Topics created by Black_Elk

I think France should get an extra CV and a TT in either sz 109, sz 111, sz 110 and the reason for the TT is that then they can move their troops easier around the board without having to use their ally’s or even get the troops in Normandy to England.

Anytime man. :)

My last best hope for a turn around was some kind of crazy German final defense at Berlin. But now that UK has the numbers to ensure the 1-2 punch, the Allied crush seemed inevitable hehe. This way you can kick things off with JEB.

Look forward to seeing how the rest of the game’s progress.  Catch you next time!

Here is a savegame using the concept in tripleA…

To achieve the desired turn order position, I fast forwarded the first round to Italy, and then returned each Nation to its normal starting income via the edit mode.

This means that the USA will be closer to their DoW as well, by a round, which I think might be interesting as well.

Anyway, just thought I’d toss it out there in case anyone wants to get a feel for how this might look in practice.
:-D

G40 Italy first (fast forward to Italy).tsvg

@Black_Elk:

What if you just moved the carrier fleet from Pearl to San Diego?
Instead of introducing new TUV onto the board, you just shift it out of harms way. This would give the US a strong Pacific option, but also preserves these units to go either way if desired.

Admiral James O. Richardson would have approved of this concept.  In fact it’s pretty much what he said to President Roosevelt in 1940.  It didn’t turn out to be a good move career-wise in the short term (he was dismissed as CinCUS), but this wasn’t altogether a bad thing for him in the long run in view of what happened to his successor, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

Very nice work. I’m way too unsteady of hand and mind to pull that off.

Took a while, but looks like we’re back in business  :-D

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/Forum

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

Here’s another fun set up for the Russians: The Vologda expansion!

Russian AI gets 1 extra factory, 2 tanks and 1 infantry behind the Urals. (A set bid of 30 ipcs)
+5 flat rate recurring income bonus to each of the Allies.

The extra tanks give Zhukov more to work with, whether to guard the rear in Asia, or to launch forward against G. The +5 to base income helps the Soviets to maintain, and perhaps to make use of their new production center eventually, which is here mainly as a draw for Axis and an achille’s heel. It’s like an interior Karelia, but one that Axis can’t immediately steal ;)

The income bonus to the Western Allies, allows them to overcome some of their naval goofs, to present a stronger threat over time.

Production expansion games like these might be fun in other areas of the gameboard (like for AI USA), but just thought I’d offer one for the Russians to kick it off. Vologda always struck me as a wasted space on this board, totally empty of units. I always thought it might have been more entertaining and significant if it housed a starting factory, which also gives Russia just a bit more each into the East. Using the AI Bid concept, you could try some fun AI redesigns, using the same essential 1942.2 framework but with just a twist here and there.

Russian Vologda expansion Bid +5 flat rate income bonuse to Allies.tsvg

If the allies go full tilt KGF its not really possible for the Germans to keep up pressure on Russia for ever. However the dont have to as Japan will do that instead.
One thing I find helpfull as Germany is to switch from light to medium trading against Russia. Seems to me that Russia have to sacrifice much more IPC each trade as they have much less air.

Thanks guys, I thought it was one of those plays that might come in handy.
:-D

Good call Sniper. The Sudan fly over to India can be really useful, especially if Japan is trying push Burma right out the gate. This can be a nice route for the bomber as well, if it looks like Japan is trying make a B-line for the Suez canal. During the second round the Bomber can be used in conjuction with the Flying Tiger (landed in India or Egypt) and the US sz 53 fighter (landed in W. Australia), to put some early pressure on the Indian Ocean sea zones. This potential hit by 3 US air units, can be enough to back Japan off the canal while still allowing you to land in India for defense.

US fighters launched from sz 11 into FEA/Congo can also reach Caucasus in 1 turn using the Sudan fly over. From Sudan into the water, and 2 spaces from there either to India or Caucasus. This can be helpful if India is under immediate threat, or if G decides to go South inititally instead of North.
;)

So basically a 2 dollar bump for the allies turn1, then 4,6,8 and so on. Sounds pretty interesting. Another way to play the game. The more the merrier. One should never get bored playing A&A (although it might not be bad to take a break once in a while), just bust out a different scenario. :)

Yeah,
but there was a secret derivative formula between Lanchester’s law formula and Vann formula.

But until now, no one break the code. Even Vann hidden it so well, he cannot found it…

Other than the Russian bomber added to the setup, I highly doubt any of my group will want house rules for a game that we just started playing… especially with my history of changing the Global rules… LOL. Nice idea, but I probably won’t be able to introduce house rules until my group gets board of the game in a year or 2 (maybe even 3).

Did some real brief digging around on the wiki and found this…

The last part seems to confirm those speculations in Reason 2 Marc mentioned aboved. Though I think there might still be enough in here to justify a starting Strat B for the Russians.

The fact that the Russians are unlikely to ever be able to afford another one would put a ceiling on it, and give a nod to the fact that the Soviet strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 were dwarfed by those of the Western Allies. The logic there I guess would be that Britain and America can readily expand their bomber arsenal through purchasing, whereas the Soviets are basically stuck using what they start out with, or risk just getting crushed in the land war haha.

Anyhow, here’s quick copy paster…

"Soviet strategic bombing
See also: Shuttle bombing and Operation Frantic
The first Soviet offensive bomber campaign was directed against the Romanian oilfields in the summer of 1941.[185] In response to a German raid on Moscow on the night of 21�22 July 1941, Soviet Naval Aviation launched a series of seven raids against Germany, primarily Berlin, between the night of 7�8 August and 3�4 September. These attacks were undertaken by between four and fifteen aircraft�beginning on 11 August the new Tupolev TB-7�from the island of Saaremaa, base of the 1st Torpedo Air Regiment.[185] (At least one raid of the 81st Air Division took off from Pushkin.) Besides thirty tonnes of bombs, they also dropped leaflets with Joseph Stalin’s defiant speech of 3 July. The Soviets sent a total of 549 long-range bombers over German territory in all of 1941.[185]

In March 1942 the strategic bombing arm of the Soviet Union was reorganized as the Long Range Air Force (ADD). It raided Berlin from 26�29 August and again on the night of 9�10 September with 212 planes.[185] It raided Helsinki for the first time on 24 August, Budapest on 4�5 and 9�10 September and Bucharest on 13�14 September. The German-occupied Polish cities of Krakow and Warsaw were not exempt, but the bombers concentrated primarily on military targets.[185] There were 1,114 sorties over Germany in 1942. In March 1943 there was a strategic shift: in preparation for the Kursk Offensive, the bombers were directed against the German railroads behind the front.[185] In April the Long Range Air Force expanded to eight air corps and eleven independent divisions containing 700 planes. After the Kursk preparations, the Soviets turned their attention to administrative and industrial targets in East Prussia in April. With 920 aircraft taking part, they dropped 700 tonnes of bombs there. The largest Soviet bomb of the war, an 11,000-pound weapon, was dropped on Konigsberg during one of these raids.[185]

Throughout 1943, the Soviets attempted to give the impression of cooperation between their bombers and those of the West.[185] In February 1944 they again shifted priority, this time towards terror bombing, with the goal of knocking Finland and Hungary out of the war.[185] Helsinki was struck by 733 bombers on the night of 6�7 February, by 367 on the 15�16th and 850 on the 25�26th. A total of 2,386 tonnes of bombs were dropped.[185] Budapest was hit four straight nights from 13�20 September with a total of 8,000 tonnes by 1,129 bombers. The Soviets flew 4,466 sorties into enemy territory in the year 1944. In December the Long Range Air Force was reorganized as the 18th Air Army.[185]

The main task of the 18th Air Army was to support the final offensive against Germany, but it also undertook raids against Berlin, Breslau, Danzig and Konigsberg.[185] In total, 7,158 Soviet aircraft dropped 6,700 tonnes of bombs on Germany during the war, a modest 3.1% of Soviet bomber sorties, a mere 0.5% of all Allied “strategic” sorties against German-occupied territory and a measly 0.2% of all bombs dropped on it.[185]

After the war, Marxist historians in the Soviet Union and East Germany claimed that the Soviet strategic bombing campaign was limited by moral qualms over bombing civilian centres.[185] One early bombing theorist, Vasili Chripin, whose theories influenced the Soviet Union’s first strategic bombing guidelines (1936) and the service regulations of 26 January 1940, drew back from terror bombing as advocated by Western theorists.[185] The Spanish Civil War also convinced Soviet war planners that the air force was most effective when used in close cooperation with ground forces. Nonetheless, after the war, Marshal Vasili Sokolovsky admitted that the Soviets would have gladly launched a strategic bombing offensive had they the capability.[185] In reality, the Soviets never geared aircraft production towards long-range bombers, and so never had enough to mount an effective campaign. The land-based nature of warfare on the Eastern Front also required closer cooperation between the air forces and ground troops than did, for example, the defence of Great Britain.[185]"

That note 185 heavily referenced above shows the following as its main/only source… so there’s that too I guess. Little lackluster, but you know what they say about beggers lol

Horst Boog; Derry Cook-Radmore, trans., “Part I: The Strategic Air War in Europe and Air Defence of the Reich, 1943�44”, in Germany and the Second World War, Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943�44/5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [Stuttgart: Deutsche Veralgs-Anstalt GmbH, 2005]), 153�58.

Give Russia a starting fleet!  :evil:

For use in games when the bosphorus and sz 16 “the Black Sea” is closed to all surface ships (only subs can pass through.)

Add 1 Russian Battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 transport to sz 16.

Add 1 Cruiser and 1 transport to the Caspian sea which becomes a normal sz.

Now the Russians have a little mini fleet of their own! This bolstered Soviet navy gives them a new attack route into Romania and a few chances to conduct annoying bombardments into Ukraine, Romania, Persia or Kazakh!

The fleet is still fairly small, and it can’t “escape” into the open ocean, but it gives the Russians a few more sculpts to play with. Axis still have air attack options against this new Russian navy (and sub attacks in the case of the Black Sea) but it gives them another distraction on the march towards Moscow.

Who knows maybe the Russians could even buy a carrier deck at some point, if they manage to keep their Black Sea fleet alive, for late game transports against G?

Finally because sz 16 is open to subs it is even possible for the Red October to sail all the way from sz 4 to sz 16, to link up with the main fleet! This would serve no real purpose at all, but would surely be deamed a grand accomplishment worthy of Soviet prestige hehe.
:-D

What do you guys think? You like idea of a little Russian naval action?

Excellent ideas gentlemen !