Best posts made by Caesar-Seriona

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

And even so, USSR should not be in this position what so ever. Germany should take Finland on turn 1.

Because of the Chinese problem. I have written off 1936 as a 2 player game. I will not play it 1 v 1. It doesn’t work that way.

For those who were there at Wizards, I notice a strategic move that is not going to be favorable but ideal for this. I didn’t do this on my game because I was thinking too much like an AnA player and not enough like a zombie. I wasn’t able to march on Moscow as Germany due to a wall of zombies in my way so I should of done this: just intentionally send infantry to their deaths against USSR just to make zombies and force Stalin to deal with the issue. I think this is going to be the move of all players that want to break stalemates on borders. Thoughts?

Yeah the problem is that I don’t like to spend cost against Axis strategic resources if the end game is for Germany to rush to Moscow which 9/10, that’s going to be the plan. I’ve already spent too many games as UK liberating France and having a Dunkirk 2.0 in the hopes of stopping Germany from going one more territory east.

This is where I disagree with everyone. The entire point of the Comintern is throw a historical wild card into play. Japan controlling CCP just gives reason for Japan to not go into China, thus creating a scripted play which is a thing I couldn’t stand about Axis and Allies, play any version, you will find the script and see no reason to divert. 1936 so far I’ve been unable to find a script, the closest I’ve seen so far is that majority of the group I play think ignoring China as Japan and go after DEI once US is near full income is the wisest move to do. For this reason, I will not play 36 as 1 v 1.

Vichy is a must in my opinion, even if you get the worse case situation and get nothing. Southern France being Vichy blocks Italy from being conquered through France. This is a good reason why you may not want to take Switzerland as the Axis.

This is why you should have escort for any carrier.

They used to have Vichy be Blue and Free France be Light Blue until I pointed out why that’s a logistical nightmare from a player view.

The reason they had it like that was because it tells the player that Free France is NOT the Republic of France for gameplay

-AND-

Historical: Vichy France continue to keep wearing French uniforms so to avoid confusion. The Allies re-equip Free France with US uniforms.

So I tried to address a similar problem with the Monroe Doctrine. My group and I still have not gotten Monroe reaction by US down to 100% because the rule designer clearly didn’t think or test this shit out enough. (not shocked based on responses).

Non allies attack Americas: I’ve been told that the US doesn’t actually DoW by definitions of the words but take military action while at peace, think of it as a proxy war but both sides are directly involve like the Suez Crisis in real life. US may go down and engage and remove any hostile nations in the Americas and then they end up annexing the territories they took since they are active by rules and thus US was able to gain income while still being at peace.

France or Commonwealth (or any other official Allies): I put in the house rule that they cannot attack the Americas because the game doesn’t allow nations inside Alliances to fight each other so unless Monroe is the only situation where US will fight French and Commonwealth troops, I tell my group they simply do not wish to piss off the US and thus cannot attack the Americas.

I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.

That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.

@trig I’m not sorry for being harsh. My group and I have torn the rule book apart for subjective writing. Rules books needs to be objective writing.

Come to find out, they only test a few games with the same players to hash the rules out and then the excuse I got for all of this is that we work for free and can’t hash it out.

Wrong answer. If you’re going to work on a rule book, work on the rule book or don’t take the responsibility.

All because the people -somehow- don’t understand objective wording.

USSR is the Anti-Hero.

But with the game at hand, USSR is forced into defensive infantry is because of how the Axis is placed. UK must sink as many Italian transports as it can because in terms of location, Italy has the easiest NO’s with all of them only being at most five territories away from Rome. The Japanese navy must face an equal enemy because it’s incredibly easy for it to contain its army on the water. China ins’t a death trap for Japan because Japan could in theory just place defense with Chinese cities and it wouldn’t hurt them in long term. China cannot stop Japan from invading India though I wish Chinese forces could go past Burma. Another issue too is that the reason why US forces target Italy first because it’s the easiest Axis nation to attack for it, it’s only two turns away or if Italy is doing great, US can hit it right out of the gates. Literally US can break an Italian NO in one move. Just begin Operation Torch.

The biggest problem with Bright Skies I have is that you are playing UK too loose with the Middle East. My experience has shown me that Middle Earth is almost always a must.

People are ignorant to it for the same reason why people can’t understand that Italian and German Americans were also in camps.

@linkler No, the influence is based on what nation holds whatever requirements it needs. You roll as a single nation even though the influence matters as an alliance.

@jbuckbuddy I honestly don’t remember because all my games usually have the civil war over before USSR and Germany attack each other and it also varies differently from V2 to V3 and which expansion you’re playing with but with V3 OOB, I believe the Spanish never align, the civil war must end.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I remember reading that Lend Lease can only go to the receivers home territory. Not saying I’m right but that should be looked into. If I am wrong, I am pretty sure the receiver must own the territory at the time the sender sends whatever.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast Yeah, I looked it up. The FAQ is correct, Free France has a unique rule where it must be its capital.

@adalwolf Are you looking for gameplay or historical value here?

If you want to get historical, you must use Italian transports and German transport aircraft as that is how DAK got to Africa.

I would go as far as to make sure DAK incorporates Italian units as DAK wasn’t exclusively German. This would help balance out the fact that the Axis don’t have any rules about attacking together unlike the Allies and Comintern.

If each division equals a single unit, you can copy this:

Under German Command:
DAK June 41: 2 German Medium tanks. 1 Italian Motor Infantry
DAK Jan 42: 2 German Medium Tanks. 1 German and 1 Italian Infantry
DAK July 42: 2 German Medium tanks. 1 German Infantry

Under Italian Command
DAK Jan 43: 2 German Medium tanks. 2 Italian Light tanks.

Air force units are harder to judge because from my understanding. DAK itself wasn’t equip with an air force, more like the German air units were there as an overall supporting force.

What I gave you is if you want to take a pure historical view of DAK.

As for simple gameplay, I’ve seen 1 infantry, 1 medium tank, 1 artillery, and 1 AA gun be used as DAK.

Let me know what you think.