Posts made by Commander JayVon

I always thought of IC being not a direct correlation to its size, but a combination of two things. The first being a territory’s ability to even handle industrial production, the base value. The second, being the logistical calculations on the convoy routes and land routes, essentially the unseen factors in IPC systems.

I do like the idea of an IC and a naval base/airbase combos to produce, Strategics, BB and CV. It would represent the efforts by a power to turn it into an effective strategic zone for heavy ordanance and resource extraction.

Not to keen on the “recruitment” rule however.

You say “Let China be” but remember they can capture Hong Kong and Shanghai. Thus even if Japan was to take Calcutta, its work would then have to take Sydney and Honolulu, with its navy. You think America is going to sit by and let you do it, in Global? Ha ha.

I don’t think it is a bad thing, and if its any consolation, “org” appears before “com”. Both are better alternatives to the official site, which is neglected.

I am typing this from a phone, so I apologize if the formatting is off.

We shouldn’t forget the basis of this unit, mobile support for infantry. This is the core. However, I still stand by the idea that it should have defensive anti-tank abilities. One, SPG, TD, and SPA were a loose family in the war. Two, many nations gave the weapons both anti-tank and infantry support rolled into one vehicle, not all, but many.

If however we made a seperate TD unit, what are the values? It certainly can’t be more expensive than the tank.

I think our best bet is to keep this unit multi-roled. Oh, and as for blitzing? When paired with a unit that can, yes.

I hope its not too late to chip in here…

CV: Soryu or Taiho class

BB: Ise (prerefit) or Kongo class

Tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu or Type 4 Chi-To

SPG/SPA: Type 4 Ho-Ro

Tactical Bomber: Aichi B7A

These are on my top list.  8-)

This topic hasn’t seen the first page in quite awhile, but I think it is more productive to post it here, than make a new topic, thus, here is my post.

I like the idea of the mechanized artillery, and as others have stated, there is a historical precedent for them. However, I think Larry tried to settle the attack@2-move@2 ratio when they are coupled with tanks (the tech for mech infantry in the Global 1940). However, trying to get that tech would be an investment better yet spent on units, and once gotten, would reduce the mechanized artillery to almost null appreciation.

I agree with Imperious Leader, the unit does need flair, something unique, and since SPA and SPG had similar roles, indirect fire in support of infantry and tanks.

How about this then?

Cost: 5
Move: 2
Attack: 2
Defense 1

Support: When paired with an infantry or mechanized infantry, its attack value goes to 2.

Tank Hunter: On defense, this unit may roll before the first round of combat against an attacking tank unit. Ratio of 1:1. On a 1, a tank is removed from the battle immediately. The unit may not fire again the second round of combat, but may be selected as a casualty in the first round.

With this potential set up, the SPA doesn’t overpower by default, as historically, their rate of fire was quite slow and indirect. But, it does fulfill its roles. The defense value is to represent the light (old tank chassis), aforementioned rate of fire and indirectness of it, and also the crews at times were unprotected.

@knp7765:

I was wondering if anyone knows what models of SPGs are possible for some of the countries.  I am aware of some models for USA, Germany and Russia.  I think I’ve seen some for Japan and Italy.

How about UK, ANZAC or France?  Has anyone seen SPGs for them?  I mean units from those countries, not US made equipment.

Japan had decent ones of the Type 3 Ho-Ni III and Type 4 Ho-Ro. (<–- A personal favorite by its sheer look)

I know Italy had the Semovente 75/18.

The U.K and Commonwealth (including Canada and ANZAC) had the 25pdr SP, tracked, Sexton and Bishop.

France is a special case, they had no mechanized artillery or SPG in huge numbers during 1940… save for one history know fought a battle, and literally only about three which were prototypes. The name of this weapon was the SAu-40.

Relevant links below;

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/4-France/06-SPG/SAu-40/SAu-40.htm

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=75388

Hey these are awesome 94Canuck, thank you!

However, you may have to change em’ up, hopefully for the last time.

Some new changes;

Move the French cruiser in 112 to 110.
Move the UK cruiser in 112 to 111.
Move the German cruiser and transport in 113 to 114.
Add 1 UK mechanized infantry and 1 French infantry to United Kingdom.
Add 1 UK infantry and 1 AA gun to Scotland.
Change 1 French tank and 1 French artillery in France to equivalent UK units.

Change the Soviet “Spread of Communism” NO to “3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.”

Plus this;

I have reviewed the above changes with Larry, and they are now official as written. We’ve also added 1 AA gun to India, bringing the total there to 3.

This was per Kreighund, Fed 07th 2012.

Thread for for reference.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7989&start=680

This is a rather late reply, but the question addressed still stands on this thread, so I will offer up my two cents.

I recently played Pacific 40 with the new Alpha +3 rules, set up and NO and believe me, Japan can indeed outpace the United States in IPC production, especially if there is real opposition left (ie, China and India) which has been crushed by the weight of air power. The DEI is really all Japan needs, and their fleet to protect it. With China and India crushed, DEI taken, (including the aforementioned NO, but potentially plus the others.) Japan is looking at a potential 70 -80 IPC per turn, compared with the U.S’s 60 -65 IPC per turn.

Perhaps because I was playing with rather inexperienced American player, who very seemed hesitant to attack the Japanese fleet, lest he be left with no operational navy save for a few transports and destroyers back in sea zone 10. Or maybe he wanted to help protect Australia from invasion, wasting time and energy in a defective allied strategy under the wrong circumstances. Or maybe he wanted to build up forces and swing them down south.

Whatever the case, Allied power was disorganized and not brought to bear that game. I want to play the set up again, with more experienced players this weekend, and see how it goes.

However yes, it does seem very hard for the U.S to lay down a truly capable fleet, even with the +5 NO they can conceivably get during the stand alone. Kind of reminds of those “limited war” strategies from the War Plan Orange sessions, one arm tied behind their back.

Um, I know given the recent circumstances it might be… quite risky, but do you mind reupping this to another site, say mediafire? Many thanks would be given.

I remember coming across this on 4chan’s /rs/ board one day, never knew it was YOUR upload.

If you can’t, let me just say, it was awesome that you did.

EDIT: I remember on Youtube someone was playing the Iron Blitz version of the game. The tunes sounded pretty boss.

I’m at a loss guys, torn between the Korean Conflict and Chinese Civil War, both for scholarly reasons and personal ones, I researched into.

Though, the many regional conflicts within Asia and Africa after European decolonization also qualify.

It would have to after the German/European Axis capture of Moscow, no more, no less.

I could honestly see the IJA seizing Vladivostok primarily. It was about the only area strategically useful within that region at the time, and still holds importance today. After that, maybe operations to secure the vast coastline, though this is just an assumption and it would’ve been difficult for them. As others have stated, these territories would yield little unto them.

Of more importance, I could see them sending most of the Manchurian and Korean divisions meant to guard the border into the frying pan with China, something they truly wanted at the time.

He will be missed, surely.

It truly is sad to think that most of the veterans from the Second World War will soon be gone with our generational span, let us listen to their stories, whilst we can.

Lovin’ those Japanese carriers and German armor pieces!

Lovely!

Thanks for these.

Once again, very awesome!

Personally can’t wait to see the French pieces though.

@UN:

@Dylan:

@GrizzlyMan:

It’s a good thing you bought two  :-D

No kidding, but don’t worry too much, the French pieces never are on the board that long.  :-D

Neither are the Canadian uni–-oh wait a minute

Hahah. I see what you did there, UN.

Seriously though Eville, it is good you bought two and least WOTC is giving you replacements.

Always Coca Cola, and I remember the 1990’s logo, still love seeing it.

Ahh. You beat me to making a Sabaton thread. Anyone who likes what they hear should check out their recent release, “Coat of Arms”. The song  Midway is my favorite from that album.

Am I the only one that does CA/DD combos? The perks of ASW and Bombardment, for the bargin of a two for one basis of a BB. That said, I am fond of an CA anti-air ability. No doubt a further incentive for me, or others, to purchase them.

I am