Posts made by Charles de Gaulle

Interesting points.  But here are some things to consider:

First of all, how are you killing the Canadian navy?  Three Germans subs can reach SZ106.  In defense there is a destroyer, a Dutch cruiser (Princess Juliana), and a tactical bomber scrambling from the air base on Nova Scotia.  Did you notice all three of these defenders in the setups?

Although London will have trouble defending itself, the additions of Canada and South Africa actually serve to be bad for Italy  Even if the UK is worried about London, South Africa is still going to be pumping out units to protect Egypt.  Also, if London did fall, it’a not a big deal to Egypt because the Empire is still building.  With both NOs, South Africa can be sending three mechs a turn up to Congo and Egypt.  Combined with Free France, this setup actually can hurt Italy.  The bonuses are French North Africa and the Balkans as you mentioned.

The Eastern Front needs a total reworking of tactics.  A well-prepared line of defense from Ukraine to Leningrad must keep in mind that German tanks and mechs might come rolling through after a Hungarian invasion or whatnot.  You must plan ahead and remember that killing minor Axis powers does nothing to help Moscow from falling.  Focus on the Germans and make their loss of IPCs to the other governments hurtful.  Be creative too. Taking out Finland, Romania, etc. now awards Russia an IPC stash and an industrial complex.  If the Germans are going all against you, don’t let the minor Axis intimidate you or fool you into petty fights that aren’t going to stop Germany.  Don’t take minor Axis threats more seriously than their little numbers and be prepared for any can-opener possible.

If Hungary and Romania take Eastern Poland etc. as you mentioned, I would hope that Russia saw it coming and therefore prepared by not spreading all over even the second line of defense.  Should any German attack of fast movers get through, Russia must focus on the Germans, not the minor Axis who do not have the backing to take key areas.

Instead of adding new Russian units, I would rather eliminate some Finnish and perhaps others.

I feel the need to apologize again.  I’ve been absent so long.

The answer is yes.  Always, always, always go by what the map shows (in this case, that is an “originally” controlled territory of Germany).  I don’t care how many chips and roundels you got stacked up on that territory, if I see a German roundel printed and 3 IPCs (or more), it’s fair game.  :-P

This is the interesting thing about playing the U.S.: there are so many things you can do, but will any of your actions save your Allies?

Getting into the Middle East is probably not worth it in my opinion unless you can build a factory there.  The real problem is, of course, simply getting there.  While you are wasting time and IPCs trying to send a minor force to a relatively well-guarded Allied stronghold, is Moscow or London, or Calcutta and Sydney going to fall?  Maybe a level of deceit is necessary to ensure that the Axis are still preparing to see you in France and the Philippines.

There is another strategy that a lot of people are talking about called “Bright Skies” in which the Americans send a bunch of bombers to Russia and surrounding areas.  Maybe a Middle East landing combined with thus could result in a very interesting, formadable American position?

I think Gandhi is going to have a lot to say about your “mobilizing” more Indian volunteers using British pounds from London.  :-D

I reiterate that this is supposed to be a new way to play the same game and not a simulation of history.  Balance and historical borders are key.

You did have some good points Wittman:
Japan has a singinificant income at start.  This is countered by the American NO bonus that kicks in and the ability of the other Allies to assault the DEI.
Eliminating the transports will allow the Allies to claim the DEI and hold them.  This usually spells disaster for Japan and therefore cannot be accepted for a balanced game.
Even though Japan has two aircraft carriers and the U.S. only has two, the U.S. can knock out a Japanese carrier on turn one.  Additionally, the UK gets one.
Two of the eight Japanese destroyers and the ANZAC battleship were removed after recommendation to my team.  Thank you for the suggestion.
The U.S. does not start with its NO bonus because no A&A game does it that way.  We want to keep this variant true to the original in as many aspects as possible.

The setup has been updated to version 1.3.  Feedback is appreciated.

That map was very helpful.  Thanks.

}Pacific 1943 1.5

All Allied powers are at war with Japan.  Anything not specified here is the same as 1940 Second Edition.

New Turn Order and Starting IPCs in Hand/Income:
United States: 15
United Kingdom: 4
Japan: 56
China: 9
ANZAC: 10

New Setup:

United States:
Western United States: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Alaska: 1 infantry
Midway: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 tactical bomber, air base
Hawaiian Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base
Gilbert Islands: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Solomon Islands: 1 infantry
New Guinea: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
India: 1 infantry, 1 strategic bomber
Sea Zone 10: 2 submarines, 1 transport, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 26: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
Sea Zone 48: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine
Sea Zone 49: 1 submarine, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter)

United Kingdom:
India: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Sea Zone 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)

Japan:
Japan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 strategic bomber, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Korea: 2 infantry
Manchuria: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, control marker
Jehol: 2 infantry, control marker
Chahar: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Shantung; 2 infantry, control marker
Kiangsu: 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber, naval base, control marker
Anhwe: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kweichow: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, control marker
Kiangsi: 1 infantry, control marker
Kwangtung: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, control marker
Kwangsi: 1 infantry, control marker
French Indo-China: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 fighter, control marker
Siam: 1 infantry
Shan State: 1 infantry, control marker
Burma: 2 infantry, control marker
Malaya: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, control marker
Sumatra: 1 infantry, control marker
Java: 1 infantry, control marker
Borneo: 1 infantry, control marker
Celebes: 1 infantry, control marker
Philippines: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, air base, naval base, control marker
Palau Island: 1 infantry
Dutch New Guinea: 2 infantry, 1 AA gun, control marker
New Britain: 1 infantry, control marker
Caroline Islands: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base, control marker
Marshall Islands: 1 infantry, air base
Wake Island: air base, control marker
Iwo Jima: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun
Marianas: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, naval base
Guam: air base, control marker
Okinawa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter, air base
Sea Zone 6: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
Sea Zone 19: 1 transport
Sea Zone 20: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 37: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 35: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 22: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 33: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber)
Sea Zone 47: 1 submarine

China:
Hunan: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Yunnan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery
Szechwan: 6 infantry, 3 artillery, 1 fighter
Sikang: 2 infantry
Tsinghai: 1 infantry
Shensi: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Hopei: 2 infantry
Suiyuan: 4 infantry
Kansu: 2 infantry

ANZAC:
New South Wales: 1 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 tactical bomber, naval base, minor industrial complex
New Zealand: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AA gun, air base, naval base, minor industrial complex
Queensland: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base, naval base
Northern Territory: 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Western Australia: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, 1 fighter, air base
New Guinea: 1 infantry, 1 AA gun, naval base
Sea Zone 62: 1 transport, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 63: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 54: 1 submarine, 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 46: 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 56: 1 submarine

Marc, did I ever mention that you have a special talent to take anything I say and find logical fault in it? Lol

This alternate setup is suppossed to be just like Larry’s 1942: a new way to play the same game.  Was Axis and Allies ever set along historical guidelines as far as balance goes?  No.  Just take a look at China in any edition.

No one intends to make this setup biased towards the Allies.  I can see an issue with a 1944 or 1945 setup because of the IPC swing, but it will be easy to create a fair 1943 without something looking bizarre.

But as for front lines and positions of starting forces, of course we want to make this historical.  That’s why I wanted to get your opinions on the control of the map.  Which Chinese territories should Japan control?  Some of the ambiguity of territories causes many good arguments.

I am playtesting a Pacific 1943 setup right now, and if it is good enough, I will release it for anybody willing to playtest it.

Maybe that is because beer and boardgames is taboo in my family? ;)

If you are really interested in getting woman to play:

1. Don’t pick your close family
2. Don’t be a poor sport
3. Don’t bother with girls (›18)
4. Don’t take forever playing
5. Be enthusiastic

I know this all might sound a bit weird and arbitrary, but trust me.  I even used my sweetheart as a test subject.

I found that the ideal woman to target is the competitive ping-pong/video gamer who is experienced with life but still youthful.  No girly girls or feminists please–they are not sportsmanlike and tend to pretend that they are overwhelmed.  You want quiet woman that know how to make you shake without saying anything.

I use the tablet I come on this website with to also visit the following:
Yahoo mail
Youtube
Other game websites
Google for word definitions, spellings, etc.

I get the following adds (in order of frequency):
War boardgaming
Dating sites
News
Random stuff like insurance

I never saw any pornographic images, but some of the dating website adds can be annoying.  I have sometimes gotten security warnings from Android’s built-in detectors.

I get enough of this crossing out BS from my English teacher.  :lol:

I do get your point.

Now that my team–well, first of all, let’s be fair and tell you who this “team” is that I always talk about.  The real brains behind most of my larger projects–like 1939, 20 power edition, neutral addons, etc.–are these five people: my best friend David, Erich “LaBeau”, Ms. Christine, my lil’ brother, and my old man.  The playtesters are countless and even include many of you here.  I would like to thank these people for their work and willingness to volunteer for yet another crazy project of mine.  However, for the 1943 setup my team is working on, I want to get as much imput from the rest of the A&A community too.

The goal is simple: make an alternate setup for 1940 Second Edition with no house rules other than turn order, starting units, and land control.  The start date will be approximately March of 1943.  Although I want to optumize this project for Global, the setup must also be playable on the theater level.  We have already played several test games of both Europe and Pacific alone, but the setup is so buggy and I have so many questions that I do not want to release a full-fledged setup just yet.  First, let’s focus on world affairs:

The proposed turn order is as follows:
United States:
United Kingdom:
Germany:
Soviet Union:
France:
Japan:
China:
ANZAC:
Italy:

Germany will control all of France, Greece, Crete, Bulgaria, Finland, Vyborg, Eastern Poland, Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia.  Should they also control Rostov, Bryansk, Smolensk, and maybe even Karelia?

Japan will control all Asian Dutch territories, Wake, Guam, New Britain, Philippines, all of Southeast Asia, and the Chinese coast.  The proposed inland territories for Japan to control in China are Chahar, Anhwe, and Kweichow.  This is a strange front line, but it seems to represent the historical situation best.  The Gilberts and Solomons (most) should be liberated by now, correct?  The Marshalls should still be Japanese, right?

The Allies will of course control Italian East Africa, Libya, the Middle East, Brazil, and all French colonies except Tunisia, which goes to Italy along with Yugoslavia.

The number of starting forces will be greater than standard 1940 but not as severe as Oztea’s setups.  Many factories and facilities will be added (all originals are still there) and damage will be applied to some places.  Here is how turn one should go:
The U.S. will crush Tunisia and have the opportunity to land elsewhere in the Mediterranean with risk.  Western Europe will be highly defended.  In the Pacific, the U.S. will have the opportunity to attack the Japanese.  Both Axis and Allied fleets will be scattered to allow for attack and counterattack.
The UK will support the U.S. in the Mediterranean and take Burma and possibly something else in Asia with risk.
Germany will have the chance to make Kursk a fight in their favor and really put pressure on Russia.
Russia will be in a hard situation, but should be able to counterattack any risky German invasions and hold Leningrad turn one.
France will have considerable Free French forces scattered around to represent their growth.
Japan will have to react to American moves and will have the opportunity to counterattack anything risky the Allies have done while pushing hard into China.
China will be stronger with some artillery but will face large Japanese forces in the East and South and maybe a factory in Manchuria or Kiangsu.
ANZAC will need to do what it can to get its northern defense perimeter back.
Italy will be in a highly defensive position but with a small fleet and some presence on the Eastern Front.

Feedback is appreciated.

With the new availability of Anniversary Edition, I have had the opportunity to play this version several times recently.  However, the ruleset attached to this game is over a decade old and feels out of touch from newer editions like 1941, 1942, and 1940.  Here is a list of modified rules to be used to modernize Anniversary Edition:

Tanks:
Tanks now cost 6 IPCs as in all modern editions.  Not only does this promote universality, but having tanks be more expensive also encourages more variety in purchases and helps the Allies a little bit.

AA guns:
Instead of using the basically indestructible neutral grey AA guns, each power will be given its own distictive AA sculpts.  The AA guns will cost 5 (or 4 if you want) IPCs and use the same rules from 1942/1940.  In the setup, place 2 AA guns in every terriotry in which there was previously one.

China:
China is no longer limited to three units per territory.  In the setups for both 1941 and 1942, China gets 4 infantry and 1 fighter in Yunnan.

The following rule editions are now mandatory:
Ability to intercept/escort
National objectives
Closure of Turkish straits

Optional Changes:

Cruisers:
Because of the arguably good strength of battleships in this version (since they can absorb hits and be automatically repaired), cruiser price ought to be reduced to 11 (or 10) to encourage their purchase.

Industrial complexes:
Instead of using the generic 15 IPC ICs, use major and minor industrial complexes from 1940.  In the setup, all the industrial complexes are majors except for the two on Leningrad and Stalingrad.  Use all the rules from 1940 including placement (territories of 2 IPCs or more for minors, original territories of 3 IPCs or more for majors, and no islands [Australia isn’t an island, silly!]) and built-in AA capacity.

Mechanized infantry:
The mech units from 1940 are now available for purchase at 4 IPCs.  If you want, in the setup, add one German mech to Poland, two Russian mechs to Russia (Moscow), one German mech to Libya, one British mech to Egypt, and one American mech to Eastern U.S.

Tactical bombers:
These air units from 1940 are now available for purchase for 10 IPCs.  If you want, in the setup, add one German tactical to Poland, one Russian tactical to Russia (Moscow), one British tactical to United Kingdom, one Italian tactical to Italy, one American tactical to Western U.S., and one Japanese tactical to Japan.

Air bases and naval bases may be purchased for 12 IPCs each.  Do not try adding these units to the setup.

France:
France starts the game with–
:|
Hold on a second, I got ahead of myself there.

This is kind of weird, and I think I’m just missing the obvious, but is this allowed?

Germany declares war on Russia turn two and takes Ukraine turn three.
Japan stays neutral to the West but attacks Russia and takes Yunnan.  On turn two a Japanese bomber parks in Yunnan.  On turn three Japan bombs Stalingrad and lands in German-controlled Ukraine.
Later on turn three, the UK wants to attack the poorly defended bomber in Ukraine with air units.

First of all, can Japan land in German-controlled territories (or Italian for that matter) as long as Japan is at war with the Soviets (and so is the European axis power)?

Second, does the UK have to declare war on Japan in order to attack a Japanese bomber in Ukraine?  Not that it really matters anyway.

Recently, I took part in an eighteen player game of Global 1940 with no drastic house rules aside from this: most nations were controlled by more than one player.  Each major nation was assigned a top leader, which we named according to the title of the real leader of the nation.  Under this leader were two generals, each one focusing on a certain front.  The generals selected their desired purchases for their section but had to get approval from the top leader.  Troops movements, attacks, and cooperation worked likewise.  This system not only resulted in more people playing, but it also eliminated mistakes greatly, encouraged teamwork, and bred a healthy rivalry between generals working for the same nation.  Here is how we played originally (we did have to reorganize command as the war eliminated forces or shifted focus).

Germany:
The top leader was called the Fuhrer, mostly because he liked roleplaying as a bad guy.  The two generals under him were split between the obvious: Eastern and Western Front.  These three players worked together beautifully.  The Eastern and Western troops were always ready to sacrifice for the good of the other half, and the top leader made sure his generals never made a single mistake.

Soviet Union:
The Soviets chose the title Premier for their top leader.  The two generals were split on very awkward lines: one player controlled the north (Leningrad area and the Far East) and the other controlled the southern half (Moscow to the Caucasus). The Premier was a bit too oppressive over his two generals and usually tended to make their decisions for them.  This was funny at first to the other nations, but resulted in a boring, bitter game for the two Russian general players.  The lack of unity between the two Russian players and the oppressive nature of their leader resulted in the Soviets’ collapse.

Japan:
The Japanese players chose not to have a title for their top leader and took the game very seriously.  Instead of dividing themselves between fronts, they decided to have one national leader, one naval leader, and one army leader (airforces were attached to one or the other.)  Their teamwork was excellent and their top leader kept them from being reckless, but in the end, Japan was basically a defensive force that was too huddled in its corner of the world.  I would say Japan was a success for the coop system but a failure strategically.

United States:
I played on the U.S. team as General Eisenhower controlling the Americans in the European theater (I Like roleplaying, so deal with it.)  My counterpart, of course, controlled the Pacific.  Much to his dismay, I always called him “the Nimitz with no trannies [transports].”  We also had a top leader over us representing the President.  Although our actions could not save the world from the Axis, I felt that the U.S. team did a great job of showing how coop play could work.  There was a great rivalry between me and my Pacific teammate as we always tried to convince the “Pres.” to let one of us get more IPCs to spend on our side.  Our top leader did a good job of being neutral and sharing wisdom while allowing us to go with what we thought was best.

China and France were played by one person.  With eighteen people at the table one time or another and players arguing over who is going to get a single fighter for use at their front, China and France felt like a big role for a change.

United Kingdom:
The UK chose the title Prime Minister for their top leader. The two generals under him were constantly getting their zones of control reorganized, but they started with one controlling Malta to India, and the other getting Gibraltar to Iceland.  The UK had the opposite problem of Russia.  Their leader was too weak and only ended up compromising disputes.  Perhaps the main reason for this was that India gets its own economy and is virtually separate from the rest of the UK’s responsibilities.

Italy and ANZAC were played by two different players.  Like the person playing China and France, the Italian and ANZAC players were satisfied with the small roles because everbody around the table also had small roles.

Overall, I loved this system.  It encouraged teamwork greatly, added a nice feel of reality, eliminated many stupid mistakes, and made the whole A&A experience much more social.  Of course, having so many people did make it crowded at times, but at no one time were there eighteen people seated at the table.  In between turns, only one person stayed to represent their nation while the others left to plan, eat snacks, or take some shots on the pool table on the other side of the room.

I had a fantastic experience playing like this, and I wonder if any of you have ever tried this before.  Sometimes even just having two people work together for a nation (without splitting up zones of control) can be very fun.  If you do ever try this regional generals system, I highly recommend that you have a top leader as well.  He is the one that makes a split army capable of working together to achieve victory.

Don’t tempt me SS.  You know that French swear words are not included in the forum censorship.

Everywhere from Philadelphia, to Jersey City, to Washington.  We’re mostly family and some select friends.  I regularly play with a couple of buddies from school, my dad and uncle, and two young woman that are related to me through marriage.  We have several groups and hosting places and play quite often with those that live nearby and also schedule big get-togethers every few months.

Another option to force splitting is to keep the Allied navies separate.  If the United States stack near Midway, ANZAC near Queensland, and maybe even UK around India, Japan will be forced to split equally to stop you, or else face assault in one of these directions.  It is usually in the Axis powers’ favorite if a standoff occurs.  The Axis want to be able to concern strategy in one area.  As the Allies you must do your best to stop this while simultaneously keeping important centers protected.

Erich showed me a blurry photo of the game, and it actually shows the US controlling Egypt with a factory.  He made an interesting comment that it always seems easier to declare Axis victory since the objective is more reachable and does necessarily require an IPC swing.  However, an Allied victory is much harder to declare since it requires a definite halt of Axis advances and an industrial advantage.

Sounds like an awfullly good mess.  You sold it to me.

Maybe I should use this as propaganda?  I have been gettling a lot of French belittlement from the newest batch of players.  Have any of you ever used movies, other games, or music to get players in the mood before starting to play A@A?