Posts made by Chris_Henry

I’ve long thought on the subject of retreating in battle, and naval battles in particular as well. There are a couple of things that usually come into play in my mind on implementing this or not (focusing on naval combat here). I’ve never actually tried this, but something I’ve certainly thought of as well.

First of all, I generally agree with CWO Marc here. There were a lot of ways to track naval movement and in a way “predict” what another force may do. I’ve also thought that having a dice role to decide if navies find each other would be a good idea. I’ve thought that multiple things can affect this within the game. If we say that on a role of 1-3, as you propose above, the navies miss each other generally, we can have things alter this. Examples being: if navies are adjacent to land, you’d change the odds to a 1-2, showing land reconnaissance as spotters. And if you have a fighter and/or sub or something, you increase the odds even more.

The problem with this is using D6 in AA in my opinion. The odds become a bit difficult to calculate for me with a D6, a D12 would be better, but then you’d be adding a D12 for one component of the game, which could be fine.

The other big issue for me is realizing the time frame of a single turn. I feel like we all sometimes forget one one turn of an AA game can entail. If a single turn is multiple months, then a single move/battle is simulating all kinds of smaller things. Logistics, combat, repair, reconaissance, etc. Point being, I think we begin to venture into the realm of unrealistic to think that naval forces within the same sea area over a multiple month period wouldn’t at some point run into each other and engage in combat. I personally think that implementing a retreat option is a better option here.

@regularkid:

Also, I believe FIC was at least nominally Vichy.

Correct, FIC was definitely Vichy controlled. This was why the Japanese were able to walk in without a declaration of war of any kind. In a nutshell, the Japanese kind of figured that since Germany had defeated France, it more or less had a right as an Axis partner to demand use of bases, etc. in FIC, which turned into effective control of the area honestly.

Point being, if FIC had been Free French, there would have been fighting (potentially, one can never assume these things I suppose), and there would probably have been a cause for war from the rest of the Western/Allied powers.

Thanks for the reply John. I was wondering about those expansions, I didn’t know if they were still in the plans or not, but I’m glad to hear they are! A board game is also an intriguing idea, but you’re right in that interest in that may be lacking.

It seemed like a simple enough idea to get more action in the early stages of the game for those who would want it.

I look forward to everything this has to offer!

Thanks,

Chris

Hey there,

Been looking forward to this 1936 map for a while! I held off on buying the 1939 map waiting for this one, hope to get it in the near future when funds are more readily available!

This question/suggestion is obviously done without having seen the game, and I’ve only read the rules from the HBG site, so excuse me if this has been discussed and thrown out, or what I say just doesn’t make sense in the context of the game.

As the title above stats, my query is about the Winter War between Finland and USSR in 1939. I only ask because obviously Spain, China, Abyssinia are all seeing action early, and the Winter War was certainly important as well. It made Finland begin to lean towards a German alliance out of fear of another USSR onslaught. After the reading the rules and seeing the point system, I propose the following (as a house rule if you will):

If the USSR attacks Finland before it is aligned, the Germans and Western Allies can lend lease in a similar way that they do with the Spanish Civil War. Historically, the Western Powers (UK, France, Norway, Sweden, etc.) sent a decent amount of volunteers to help the Finnish army fight the USSR, as they were all afraid of the spread of Communism and didn’t want to see a Soviet victory.

To make this work in the point system and make it worth fighting, you could do the below:

USSR - 1 Victory Point if the USSR defeats Finland before it’s at war with the Axis Powers and/or Finland becomes aligned with the Axis Powers.

Western Allies - 1 Victory Point if Finland survives the Winter War and the Western Allies sent more Lend Lease to Finland than the Germany.

Germany - 1 Victory Point if Finland survives the Winter War and the Germany sent more Lend Lease to Finland than the Western Allies.

This would entice all sides to have a horse in the race and make a conflicting victory point for all three.

Was this even looked at? Terrible idea?

Thanks all,

Chris

@aequitas:

The problem is not the US/Anzak blocking.
The problem would be a UK.Pac/Anzak blocking to prevent Japan getting the money islands quick.

So what if Japan sees that move and, knowing ANZAC has sent ships to block the money islands, they don’t just head down and attack Sydney with the troops from the Caroline’s?

I get that the DEI’s is the ideal place to go, I usually do the same thing. I’m just throwing a scenario out there and kind of playing devil’s advocate to see what people would do to stop this. With what aequitas said above, Does that move necessarily make Japan do an about face and change strategy, or did they force the Allies to commit somewhere, opening up someplace else, in this case a potential attack on Sydney? If we go with an assumed J3 here still, Japan could realistically have five or six loaded transports to launch an attack with, without completely neglecting the mainland. With ANZAC unable to produce more troops, I could see Japan still being able to move into the DEI’s within the next turn or two. True, it would be later in the game than normally desired, but the shock effect to the Allies could offset that?

@Shin:

Wait, you mean you do this without DOW J1?

Yes, sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m going with an assumption for this particular scenario of no DOW J1. I fully understand that this is not something a lot of people would do, but thought I’d get opinions on what they thought if they did wait for a DOW J2 or J3. Again, this could be thwarted by an earlier Allied DOW, but maybe not?

Hey all,

Hope everyone here had a great Thanksgiving weekend (or just a great weekend to our Canadian neighbors and any other internationals that may be on these boards  :-D).

I was curious as to a strategy I use not infrequently to see if anyone else has used this and what they’ve thought of it. Unless I’ve missed it, I don’t think I’ve seen it really discussed much here: Using the Caroline Islands as a triple threat move for the Japanese in the early stages of the game.

I’m going with a general assumption of Japan staying out of war with the Western Powers until turn three here (unless of course in your minds this could be done earlier). But by building a few transports and stacking whatever troops you can/want to in the Caroline Islands, you could do a few things from here.

1. Attack the DEI and/or Philippines. Celebes, Java, and the Philippines are all within reach from here.

2. Attack south into ANZAC territory. This could mean a couple things I suppose. Take the Solomons (for the NA/take away an ANZAC NA), New Guinea, or even a strike against the Australian mainland.

3. Attack Pearl Harbor. Throw your weight East and try to stall the US for a couple turns longer.

4. Feign movement in the South Pacific but then attack Kwantung. This of course adding extra fire power to your mainland assault.

Or any mix of these if you so choose.

The biggest reason for doing this in my opinion is to keep the Allies on their toes/guessing as to what you might do. This could make ANZAC build defensive ground troops instead of planes to support elsewhere, for example.

I understand that some of these things are preventable. The US could just build a destroyer screen around Hawaii, ANZAC could do the same in SZ’s 45, 46 and 49, etc. But the main purpose is to put them on an unsure defensive footing, and might force them to spread out defensively more than they may have otherwise.

Thoughts? Does anyone else attempt this? Or do you all find it to be a waste of time? Does a potential early DOW by the British and ANZAC make this null and void?

Happy Holidays all,

Chris

I disagree with the carrier rule above as well. My reasoning for it is based on how long a turn is supposed to represent. If a turn represents 6 months (or even 1 month in this particular case) it wouldn’t be realistic anyways to have to have a whole turn dedicated to “refueling and resupply”. In fact, I think that would make it even less realistic. We must remember the time scope being encompassed in each game round. A single turn would realistically represent multiple recons, battles, missions, etc. that would have taken place in that time frame. Same as with land combat representing essentially a whole campaign of battles and not just a single battle. Yes, if a single turn was only 10 days or something I would totally be more on board with restrictions such as this, but that isn’t the case. Refueling, resupply, refitting, combat, recon, repairs, etc., all are simulated within that one turn that represents one or multiple months.

Thee look incredible! Everything looks very clean. I like that you added a Canadian navy.

Something I hope to do one of these days.

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

However, it would lock up a ship for pretty much the whole game.

I think it might actually work the opposite way.  If we go by the principle that “freedom of the seas exists unless something challenges it”, we could assume that – to use Britain as an example – Britain doesn’t need to keep a ship at a strategic maritime choke point in order to collect trade income; rather, it’s the Axis that needs to put a ship there to stop Britain’s trade income.  It’s only in such a case that Britain would then have to eliminate the enemy interloper, either by sending in a ship of its own or by attacking the enemy ship with land-based aircraft…hence the usefullness of controlling land near a maritime choke point.

I could definitely see how this could work. I’ve seen the HR somewhere where UK gets +5 IPC’s if no Axis warships are in the Atlantic, this would be similar to something of that nature. I wish Singapore was it’s own territory on the map separate from Malaya (and should be a VC, but that’s another matter), but holding Singapore could bring an NO, or be similar to other straights and canals and not allow enemy ships to pass through SZ’s 37 and 41 without holding Malaya. Similar to the Atlantic rule above, you could say that while at war with Japan the UK (and ANZAC?) get a +5 IPC NO for no Axis warships in the Indian Ocean, signifying supply routes.

To the general theme of UK NO’s though, this one may be too dramatic, but you could have like a “Commonwealth Army” NO. Whenever an ANZAC unit is on an originally controlled UK territory the UK gets +3 IPC’s, this showing how integral other forces were to supplementing British armies. I think of the 8th Army in Africa particularly to being dependent on Commonwealth support. Would work better if Canada and South Africa were there, but it could work. This could be applied to both the Europe and Pacific UK economies separately. Would encourage ANZAC to send a bit of support to Africa to help the UK Europe side. That, and would give those two ANZAC INF in Egypt at the beginning a bit more purpose than just a defensive presence. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

@Dafyd:

I may be wrong about this but since Malta is original UK territory, it is already a UK N/O.  IPC’s for all original  UK territories.  Italy takes Malta and UK doen not get the bonus and it is alot easier for Italy to hold that then say, Kenya.  I do like giving the islands a value of 1 no matter who pocesses them.

You are correct about that UK NO, but use the ANZAC NO’s as an example. One of them gives a bonus for holding all original ANZAC territories, while the other gives a bonus for holding the Solomon’s, which is already an ANZAC territory. So that one overlaps, this wouldn’t be much different.

I’d also point out that the Italians taking Alexandria from the UK is much more plausible in the game as is and thus taking away the UK NO than them having any incentive to taking Malta.

@barney:

that sounds like a cool NO (Malta, Crete, Cyprus) Chris_Henry. Maybe make it worth 3 ? Or 2 ? That would make all 3 worth a collective 5. I wonder if 5 might be too much.

I agree LHoffman. A small Malta UK NO would be cool too. I wonder how you could word it so they don’t start with it ? Maybe Malta, Gib and Cyprus for 2 ?

Agreed, +5 IPC’s is maybe too much, just spit balling ideas. +2 IPC’s would probably be better for sure.

I also agree with LHoffman that giving some kind of bonus to the Allies for holding it would be nice as well. It would be great to find a single rule that incentivized both the Allies to want to hold it and make the Axis want to take it. This is a bit farfetched, but what about making Malta similar to a convoy zone for the Allies. By that I mean at the same time you roll for the regular convoy zone IPC hits, you roll 1d6 for Malta as well and remove those IPC’s from Italy. Could make the UK do more to want to hold/defend it, and would almost certainly force the Axis to take it out.

Yea, it’s certainly not practical/ideal for your everyday gamer. You’re right, it would obviously require a game room or table that isn’t going to piss off the family by being up for long periods of time haha. I just know you have people like me on here that would certainly love a game like that and appreciate your sharing it with us. People that want more of a strategic WWII game will love it!

@Bud:

Terrain, specifically, we’ve determined, has the following ramifications (jungle/forest, city, mountainous):
Mechanized forces have less combat power
Infantry get additional rolls in it when in the Defensive Posture
Aircraft have less of a chance to hit targets
Terrain also reduces the number of combat rounds a battle will have (normally it’s 0-5 rounds, but terrain will reduced this by 1) - which means - since combat units have 2 steps (full strength and damaged), initial invasions can turn into long, drawn-out campaigns over months in a contested area - with both sides pouring in troops to try to dislodge the other player(s)…

Then there’s the monsoon season in Burma, which virtually stops combat operations or limits them to a huge degree…

Love it. These are truly things I’ve wanted to do as well in terms of terrain and attack/defense bonuses/detriments. I’ve had thoughts and what not, but just never written them down and put them to practice as you have. These sound really similar to the goals I’ve always wanted in thinking about it. I’ll be much curious to see everything when you have it completed!

@Bud:

The game will take months - literally months. I’m the Axis this time. My associate, who happens to be my brother, will play the Allies. He’s a really good player. I’ve somehow got to find a way to beat him.

I love the idea of a long game. I’m much rather get my WWII fix in completely than just play a game but still leave wanting more.

Agreed, that was my thought as well. Or if not an NO, at least make it a prerequisite for the Allies that they must control Sicily before they can invade Italy.

I agree with LHoffman wholeheartedly. While true Italy is hard to play, it’s because this is also a game based on WWII. Italy was not very strong, this is shown in the game by their weak economy to start.

I do like playing Italy though. It’s fun with the options at hand. Focus in Russia, maybe attack Syria and into the ME, obviously duking it out for Egypt. Makes for some fun options in my opinion.

That being said, I too like the idea of giving the smaller territories 1 IPC of worth. I think it would give Italy incentive to play out some of those territories. I also have toyed with the thought of giving them another NO of holding Malta, Crete, and Cyprus for +5 IPC’s. Malta was so important in real life and that’s lost a lot in the game.

This can also apply to the Pacific Islands, giving them all 1 IPC, to encourage a bit more meaning. Off topic with that though.

Sorry Bud, I should have clarified what I meant. It was more the land combat than anything I was referring to (I completely agree about ship movement realism). The idea of Burma falling quickly always bugged me, short fights in Africa, fighting in Italy etc. Essentially saying I agree with you on a way to simulate the longer drawn out battles. I had always thought of a map that had Burma split into two or three territories for example, but your version is more practical (as you’re right, it would take a ton of time to make a map!).

Wow, just read this whole thread and it looks incredible. I’m in complete agreement about timetables. I know it’s hard in a game, but I’ve always wanted to figure out a way to make turns into one-month increments.

It sounds crazy, but I agree that the maps are too small to do this kind of game, so I like what you’ve done with the rules to force the issue. Like others have said, it will be hard to get people to want to play such a long game, but I am one of those. Completely worth it to me to have a high level of thinking game. I’m truly interested in seeing your rules, if nothing else even PMing me would be appreciated!

I was going to point out the 1936 map as well that was coming out. I haven’t bought any of HGB’s maps yet, mostly because I just don’t have the room. Once I heard of the 1936 map I figured I’d just wait. Would your game be able to translate to the new map easily?

So many parts about your game fascinate me and are similar to ideas I’ve always had but haven’t had the time to really put down and hammer out, I won’t even bother going into them all here.

I agree with Jennifer and Black_Elk, a war bonds idea is a fun way to get more units on the table (who doesn’t want more units?!). Call it Lend Lease for the smaller powers, war bonds, whatever, but I agree that a simple 1d6 is a fun way to add a bit to it. Maybe this can be increased to 2d6 at some “desperate” part of the game? Like when a home territory is taken, Southern Germany for example, the Germans can role a 2d6 to show they are stripping the country bare of resources in a last ditch effort. Or maybe each nation is allowed a 2d6 just three times a game at their discretion.

@Argothair:

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

I also agree with Argothair, which goes along with what I was saying a few days ago. You can brainstorm all day, but at some point the groundwork needs to be laid with what you definitively want done and tweak from there. That could rule out a bunch of suggestions on here and get more to the point of what you really want input on.

No problem, it seemed a bit relevant given the post.  :-)

I agree, you could go on and on about all the little “allies” and “governments”. Certainly of note is how many of them were British colonial possessions taking the opportunity for a nationalistic stance.