      Fighter are A2 D2 M4 Cost 7, always hit aircraft first if any present, as long as there is on the opposite side.
      TcB are A3 D2 M4 Cost 8, pick any ground target as casualty upon a successful hit.

      I hope you will see how this going in the direction you intend to implement.
      The 1914 dogfight mechanic can somehow be working each combat round, as long as you have Fighter remaining on any side.

      Just note that Tank A3 D3 C6 have better odds, so it happens very often when trying to take a needed TT, Fighters were sacrificed along the battle so to keep better odds and the opportunity to conquer the TT.

      HTH, wish you luck to find the adequate numbers for your game.

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

      @SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

      Also I’m a bit hesitant on naval fig D4 in a DF

      Hi SS, what makes you so reluctant about Fighter defending @4 (4/12 is 33%) in a Dogfight?
      Most game with DF features allows such Fighter defending with 33% odds.
      I’m thinking also about Balanced Mode, which play fighter interceptor and escort @2.

      You wrote:
      Land-based Fighter C10 A@6 D@7 M5 DF A@3 D@3
      Naval Fighter C10 A@5 D@7 M4 DF A@3 D@4

      Also, for same 10 IPCs cost, I feel that it is a correct trade off between better offense and range compared to landing on Carriers and a small bonus in dogfight.

      You wrote:
      Land-based Tactical Bomber
      C10 A@7 D@5 M5 DF@1
      Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot

      Naval-based Dive Bomber
      C10 A@7 D@5 M4 DF@1
      Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot.

      For same 10 IPCs cost, in that case, there is no trade off between better range compared to landing on Carriers.
      In addition, with D12, it may be relevant to use the option to increment Dogfight for these two aircraft. After all, 1 out of 6, is not an OP value.
      Maybe, you can improve Dogfight of Naval Dive bomber compared to “Stuka” as Land-based TcBomber. If a single value for A/D is what you are looking for these bombers, then @2 might be also correct.

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

      @MGregersen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      @baron-Münchhausen Does a definite document with these interesting changes exist so that it could be applied to the G40 board version?

      Hi everyone!
      I’m pretty busy during lock down.

      Just a few minutes to say hello.
      Especially to a new member, Mr Gregersen.

      I’ve got a lot of various of Word doc for different games and roster. But no definite. The most useful way to find what suit your game is to pick a few House rule from Barney’s TripleA development. And see what you feel working.

      IMO, there is so much fun to tweak a few things to see if it improves the flow of the game according to your taste and of your friends.

      For my parts, I like boats and naval battle a lot. So I tend to increase ships building with lower cost.
      But to what extend can you play while affecting balance somehow.

      Barney is the one which play test the beast more intensively. He can surely give a bit of advice about what worth a try.

      If you want some Word file to tweak with I can share one.

      Have fun and take care all of you.
      There is a nasty virus outside, be safe everyone.

      Baron

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

      Another aspect I forgot to mention,
      is that a few rules on Sub warfare with DD and aircrafts can be implemented quite differently between board game and TripleA due to the programming effort required to derailed from OOB rules mechanism.

      In a few cases, you can get similar results with less combat steps.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Convoy Disruption: 1941, 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare

      @Imperious-Leader
      On Baltic convoys in 1942.2 or AA50, instead of Norway Sz, it is about giving a real opportunity for Germany to defend it against USSR Sub or other Allies built in Atlantic.

      The scale and pace of this game cannot give room for a working weak spot so far from Germany’s influence in Norway SZ, even if this only 1 SZ away from Baltic. Trying to protect this SZ outside is a waste of money or units. So, it remains almost a deprivation of Germany’s IPCs with no way to win the upper hand.

      In Baltic, when Germany abandon ship building, then it still becomes an Allied Sub raiding zone.
      Just a bit later.

      So, it is the compromising between play balance and historical accuracy.

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

      @mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      Yeah… My idea for my rework revolved around DD making an ASW check if subs decide to do a surprise attack. If successful, the submarines will be sunk.

      So I want to have the ability to spend money on convoys and escorts and the uboats reducing that amount with successful attacks. Kind of bringing a bit more of the strategic humpf to this boardgame.

      I like DDs with a 2:2 value as I think it is fitting. Submarines are downgraded to 1:1 but they will also cost a lot less like 4 or even 3.
      Their impact will also be more over time than immediate.

      Sooo many things to try out…

      As a matter of fact, you are not downgrading Subs, it is quite the contrary. Going from A2 D1 Cost 6 to A1 D1 Cost 4, 1 hit. Is a blessing for them.

      Reducing Submarine to low 4 or, even 3 IPCs, is a dangerous path to create unbalancing effects in Naval Combat. One issue you might encounter amongst power players which are looking for ways to win at all costs, is about the fodder unit. If any unit can be used for cheap fodder, no matter its combat capacity, you will use it as a shield around hard hitter. For instance, 5 Subs A1 D1 at 4 IPCs would provides 5 hits and 5 pips A/D for 20 IPCs. Compared to a single roll @4 for Battleship, with 2 hits. The real deal will be to purchase almost exclusively Subs around already existing units to protect them.

      I’m not sure it would be the kind of Naval warfare you are looking for.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: General 6 Stars 1941 WW2 Game

      @SS-GEN
      Thanks for the addendum.

      With up to 2 planes you get the same strength as a Carrier.
      Islands were nick-named unsinkable aircraft carriers.

      The OOB rules forbidding to land on a just conquered territory was certainly introduced to prevent both unlimited full move attack kamikaze-liked.
      And unbalancing the borders battle with immediate hold of a TT with 1 ground and a massive airfleet, making impossible to fight back and forth over a territory.

      The impact of this rule is that besides opening combat with setup, there is no dogfight in skirmishes battle overland, only at sea with carriers or scramble.

      Allowing 2 ( you may decide to go 3, as scramble allowance) is to keep things within limits while having the fun of dogfight above battlegrounds.

      When u mean pay 2 you mean 2 move left then plane can land. It’s like fly across sz move 1 then land move 1 = move 2.
      So the 2 planes can land after battle if they have 2 moves left.

      Exactly. For instance, 2 land Fighters (M5) starts from an island with AB+1M move 2 SZs, and 1 over land. 3 moves left. If they win, they have enough to land, otherwise they can fly back.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Axis and Allies expansion?

      This is from Philip Schwartzer: World War II: The expansion.

      It is a black and white booklet cover with a Submarine as picture.

      Pillbox add +1 to defense for 1 IPC, to be put on Japanese Infantry on Islands.
      Cruiser cost 13 IPCs, if Battleship worth 24 IPCs.
      Destroyer cost 8 IPCs, A2 D2 M2.

      HTH.

      https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22927/world-war-ii-expansion

      I played a lot with this Expansion in my early twenties.  :-)

      Pillboxes token are from this Expansion:
      https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22952/world-war-ii-expansion-2

      posted in Customizations
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: House Rules: Master List

      This one talk about map reshaping in Europe, making Berlin a land TTy only with no access to Baltic Sea.

      Amphibious invasion of Berlin: A recurring issue
      June 24, 2014, 01:55:30 pm to reply #17 on: June 30, 2014, 01:42:16 am
      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33755.msg1293376#msg1293376

      Another map reshaping for 1942.2, this is opening post:
      @Argothair:

      Background

      So, for those of you just tuning in, there’s a reasonably broad consensus about A&A 1942: 2nd Edition that it’s a fabulous game but that (a) it’s slightly unbalanced in favor of the Axis, and (b) it fails to break out of the increasingly tired rut where Russia immediately evacuates all of its Asian troops, China is a speed bump at best, and the optimal strategy is for the Axis to race for Moscow while the Allies race for Berlin.

      We’ve talked about many potential solutions for these issues, most of which have involved adding additional units and/or changing the price of units. We’ve steered clear of changing the map, though, mostly because map changes disrupt game balance in ways that are hard to predict, and tend to damage the graphics – you don’t want to go around leaving permanent marks on your snazzy $60 game boards with a $2 sharpie.

      A Modest Proposal

      Keeping those risks in mind, I have a proposal for a very small set of changes to the 1942.2 map that could yield big payoffs in terms of creating additional game balance and strategic variety without ruining the aesthetic appeal of the game. It’s just a proposal, though, so I strongly recommend using a pencil…

      1. Draw a vertical line from the northeast corner of Afghanistan to the center of the southern border of Sianking, dividing Szechuan into two territories: Qinghai (west) and Henan (east). Qinghai is worth 1 IPC and contains a new Victory City named Chongqing. Qinghai starts the game with 1 American infantry. Qinghai borders Kazakh, Sinkiang, and Henan. Henan is worth 2 IPC and starts the game with 2 American infantry, 1 American anti-aircraft gun, 1 American fighter, and 1 factory. Henan borders Sinkiang, Henan, Anhwei, Kwangtung, and Yunnan.

      2. Draw a vertical line from the northwest corner of the Caspian Sea to the center of the southern border of West Russia, dividing the Caucasus into two territories: Armenia (west) and Volgograd (east). Armenia is worth 4 IPCs and starts the game with 3 infantry and 1 artillery. Armenia borders Ukraine, West Russia, Volgograd, Persia, and the Black Sea. Volgograd is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 tank, 1 anti-aircraft gun, and 1 factory. Volgograd contains a new Victory City named Stalingrad, and borders Armenia, West Russia, Russia, and Kazakh.

      3. Draw a diagonal line that runs across the narrowest portion of Vologda, starting from the southeastern border of Archangel and finishing at the northwestern border of Novosibirsk. The line will split Vologda into two territories: Omsk (west) and Chelayabinsk (east). Omsk is worth 1 IPC and starts the game with 1 infantry. Omsk borders Russia, Archangel, Chelayabinsk, and Novosibirsk. Chelayabinsk is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 factory. Chelayabinsk borders Omsk, Archangel, Evenki, and Novosibirsk.

      4. Draw a vertical line splitting Libya into two territories: Tunisia (west) and Cyrenaica (east). Tunisia is worth 2 IPCs and borders Algeria, Cyrenaica, and the Italian sea zone. Tunisia contains a new victory city named Tunis. Tunisia starts with 2 German infantry at setup. Cyrenaica is worth 1 IPC and borders Tunisia, Egypt, and the Italian sea zone. Cyrenaica starts with 1 German tank at setup.

      5. Eastern Australia is now worth 2 IPCs instead of 1 IPC, and contains a victory city (Sydney).

      New Starting IPCs:
      USSR: 24 -> 27 IPCs (+3)
      Germany: 40 -> 42 IPCs (+2)
      Britain: 31 -> 32 IPCs (+1)
      Japan: 30 -> 30 IPCs (no change)
      USA: 42 -> 44 IPCs (+2)

      New Victory City List:
      Allies (10): Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, Chongqing, Honolulu, Sydney, San Francisco
      Axis (7): Paris, Berlin, Rome, Tunis, Shanghai, Tokyo, Manila

      There are 17 total victory cities. If either the Allies or the Axis control 11 or more Victory Cities at the end of the USA’s turn, then that team immediately wins.

      New Russian Starting Factory List:
      Karelia (2 units/turn), Volgograd (2 units/turn), Russia (8 units/turn), Chelayabinsk (2 units/turn).

      Strategy Discussion

      The point of these changes is to encourage the Russians to vigorously defend their Asian territories, to encourage Germany to vigorously defend north Africa, to allow the Americans to pump major resources into China if they so choose, to force the Allies to defend at least part of the Pacific, and to give both sides even chances at victory even without a bid.

      The Russians now have a starting factory in the Ural mountains (Chelayabinsk). Holding that factory and the immediately adjacent territories is worth 6 IPCs, meaning that you can drop two infantry a turn into the Ural factory and have them pay for themselves. Russia may not have a good reason to defend Buryatia, Yakutsk, and the Soviet Far East, but now at least there is a Russian rallying point somewhere along the 3,000 miles between Vladivostok and Moscow. If the Japanese conquer Chelayabinsk, it will seriously improve the Japanese income and logistical situation, but it is not necessarily an immediate game over for Moscow, which is still two spaces away.

      The Russians now have some room to trade in the south – Germany wants to capture Armenia because of the valuable oil worth 4 IPCs, and can do so relatively easily by swinging the Italian navy over to the northeast, but because Armenia does not come with a free factory, and because the USSR can still produce units in Volgograd, it is not necessarily worthwhile for the Axis to pull extreme stunts like flying the Japanese air force over to defend a captured Armenia.

      The Americans now have a starting factory in China (Qinghai) that is guaranteed a chance to produce 2 units before the Japanese can even attack it. Because the Americans start with an extra infantry and extra AAA gun in the region, if the Americans use both builds and also consolidate all forces in Qinghai, they have some hope of holding it against the Japanese on turn 2 even if Japan sends all available forces and the Russians/British do not help reinforce it. With a coordinated Allied effort, China can now hold against a mid-strength Japanese attack until turn 5 or 6 without the need to strip Russia or India bare.

      In north Africa, the Germans no longer have an attractive option to blow open Egypt on turn 1, because the ex-Libyan infantry is now out of position in Tunis. On the other hand, the Americans no longer have the option of defending all of Africa by ferrying troops to Morocco – once the Germans do crack Egypt on turn 2 or turn 3, the Allies will have to reinforce sub-Saharan Africa via West Africa and/or India, because Morocco is just too damn far away. On the third hand, if the Americans do choose to land in Morocco, the Germans will be less likely to just abandon north Africa in response, because now they have a 2 IPC territory with a victory city in it to defend. If the Germans let the Americans walk into Tunis, the Americans can build a factory there, and use it to seize Paris and Rome, setting up a European Allied victory even if the Allies never capture Berlin.

      Meanwhile, most of the old strategies can still be used if desired – the sea zones are all the same, the navies and air forces are all the same, the capitals are all in the same places, the starting forces distribution is virtually unchanged, and most of the map is encouragingly free of pencil marks.

      Let me know what you think!

      PS Many thanks to Black_Elk for his thread on moving Russia’s factories to the east, which is what got me thinking about these map changes in the first place, and to everyone for your feedback on earlier articles I’ve posted, which have helped me push the ideas in this piece forward to (what I hope) is their logical conclusion.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: General 6 Stars 1941 WW2 Game

      @SS-GEN said in SS GEN's 1941 Global War Game:

      Well on islands a lot just had an airstrip. I can see maybe going with 1 plane on them and 2 at a airbase on the bigger so called islands.
      I still would like to play with any airbase can scramble 3 planes but never get the +1 move.
      But that’s another topic !

      2 aircraft or less is to give room for a correct defense built up after winning.
      Usually, attacker will not compromise aircraft on the frontline. To put them at risk, the main reason is to reinforced a needed to keep TTy wich have a few land units. With only one aircraft, my playtest showed it was not enough. Unless playing with OOB Fighter A6 D8 M4, which only one can bring a good swing,if casualty are played as normal.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: The KJF defense

      @Azod
      Just wait and hope that Japan Fighter is taken as casualty. So you have not to go into Hawaiian SZ. I tried as much as possible to fully load this Carrier, I will try to join a Battleship or returning to Japan, to protect newly built transport. And, if building 1 Fighter along 2 TPs, it can land on Carrier, too.

      There is at least 1 Fighter which need to land in Wake, Solomon or on the Carrier. IMO, I would land Japan bomber and this Fighter together to protect the bomber.

      Dead zoning SZ is an important part for Japan. You have to think that fleet is better at defense than offense. So, be sure to have Subs or Bombers to support any attack on US or UK fleet.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      Keeping 2 basic units of G40 Redesign cost structure:
      Destroyer A1 D1 C5 (0.96),
      Submarine A2 D1 C6 (1.33, 0.67),
      I realized that some psychological wall needed to be trespassed so to make unit interactions still simpler.

      By rising Fighter to Defense 3, I got ride of combined arms for Fighter with Air Base or Carrier which was needed to have an aircraft with a better defense factor than offense.
      However, such high defense factor imply a greater attrition rate for aircraft. Hence, the cost should not be risen to 8 IPCs. But Tank is A3 D3 M2 Cost 6, which is very near Fighter cost with less versatility.

      So to compensate such, Anti-Aircraft Artillery now is working for both Attack and Defense.
      That way, defending aircraft will not be easily protected behind ground units.
      Anti-Aircraft Artillery (1.50, 3.00 / AA from 1.50 up to 3.00)
      Attack 1 or 2AA@1
      Defense 2 or 2AA@1
      Move 1
      Cost 4
      1 hit
      Roll 2@1 vs up to two aircraft, 1 roll max per aircraft.

      Also, Tactical Bomber in bombing raid dogfight is increased to attack @2.

      To compare ground units with aircraft:
      Unit / Combat Value / (Power*cost ratio)
      Infantry A1-2 D2 C3 (2.67, 5.33)
      Anti-Aircraft Artillery A1 D2 C4, 2AA@1 (1.50, 3.00)
      Artillery A2 D2 C4 (3.00)
      Mechanized Infantry A1-2 D2 M2 C4 (1.50, 3.00)
      Tank A3 D3 M2 C6 (2.00)
      Light Tank A2 D2 M2 C5 (1.92)
      Heavy Tank A4 D4 M2 C7 (1.96)

      Mechanized Artillery A2-3 D2-3 M2 C5 (1.92 wLT: 2.40 /with Tank: 2.38/with HT: 2.33)


      Fighter A2 D3 M4 C7 (0.98, 1.47)
      TacBomber A3 D2 M4 C8 (1.13, 0.75)
      SBR TcB dogfight: A2 D1 (0.75, 0.38)

      In addition to AAA, I also add a real Attack factor @1 for Fleet Carrier, so to get rid of zero combat value, as much as possible, besides Transport (which is a special case).

      This would clearly modify Full Carrier combat values:
      Fleet Carrier A1 D2 C12 (0.43, 0.87), 2 hits, still carry only 2 aircraft and is stronger on combat values per cost ratio than OOB Carrier (0.00, 0.49) on same IPCs basis, but weaker in absolute combat values.
      Full Carrier with 2 Fgs A2 D3 for A5 D8 C26 (0.90, 1.44) has a stronger combat factor than
      OOB Full Carrier with 2 Fgs A6 D10 C36 (0.53, 0.88);
      Full Carrier 1 TcB & 1 Fg A6 D7 C27 (0.92, 1.08) is stronger than
      OOB Full Carrier 1 TcB & 1 Fg A7 D9 C37 (0.48, 0.75).
      Also, both aircraft types have special abilities which can compensate and also because of cheaper Full Carrier compared to OOB units.

      Tactical Bomber A3 D2 C8 (1.13, 0.75) has targeting capacity on Sea and Land units, and also get Depth Charge @1 against submerged Subs.
      Fighter A2 D3 C7 (0.98, 1.47) directly fire at aircraft first, as usual for my HR. But it is treated as OOB when there is no enemy’s aircraft.

      This units profile allows a fuller spectrum of combat values for Naval combat than last post above:
      Unit / Combat Value / (Power*cost ratio)
      Destroyer A1 D1 C5 (0.96)
      Submarine A2 D1 C6 (1.33, 0.67 / First strike: 2.00, 0.89)
      Carrier A1 D2 C12 (0.43, 0.87)
      Fighter A2 D3 C7 (0.98, 1.47)
      TacBomber A3 D2 C8 (1.13, 0.75)
      Cruiser A3 D3 C8 (1.13)
      Battleship A4 D4 C15 (1.12)
      Escort Carrier A1 D1 C7 (0.49, 0.49)

      Of course, any OOB setup will need adjustments because of much cheaper aircraft and Carrier.
      Conversion rating is 2 OOB Full Carrier A12 D20 C72 –-> 3 Full Carriers A15 D24 C78 minus 1 Fighter : A13 D21 C71.
      2 OOB Fighters A3 D4 C10 (A6 D8 C20) —> 3 Fighters A2 D3 C7 (A6 D9 C21)
      2 Tactical Bombers A3-4 D3 C11 (A6 D6 C22) —> 3 TacBs A3 D2 C8 (A9 D6 C24)
      2 Strategic Bombers A4 D1 C12 (A8 D2 C24) —> 2 StBs A0 D0 C5 & 2 TcBs A3 D2 C8 (A6 D4 C26)
      2 Destroyers A2 D2 C8 (A4 D4 C16) —> 3 Destroyers A1 D1 C5 (A3 D3 C15)
      2 Cruisers A3 D3 C12 (A6 D6 C24) —> 3 Cruisers A3 D3 C8 (A9 D9 C24)
      Also, cheaper warships will increase the pressure on Axis much earlier in game.
      Submarines are still potent offensive units with pretty good elusive capacity with all special rules.


      Destroyer (0.96) (Depth charge on submerged Sub: 1.92 max)
      Attack 1
      Defense 1
      Move 2-3
      Cost 5
      1 hit
      Cannot block Subs CM or NCM, but each Sub moving through a SZ controlled by Destroyer must submit to 1 @1 anti-sub defense roll per DD, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine.
      Block Submarine’s First strike on a 1:1 basis
      Cannot block submerge but can Depth charge submerging Sub:
      Depth charge against submerged Subs, after Submerge or First Strike phase and prior to regular combat:
      _1 roll @1, only for on going combat round
      Destroyer doing Depth charge can still roll in regular combat.
      1D in Convoy SZ

      Submarine (1.33, 0.67 / FS 2.00, 0.89)
      Attack 2
      Defense 1
      Move 2-3
      Cost 6
      1 hit
      Cannot block Subs or surface vessels CM or NCM,
      but each Submarine or surface vessel moving through a SZ patrolled by Sub (Sub cannot control SZ) must submit to 1 @1 Sub potshot defense roll per defending Sub, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine or surface ship moving through SZ, whichever the lower.

      Stealth Move: Submarine CM or NCM is not block by Destroyer and
      in Combat Move, only Subs attacking do not allow scramble from adjacent Air Base
      Submerge or First strike prior to 2- Depth charge and 3- General Combat phase,
      First strike: Destroyer blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis
      Submerge: Destroyer does not block submerge but can do Depth charge @1 at submerged Sub.
      Cannot hit Submarines nor aircraft.
      2D in Convoy SZ.

      Escort Carrier or Light Carrier, as a Sub Hunter (0.49)
      Attack 1
      Defense 1
      Move 2-3
      Cost 7
      1 hit
      Carry 1 Fg (0.73, 0.98) or 1 TcB (0.85, 0.64)
      Escort Carrier blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis,
      Does not block Submerge.
      Cannot block Subs CM or NCM,

      Each Sub moving through a SZ controlled by CVE must submit to 1 @1 anti-sub defense roll per Escort Carrier, up to 1 roll @1 per Submarine.

      Fleet Carrier (0.43, 0.87)
      Attack 1
      Defense 2
      Move 2-3
      Cost 12
      2 hits
      Carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB):
      2 Fgs A5 D8 C26 (0.90, 1.44),
      1 Fg & 1 TcB A6 D7 C27 (0.92, 1.08),
      2 TcBs A7 D6 C28 (0.92, 0.79)
      Air operation not allowed: if damaged, cannot carry plane.

      Fighter (0.98, 1.47) (SBR: 0.98, 1.47)
      Attack 2
      Defense 3
      Move 4-5 (M6 from AB as escort for bombers)
      Cost 7
      1 hit
      Hit aircraft first, then AAA, then owner’s selecting his own casualties as usual.
      SBR A2 D3,
      1D in Convoy SZ.
      Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs.

      Tactical Bomber (1.13, 0.75) (Depth Charge: 0.38) (TBR: 0.76/ 0.38)
      Attack 3
      Defense 2
      Move 4-5 (M6 from AB for TBR only)
      Cost 8
      1 hit
      Can pick any land or naval enemy’s unit (excluding aircraft) if rolling a hit
      TBR A2 D1, damage 1D6 on AB & NB
      1D in Convoy SZ
      Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs.
      Depth charge against submerged Subs, after Submerge or First Strike phase and prior to regular combat:
      1 roll @1, only for on going combat round, no max roll per submerged Submarine (stackable rolls).
      Tactical Bombers doing Depth charge can still roll in regular combat.

      Anti-Aircraft Artillery (1.50, 3.00 / AA from 1.50 up to 3.00)
      Attack 1 or 2AA@1
      Defense 2 or 2AA@1
      Move 1
      Cost 4
      1 hit
      Roll 2@1 vs up to two aircraft, 1 roll max per aircraft.
      This is not preemptive fire: roll in regular combat phase.
      If no enemy’s aircraft, roll regular attack @1 or defense @2.
      Move as any ground unit in CM and NCM.

      Tank
      Attack 3 (2.00)
      Defense 3 (2.00)
      Move 2
      Cost 6
      1 hit
      Blitz, gives blitz with Mech Infantry or Mech Artillery
      Gives +1A/+1D to Mechanized Artillery paired 1:1

      Light Tank
      Attack 2 (1.92)
      Defense 2 (1.92)
      Move 2
      Cost 5
      1 hit
      Blitz, gives blitz with Mech Infantry or Mech Artillery
      Gives +1A/+1D to Mechanized Artillery paired 1:1

      Heavy Tank
      Attack 4 (1.96)
      Defense 4 (1.96)
      Move 2
      Cost 7
      1 hit
      Blitz, gives blitz with Mech Infantry or Mech Artillery
      Gives +1A/+1D to Mechanized Artillery paired 1:1

      Mechanized Artillery (1.92-2.38)
      Attack 2-3
      Defense 2-3
      Move 2
      Cost 5
      Need Tank to blitz,
      Gives +1A to Inf or MI, paired 1:1
      Gets +1A/+1D paired 1:1 with Tank

      P.S. First official post in the new Forum…

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Has Anyone Played This ?

      @barnee
      Hi Barnee,
      I’m still not enough into gaming, but wanted to say hello.

      I had an opportunity to play once a few days ago.
      Interesting introduction into A&A.
      The Hex map is a welcome change which requires practice to read correctly.

      Simple and well designed game, IMO.
      Plus an added GIJoe flavor, indeed.

      posted in G.I. Joe: Battle for the Article Circle
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: General 6 Stars 1941 WW2 Game

      @SS-GEN

      A clear typo is about Gibralter…
      GibraltAr… would be better.

      Kvenki SSR is, in fact, Evenki Autonomous Okrug.
      (In G40, it is Evenkiyski.) In 1942.2, it is Evenki National Okrug.)

      Kansk should be Krasnoïarsk.

      Archangel need to be Arkhangelsk
      Yakut SSR need to be Yakutsk SSR.
      because you use “sk” for Murmansk and Norilsk.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      Still trying to simplify much deeper unit interactions, I noticed that there was 1 type of Transport not defined in my above posts with a missing sweet spot at 10 IPCs, a fully regular combat unit to figure troopships (which is not meant to figure for merchant ship, since Convoy are for that purpose):

      Transport (MIs TP and regular combat variant) (0.24)
      Attack 0
      Defense 1
      Move 2-3
      Cost 10
      1 hit
      Carry 2 Infantry or 2 Mechanized Infantry OR
      1 Infantry/Mechanized Infantry + 1 any ground unit
      Can be taken as casualty according to owner’s choice.

      An interesting aspect is that DD C5 and such TP C10 (A1 D2 C15, 2 hits), is mostly similar to OOB DD+TP A2 D2 C15, 1 hit.

      In addition, in such case, there is no hesitation for casualty between Cost 5 DD defending @1 and cost 10 TP defending @1.

      10 IPCs might seems prohibitive. But it can be use as a way to compensate for a much cheaper warship roster which help Allies first.

      Cheaper boats haste the pace for an Allies fleet built while costlier Transport delayed Amphibious assault. So, all in all this might help to keep game pace within known limits from OOB game experience.


      2 other TPs from above post:
      Transport (0.00)
      [variant Move 3-4]
      Attack 0
      Defense 0
      Move 2-3
      Cost 7
      0 hit
      Taken as last casualty,
      Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

      Transport (reg combat variant) (0.38 or less)
      [Variant M3: Move 3-4, Cost 8, 1 hit, each TP also gets 1 escape roll @1]
      Attack 0
      Defense 1* * 1@1 for all friendly TPs group in SZ
      Move 2-3
      Cost 8
      1 hit
      Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
      Can be taken as casualty according to owner’s choice.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: General 6 Stars 1941 WW2 Game

      @baron-Münchhausen said in SS GEN's 1941 Global War Game:

      @SS-GEN

      A clear typo is about Gibralter…
      GibraltAr… would be better.

      Kvenki SSR is, in fact, Evenki Autonomous Okrug.
      (In G40, it is Evenkiyski.) In 1942.2, it is Evenki National Okrug.)

      Kansk should be Krasnoïarsk.

      Archangel need to be Arkhangelsk
      Yakut SSR need to be Yakutsk SSR.
      because you use “sk” for Murmansk and Norilsk.

      Northern Russia, in most A&A game is named Vologda.
      Northern Siberia should replaced Norilsk and
      Norilsk should replaced Northern Siberia.
      Vorkuta (is a city inside) Komi ASSR but in most G40 game map it is usually named Nenetsia TT.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_Republic

      If you wish to introduce a more WWII inspired region (Tankograd), I suggest to rename Sverdlovsk for Chelyabinsk (as Tankograd).

      Far Eastern Republic (is an anachronistic region), Amur is a better fit.

      Cyrenacia should be Cyrenaica.
      Libya should be named Fezzan or Southern Libya.
      Somalialand is spelled Somaliland.

      Northern Algeria should be Algiers.
      Algeria should be named Southern Algeria.

      Sardina (lol) should be Sardinia.
      Abbyssinnia should be written: Abyssinia.

      Seville or Sevilla is missing in the blank territory just above Gibraltar.
      Switz should be Switzerland. Probably not enough space on the map…

      Palan is Palau (island)
      Papau is not on this island (near Samoa), it is Port Moresby or Territory of Papua.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_of_Papua

      Malay is Malaya.
      Saigon should be named Cambodia and the French IndoChina border drawn southward a bit and renamed: Vietnam.

      Bonin Island is plural: Bonin Islands
      Singkiang should be Southern Singkiang.
      Northern China should be named Northern Singkiang.

      Appalachia should be in Northeastern United States, NEUS should be in Appalachia.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]

      @Argothair
      Hi Argo,
      my idea on Tank was to nerfed down both Germany (7 Tanks, loosing 14 A/D points), and 1 Japan Tank loosing 2 points, and much more to get India or Russia if purchasing A2 C5 Tank) giving more time to Allies for building units.

      Thanks for additional explanations on the issue in PTO.

      From what I see, it mostly rely on USA NOs.
      You suggested:
      3 IPCs if Allies control Western US, Central US, and Eastern US
      3 IPCs if Allies control Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil, Hawaii, and Alaska
      3 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
      5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW Europe
      5 IPCs if Allies control 4+ of: Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa
      5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines or Formosa


      For easier calculation, I would group Europeans NOs together and rise US bonus to 5 IPCs:
      5 IPCs if Allies control Western USA, Central US, Eastern US.
      5 IPCs Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil and Greenland.

      (All US peripheric TTs in ETO.
      Including Greenland is a way to provide for Germany amphib target which might help Japan against USA.)

      5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, Alaska and Western USA.
      (Western USA capture is meant to cut down 2 NOs.)
      5 IPCs if Allies control Midway, Wake, Solomons and Australia
      5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese TTs: Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa
      5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines

      This increase the stakes for Japan to help Germany by lowering down US income.
      But, it will slowdown TTs expansion in Asia to cutdown USA income.
      5 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
      5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW Europe

      That way, USA get stronger and stronger by turn two, unless Japan cut down a few NOs.

      JAPAN

      • 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Alaska, Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa
      • 5 IPCs if Axis control Western USA
      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread

      Hi everyone,

      with the help of a few members (Barnee, SS General, Imperious Leader) and ideas of many (Black_Elk, Young Grasshopper, Argothair, CWO Marc, Der Kuenstler,…) , I’m working out a personal project inspired by years of discussion. It crystallized in the last two months. I used TripleA plateform and V5 map programmed by Barnee with a customized game and roster developed mainly around the Redesigned thread in house rules.
      https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions

      SS General is generously working, tweaking and printing a map based on an map file of 1942 2nd Edition created by Imperious Leader which gives us a kind permission to use and modify it according to our need for gameplay, which I want to thank for his artwork.
      Here is his main thread:
      https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34574/redone-1942-2nd-edition-map-file

      This thread will be mainly to help us (SS, Barnee and me) discussed conveniently of issues regarding this double sided project (Triple A and tabletop game). My main interest is to make an improved version of 1942.2 game to play with my friends, while using TripleA (a Redesigned version on the OOB V5 version will be available soon for experimenting the Larry Harris 2nd Ed TR and the Redesigned roster) as an interesting tool to experiment ideas. SS is actually making the first board game playtests on the beta version of the map. I use the Triple A version as a testing ground. Special thanks to Barnee and SS General for your support, time and passion for Axis and Allies, and your help in developing this project.

      If you want to comment, analysis or make suggestion about issues of the moment, feel free to write a post. The more POV I can have, the more it will help me makes my mind about the best way to solve issues. Just assumed I remain the final judge, since it is my own personal project.

      Hope you will find some interests in it and enjoy what you read.

      This is the actual roster being tested.
      LAND units:
      Infantry A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3, Gets +1A when paired 1:1 with Artillery
      Artillery A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
      Anti-Air Artillery A- D3 M1 (ncm) Cost 5, up to 3 rolls @1, 1 roll max per aircraft.
      Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6, Blitz, gives +1A to Tactical Bomber paired 1:1
      Industrial Complex Cost 15, produced up to territory value, max damage doubled TT value.

      AIR units:
      Strategic bomber A- D- M6 Cost 5, no hit value. DF: A- D-, 1 hit value, damage: D6+2
      Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 10, Dogfight: A1 D-, damage: D6,
      Depth charge: A1 D1, gets +1A paired 1:1 with either Tank or Fighter

      Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10, Dogfight: A1 D2, gives +1A to Tac Bomber paired 1:1

      NAVAL units:
      Destroyer A1 D1 M2 Cost 5, Depth charge: A1 D1, block sub’s Surprise strike 1:1
      Submarine A2 D1 M2 Cost 6, Cannot hit aircraft nor submarine, Surprise strike,
      Submerge cannot be blocked but Sub submit to 1 Depth charge phase roll.

      Transport A- D1 M2 Cost 8, Can load 1 Inf and any 1 other, or 2 AAA (ncm, only).
      Escort Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 9, Carry 1 Fg or TcB, block Sub’s Surprise 1:1
      Cruiser A3x2 D3x2 M2 Cost 12, Shore bombard @3
      Fleet Carrier A1 D3 M2 Cost 14, Carry 2 Fg/TcB, 2 hits: repair start of turn, damaged: no flight operation
      Battleship A4x2 D4x2 M2 Cost 20, Shore bombard @4, 2 hits: repair start of turn.
      If damaged at the beginning of a combat round or by the end of Sub’s Surprise strike phase, it can only roll 1 die @4.

      Here is the initial set up (based on Larry Harris 2nd Ed. TR) we work on at the moment. SS’ picture.
      1942 2nd Ed_Advanced map and setup for Redesigned_Barons project.jpeg

      For now, as a work in progress, the IPC total is:
      USSR : 25 IPC
      UK: 40 IPC
      USA: 50 IPC
      Allies sum: 115 IPCs

      Germany: 45 IPC
      Japan: 35 IPC
      Axis sum: 80 IPCs

      Map total: 195 IPCs.

      Modified territories are:
      Central United States: 4 IPC (instead of 6).
      Eastern Mexico: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Central America: 3 IPC (instead of 1)
      Greenland : 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Iceland: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Gibraltar: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Anglo-Egyptian Sudan: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Belorussia: 3 IPC (instead of 2)
      West Russia: 3 IPC (instead of 2)
      Ukraine SSR: 4 IPC (instead of 2)
      Caucasus: 5 IPC (instead of 4)
      Japan: 4 IPC (instead of 8 )
      Formosa: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Okinawa: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Iwo Jima: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Wake: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
      Philippines: 2 IPC (instead of 3)
      Carolines: 3 IPC (instead of 0)
      New Guinea: 2 IPC (instead of 1)
      Solomons: 2 IPC (instead of 0)
      Alaska: 4 IPC (instead of 2)
      Midway: 2 IPC (instead of 0)
      Hawaii: 4 IPC (instead of 1)
      Western Australia: 2 IPC (instead of 1)
      Eastern Australia: 3 IPC (instead of 1)
      New Zealand: 4 IPC (instead of 1)

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]

      I included Formosa to allow more participation from UK.
      So, this NOs might figure the South-Pacific campaign from Australia toward Philipines and Japan.

      I don’t like having 7 or 8 NOs.
      Less is easier to remember but means more TTs in the bag.

      I mostly look at USA NOs from Japanese POV (and ww2 history) so to motivate IJN to cut down in different ways these US income.
      Wake, Midway were real amphib landing objectives.
      So, Australia, Solomon, Wake and Midway were different ways to shutdown US income from PTO without scripting too much the game.

      You can see all these islands as airbase from which IJN bombers can destroyed US merchant shipping across PTO.

      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • RE: Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]

      Maybe this might better suit your taste?

      Northern Pacific air and sea ways control (Lend-Lease toward USSR):
      5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, Midway, Alaska and Western USA.
      (Western USA capture is still meant to cut down 2 NOs.)

      Southern Pacific sea ways control (Lend-lease toward UK-ANZAC allies):
      5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, New Guinea, Solomons and Australia
      (Hawaii capture is meant to cut down 2 NOs.)

      Major Pacific Japanese land bases:
      5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese TTs: Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa

      US Pacific command centre:
      5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines

      JAPAN
      Outer defense perimeter:

      • 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Alaska, Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima
      • 5 IPCs if Axis control Western USA
      posted in House Rules
      baron MünchhausenB
      baron Münchhausen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 1 / 3