Posts made by cousin_joe

@Bluestroke:

Joe, What you say is true.  We are not OOB.  That is why I denote our game,
" AA50 House rules, " and include mention of Sub Stealth.

We do not use Sub detection.  Its OOB Automatic detection  when a DD is in the Sea Zone.  The Sub Stealth only modifies OOB, the fact, you don’t see subs until the DD shows up.  OOB rules except, when your submerge, no one sees the sub, until you pop up or a DD shows up in your Sea Zone.  This is simple and very powerful.   
Your path to attack is hidden.  Its how subs operate, ambush attackers.

Though, I like your detection rules.  I will present them to the guys and see if we can adopt them.  The are very KISS orientated, its hard to get new stuff into our game.
Hell, I try every game to get something in-LOL.

Even if, we did not use this rule, I find subs a useful cheap unit under OOB  rules.  Especially when combined with airpower.  Have you used this combination? 
True, We don’t play online, its face to face 4 player games. 
Face to Face, its the way the game was designed. 
I like the instant interaction of board game play.
I know, Online play would be used by me, if I did not have players readily available.
I could see where management of sub stealth would require a modification of online protocols.

FTF is definitely the way to play  :-)
I get the occasional game in, but not as often as I’d like

I like your SUB rules as well, and would agree, they probably do best represent the actual situation
What would be cool, is if online or PBEM games could send the map back and forth, but have your SUBs only seen on your map, but not your opponents (Kinda like the old Milton Bradley game Battleship…  “Doh!  You sank my Battleship!!!”   :-D )

I’m not sure if this is possible though, and hence the alternative.
We have been using this system in Enhanced though and it works fairly well.
I’m just not sure how the lower costs for DDs and SUBs would affect things.
(I should add that we use an Air modifier, so if there is Attacking aircraft present, the detection goes up to 4, and likewise if there are Defending aircraft present (ie. on an AC))

It’s really hard to say for sure how SUBs will be until we know the actual set-up and complete rules (By the way, I appreciate your work on the maps so far).  I do feel though, that the automatic detection of all SUBs by a single DD is a true killer of SUB viability.  SUBs will basically be limited to a single attack (if that), only to be easy pickings on the following turn.

@Krieghund:

Subs may either submerge or fire.  The sequence is:

1.  Attacking subs submerge (or not)
2.  Defending subs submerge (or not)
3.  Unsubmerged attacking subs fire
4.  Unsubmerged defending subs fire
5.  Casualties are removed
6.  Attacking non-sub units fire
7.  Defending non-sub units fire
8.  Casualties are removed

If there are enemy destroyers, subs fire at the same time other units do.  There is no Opening Fire step.

Thanks Kreighund,

I like the ability of the Defending SUBs to submerge prior to combat
SUBs attacking SUBs always seemed strange  :-)

Let’s say 2 Japanese SUBs attack a SZ containing just 2 American SUBs…

Since there is no DD present, do either the Attacking SUBs or Defending SUBs get a chance to submerge prior to Combat?
Or do we have the traditional situation where Opening Fire occurs simultaneously for both sides and nobody can submerge until after 1 round of Combat.

I guess what Im asking more specifically is what is the Combat Sequence with regards to these items…

Attacker Rolls Opening Fire
Defender Rolls Opening Fire
Attacker has Option to Submerge
Defender has Option to Submerge
Attacker Removes Opening Fire Casualties
Defender Removes Opening Fire Casualties

@Bluestroke:

Again, disclaimer we use **Sub Stealth Rule. **
Note: we use the hidden rule-where subs orders are written down on paper and you only see them when a destroyer finds em or you attack out of the blue… and at 6 IPC there are a lot of subs(add improved ship yards Tech at 5 IPC the wolf pack is back.)

Bluestroke,

You are playing an entirely different game here
If the DDs don’t know where the SUBs are, then yes, SUBs will be viable

We are talking about OOTB rules here though
DDs know exactly where SUBs are, and what support units they will need to bring in to finish them off
SUBs are near useless in such a combat system

Short of having to write where hidden units are on paper (which will never fly in online play), I think the simplest way to replicate what you’re doing, is not to have detection of SUBs by DDs automatic.  Instead, have each DD roll a “Detection Roll” to see if SUBs are detected or not…

SUB Detection Rolls and DD-to-detect values
-All attacking and defending SUBs are “Undetected” at the start of Combat. Each SUB has a DD-to-detect value, which is 3 at baseline, and represents the likelihood of being detected (a higher value means more likely to be detected)
-Only DDs can “Detect” SUBs. In the first cycle of combat, prior to Opening Fire, EACH DD in the attacking and/or defending force rolls a SUB Detection Roll. If at least ONE SUB Detection Roll is less than or equal to an opposing SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those specific enemy SUBs are considered “Detected”.
-If none of the rolls are less than or equal to a SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those SUBs remain “Undetected.” If there are no opposing DDs, then all SUBs would remain “Undetected”.
-Undetected SUBs may submerge on Opening fire and thus avoid further combat

This would greatly increase SUB survivability and make them much more likely to be used (especially in conjunction with some Convoy Raiding Rules).

Well, I think it’s safe to say that we all pretty much agree that Subs are almost useless and no sane player would buy them, especially with vastly superior DDs available for just a mere 2PCs more.

Again, it just begs the question of whether something is missing.  How could SUBs have been designed to be so horrible?  I noticed on Larry’s site, that he reports getting most of the things he wanted, but not everything.  Analyzing what we know of the rules so far, the one underlying problem I see is the automatic detection of SUBs by a single DD.  I’m wondering if SUB Detection rules may have been thrown out in favor of this much more simplified, but extremely game-altering decision.

Automatic SUB Detection by attacking DDs–> pretty much autokill of any defending SUB by DD + Air/Navy

Automatic SUB Detection by defending DDs–> extremely limited opportunity for SUBs to attack transports in a fleet (as most will be defended by at least 1 DD)

I’m still hoping there’s some game mechanic dealing with SUBs that we just don’t know about yet, but so far, it looks like (once again) we won’t see any SUB purchases for the OOTB edition and will have to rely on house rules to get a Battle of the Atlantic going.  As for which house rules, that’s for another time and place, but most simple would be a National Objective for Convoy Raid damage, and some non-automatic sub detection rules

@Krieghund:

Sorry, cousin_joe, unfortunately no such rule exists.

I would suggest this for a house rule:

At the beginning of each combat round, determine which attacking subs are “screened” and which are “unscreened”.  Count the number of attacking subs and the number of defending destroyers.  Each attacking sub in excess of the number of defending destroyers is unscreened.  For example, if there are four attacking subs and three defending destroyers, one of the subs is unscreened.  During the Attacking Units Fire step, unscreened subs have the option of either attacking normally or automatically destroying one transport.  Screened subs attack normally.

In addition, hits from battleships and carriers may not be assigned to subs.

These simple rules would allow subs to kill transports and capital ships that are unescorted by destroyers and/or cruisers with impunity.  Destroyers would have full ASW capability, including the ability to hit subs, protect other ships, and allow planes to hit subs.  Cruisers would have limited ASW capability, in that they would be able to hit subs, but not allow planes to hit them or protect other ships.  Capital ships would have no ASW capabilities whatsoever.

I see what you’re saying Kreighund
But now this becomes overly costly for Germany and just not worthwhile doing
Germany is now needing 3-4SUBs to overcome any Allied “screens” and you have to remember, those SUBs are basically dead on the UK Counter

I don’t want this thread to turn into House Rules (“Because we all know, that the House Rules Police are watching”  :wink:), but I really do think then, that they missed an excellent opportunity to replicate the Battle of the Atlantic much, much better than they do now.  Right now, it’s pretty one-sided for the Allies.

Having DDs that do not detect SUBs on defense would allow for the asymmetric warfare we saw in WWII.  In the Atlantic, Germany could not match Capital Ship production with the UK and go Navy against Navy.  But a handful of SUBs could wreak havoc by sinking valuable transports.  A similar situation occurred in the Pacific, though with US SUBs sinking Japanese transports (right now that set-up is looking very asymmetrical as well, in favor of Japan)

Right now though, as most would agree, SUBs just aren’t worth the purchase  :cry:

You lost me.  You mentioned questions of sub defense ability, but then talk about attacking and picking off transports….

Not sure what you are saying.

Hi roll,

Basically just meaning that on G3, if UK has a large fleet consisting of DDs, CAs, AC, and TRNs, Germany is able to attack this fleet with just SUBs and the SUBs are considered undetected, even if there are Allied DDs present.

SUBs would basically gain the power to ignore Surface Navies, and just attack any Transports within their range at will.  It’s an autokill as transports have no defend capability.

This comes from another thread but I thought it deserved a thread of it’s own…

@Rakeman:

Subs should have some badass ability, like the ability to snipe off transports without being fired upon.

That would actually make SUBs useful Rakeman.  Right now they’re basically a waste of 6IPCs.  I’m hoping there’s some sort of secret ability about SUBs we just don’t know about yet.  Maybe something like this…

Sure we know that DDs detect SUBs on the attack…
But have we actually been told that they detect SUBs on defense?!?!?

Just like Capital Ships are allowed to ignore SUBs (can pass through or enter a SZ with SUBs without fighting the SUBs), what if SUBs are allowed to ignore Capital Ships?!?!?

SUBs would then be able to attack any standing Navy with transports, but basically just target the transports (in essence autokilling them) without any fear of being killed by the Standing Navy.

Now Whoa!!  Before you start throwing accusations of this making SUBs overpowered, remember, any DD + support can autokill SUBs (automatic detection, no chance to submerge).  Now it becomes a game of Cat and Mouse.  If the SUB gets within the DDs range, the SUBs are toast.  If the Trannies get within the SUBs range, the Trannies are toast.  The onus is on the DDs to go out and clear the SUBs, so that their transports are safe to move in for Amphibs.

If this were the actual Combat system for SUBs, then I would say that Mr. Harris is BRILLIANT!!!

-The Battle of the Atlantic would be replicated very nicely, with the Allies needing to clear the seas of SUBs prior to bringing in the Trannies
-Convoy Raiding is replicated indirectly as SUBs have a very good chance of picking off Trannies at 7IPCs each
-The decision to make Trannies separate from Navies, and nonuseable as fodder makes perfect sense
-SUBs become viable units for Germany.  Not in large quantities, but a few here and there to basically slow down Allied landings.
-Allies will need to produce a few more DDs, just to try and keep the SUBs out of range of their Trannies.  It won’t be just AC+TRN purchases like in Classic.
-And one mroe time for good measure… the Battle of the Atlantic will be replicated nicely :-D

Now, all of this brilliance would be ruined, by saying that "No, DDs detect SUBs on defense as well."   Most standing Navies will have a DD and then this great combat system would never come to fruition.  Like I said though, I’m hoping this is not the case  :|

How bout it?  Craig or Kreighund?  Are we on to something here?  :-)

If SUBs were actually viable, France would be automatic for IC placement.

With SUBs not doing any economic damage, and basically automatically killed by any attack force with a DD then maybe it’s a little less of a sure thing

If Germany is cashing out at 45-50IPCs though early on, and facing a KGF (which they most likely will be), then yeah, France is good for producing your 15-16INF/TURN while you wait for Japan to take out Moscow… yawn  :roll:

@Craig:

@cousin_joe:

@Craig:

Most of the time we spent playtesting was done under constantly changing maps and rules.  As such, we actually only did a small portion of our work with the final map (which then changed a bit after that), the NOs were a bit different from what they are now, some of the rules changed slightly, and the tech was not like this at all.
Craig

Hey Craig,

Just out of curiosity… are you able to say what the tech was like when you were playtesting?

I will have to go back and look at my info to make sure exactly what we did, but I will say that the the present system of two charts was arrived at after we were done playtesting.

Also, were there ever any convoy raiding type of rules/NOs, and were the ICs ever tried at a lower price than 15IPCs?

Convoys/Convoy Raiding was never used, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. :-D  NOs came into the mix late and there wasn’t any thought of a Convoy NO.  Actually, the ICs were 20 IPCs!

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply.  I’d definitely be curious about the Tech

Too bad Convoys never made it in.  It would have helped to create a lot more action in the Atlantic and Pacific.

Wow, I can’t imagine ICs at 20IPC.  It seems like there may have been concern that ICs in certain locations could be too powerful.  The one that immediately jumps to mind (and these gentleman have already brought up), is the France IC.

Once Germany is cashing out at 40-45IPC, the France IC almost becomes a must.  What’s great about it though, is you can plop down destroyers for stalling, or even an insta-Navy if UK is caught napping.

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)

It would have been nice to see the Battleships come down to around 18IPC

20IPC would have been OK if TRNs,SUBs and DDs were their original costs (8,8,12), but with all of them coming down (6,7,8), Battleships should have recieved a bit more of a boost as well.

@Craig:

Most of the time we spent playtesting was done under constantly changing maps and rules.  As such, we actually only did a small portion of our work with the final map (which then changed a bit after that), the NOs were a bit different from what they are now, some of the rules changed slightly, and the tech was not like this at all.
Craig

Hey Craig,

Just out of curiosity… are you able to say what the tech was like when you were playtesting?

Also, were there ever any convoy raiding type of rules/NOs, and were the ICs ever tried at a lower price than 15IPCs?

Thanks.

@Black_Elk:

When developing the enhanced NOs please try to consider the TripleA game engine.  :-D

We can test a lot of ideas using the edit mode, and if we had more coordination and eyes on it, we could probably get a little more coding help from the devs. Things like X ipcs for Territory A, or no units of type Y in Territory B for a bonus of Z ipcs. As long as we keep it within some sort of general framework, it should be pretty easy to customize or expand the rules. I think simplicity and ease of memorization is the ticket.

I like the Russo-Jap NAP for example, and the Submarine stuff too (Germany/Italy need an incentive to buy ships or it’s never going to happen.) If it comes down to it, we may also want to seriously consider a 21 VC system instead of 18 as another relatively simple adjustment that might help. For the house rules though, the easier they are to explain the better the odds that players will adopt them. Something to keep in mind while brainstorming.  :-)

We should try to come up with 5-10 really innovative but ‘easy to remember’ NOs, and then try to establish them as a kind of standard House Rules option. Then we could include them at the bottom of the game notes *optional expansion to give the rules some additional sense of formality. The edit mode should already make most of these ideas possible, the only issue right now is that the players have to track the stats themselves (which is sort of a pain). That’s not much different from what you have to do in a face to face game though, so its not unreasonable. Hopefully Kev will look into coding some of this stuff, or at least providing some more UI flexibility to deal with things like expanded NOs. Even just getting some good house rules in the gamenotes would be cool though.

I’ve felt for a long time now that the game could use an influx of additional money, so I think additional House NOs would be fun (more money means more build options, means less dependence on the starting set up and more dynamic strategies.) If we wanted to limit the impact of these additional NOs, we could always drop the standard bonuses from 5 ipcs to 3 ipcs, or something of that sort, to make room for the new ones. But I think you could bring everyone up 5 or 10, and as long as it was even, most players would accept it.

As a house rule along these lines, I also think it would be fun to award 1 additional IPC for each Victory City controlled. We can do a lot right now though, using the edit mode. Its a little unwieldy, but still allows for a lot more flexibility than we had before.

Hey Black_Elk,

As I’ve always said, I think TripleA + Enhanced would be a great combo
I do agree, if there is going to be a standard set of house rules, they would have to be fairly simple and not too far off from the base game
I’ll have to drop by the TripleA site sometime and see what the engine’s capable of now
It’s been a while since I’ve played a game there

P.S. For those that haven’t tried TripleA, it’s a nice way to practice your strategies before your next FTF game.  I’d highly recommend it!  :-D

@Craig:

A few points up front about the playtesting:

Most of the time we spent playtesting was done under constantly changing maps and rules.  As such, we actually only did a small portion of our work with the final map (which then changed a bit after that), the NOs were a bit different from what they are now, some of the rules changed slightly, and the tech was not like this at all.

What I would say is this- If you are trying to figure out what is and isn’t balanced, DO NOT PLAY WITH THE TECHS!

As Cousin Joe has proper pointed out, since tech is random, you can’t depend on what you will get and that means you can’t plan appropriately.

The techs are too uncertain a factor to try to figure into the equation when trying to find the balance in a scenario.

I’m glad to hear that the Tech situation was thrown in there last minute as I can’t possibly see how any playtesters would think that random tech is a good thing.  I’m sure it’s in there just for the kiddies to get those miraculous victories with HB when they’re clearly beat or to laugh at their opponents misfortune when they get Super Subs  :-)  It would have been nice though, to get some Tech rules suitable for competitive play right OOTB, especially since I don’t see too many kiddies shelling out $100 for this game, and the fact it was meant to be a deluxe version.

I guess, as always, we will need some sort of tournament rules fix.

I do agree though, if you really want to assess game balance, you should do so without Tech.

No matter what, there is going to have to be a lot more game play before we can make a proper assessment as to what is or isn’t balanced.

Also, I would ask those who are playing the '41 scenario- What set up are you using?  If it is the one from the GCI pic and is on the R12 map of Bluestroke’s, then there are a few things that are wrong.

Now I don’t know if that is on purpose or just a mistake.  Larry may have just been busy and missed a few things when setting it up or he may have left out a few things to actually mess with the picture takers.

I believe that it is the former since it is just a few things missing.  If he were trying to throw people off, then a bunch of things would be out of place and/or missing.

I will try to talk to him to see if I am allowed to clarify the info for you.

Craig

I hope one of those things that are missing is a pre-built UK IC and perhaps a few extra US naval units in the Pacific

From what I’m hearing and seeing, Japan is basically able to explode over the whole map as the Allies are too weak to stop them.  This basically leaves KGF as their only strategic alternative.

I would like to do some playtesting, but I’m waiting until we get word of the official setup.  It would be nice to have it before the release…

If the game truly is balanced, there will be a lot of positive feedback, and thus more support and free advertising for the new game.

If the game is not balanced, at least people will have some house rules or tournament rules available to fix it a lot faster (as playtesting will have been done in advanced).

Both of these would help boost sales.  I really don’t think you’ll lose sales by showing the setup online prior to the release (It will definitely be up after the release  :-)).  Hardcore gamers will buy it regardless (most likely on the release date  :-)).  Non-hardcore gamers will probably wait until after the release date, and by then, they would have seen the true setup anyways.

October 23rd would be a nice date to release the true setup… as that’s when it was supposed to come out originally  :-D

@Perry:

Hah, sorry JB! It was Cousin_joe that talked about countering UKR  :-)

So, Cousin_joe , what do you have to say for yourself  :-)

4INF Cau, 1INF Euk, 1ARM Mos (as per BGG setup - which we now know is wrong, so actually may be even more) *** modified  8-)***

If you don’t hit back in Ukr, you expose Caucasus to being attacked by whatever’s left in Ukr + potentially 7ARM (Blitzing through a German owned Ukr) + potentially 4FTR + 1BMBR + whatever can be brought in by sea (1INF + 1ARM)

For me, that’s a must

@Lynxes:

Thanks JohnBarbarossa for sharing your test games with us! I’ve been playing a bit with a friend of mine (Perry) over the internet and we will be writing up a report soon.

One thing, and this also answers Cousin Joe’s fears, is that there is a possibility to reinforce India with Russian troops and then an IC build IS VIABLE. We tried this in one game and it worked out fine, although Russia was of course slightly weaker. In that game, the Allies balanced the Russian support for India with UK attacks vs. Leningrad. So, while that Scandinavian push might be felt to be a bit ahistorical, game-balance-wise it works out well I think.

A caveat of course is that a maximized anti-Indian Japan strat must be tried out vs. this Allied strategy, and also maximum German and Italian pressure vs. Caucasus. I think the jury is still out if this is possible to pull-off as the Allies without losing Caucasus, which, if not retaken, usually means losing the game.

Hi Lynxes,

Yes, I am aware the Russian reinforcement is an option, but a few points…

-Those Russian INF in Caucasus are needed to counter the G1 hit on Ukraine which is a must on G1

-Russian INF supporting an India IC is even more ahistoric, and shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.  UK should already have the initial setup or resources to support the IC on it’s own.

-If Russia goes to Per R1, I would send maximum pressure I1 and G2 to get the Cau IC (or at least setup for a G3 takedown)

-As Japan, if I see the Russians moving to Persia R1, then India becomes priority one over everything else.  Japan has enough stuff to take out the Russian reinforce if they bring the kitchen sink on J2.  The IC will not be able to build anything until after J2 (which comes before UK2)

-on US1, the US will be seeing Italy going after Russia, and Japan ignoring the US in favor of India (which has a good shot of taking India).  With minimal incentive to stay in the Pacific (no Convoy Raids, few IPCs, and the need to help Russia) then Atlantic builds would seem the more reasonable approach.

Overall, the Russian reinforce + UK IC + US Pacific Fleet strategy is just too risky from what we know of OOTB so far.  Strategically, I would much rather take my chances with the KGF race vs. JTDTM.  And in that case, the game is still highly flawed like it’s predecessors.  Global conflict should be the goal, not races to Moscow & Berlin.

@JohnBarbarossa:

Second game
With the experience of the first game I decided that Japan cannot be ignored. I also observed that Russia can fight a long time before they need any help. With this information I decided to use the following strategy:
UK would go after Italy, and try to hold onto Africa.
Russia would fence off Germany alone (at least for the time being)
USA would go all out against Japan and therefore start a pacific war

Germany did the same moves as the previous game, this time they won SZ 2 but lost in Egypt. It was fairly easy for the UK to secure Africa after this. With Russia I made a big mistake on the first turn. After that I lost the initiative and was only reacting to the German moves and plugging the holes. My first turn build of 1 bmb, 1 ftr, 1 arm and 1 inf also might have been to aggresive. The Russian front did not fair well (dice did not help either) and was almost collapsing after three rounds. USA did a good job building up a substantial pacific fleet and 5 bmbs and conquered the south pacific. At that point both fleets were facing each other and the one could not attack the other. Since the Russian front was going very poorly and Japan (even if they lost some bonusses and IPC from the Islands) could buy some ships as defense and continue to ship troops to the mainland I decided to invest 20 ipc in tech with USA (despite of this, this was no techgame at all) and hoped for heavies, and I got them! I wiped out the entire japanse fleet. But heavies were not enough to turn the game. USA started to send bombers to Germany (and had 10 bombers on the board) but they came to late (when the bombers started to bomb Germany, AA guns took out 3 out of 3 - ouch). The Allies started frantically to ships troops to Europe through Scandinavia/Archangel but it was too late. Moscow fell in round 8/9.

I’ve said all along, that to kill the KGF playout, you would have to either make a UK Ind/Aus IC viable, or a US Pacific Fleet viable.  In your 2nd game, even though you went all-out US Pacific, you still did not have enough to push Japan back.  I think the OOTB rules will be doomed to KGF as the best Allied alternative :oops:

Just looking at the opening setup you used, I can see Japan is WAAAY ahead on material.  US has no chance going mano a mano with Japan in the Pacific and like you say in your conclusion, it looks like Atlantic builds would be the proper way to go.  Now, of course, you did get HB and totally blew Japan away in the Pacific, which only goes to show how broken HB are.

Conclusions
The game looks pretty balanced so far. Allied play usually is more difficult so it is normal that the first games are won by the Axis. Even is the Allies did not play optimal in the first game. The game still lasted a lot of rounds. The NO’s are a great addition and forces you to play differently. But without them Axis are toast. It is not enough to go out full against Japan with USA so you need a different approach. Maybe next time we try an all traditional approach and build a transport fleet with both UK and USA, UK goes to Europe and USA goes to Africa. As usual Africa cannot be ignored.

I’d say balanced but only if Allies go KGF.  I would have hoped they got rid of this everything moving towards Moscow/Berlin playout and replaced it with a true global game.  Barring some big changes to the real setup (either UK IC or stronger US Navy), I think we’re going to be disappointed again.

Thanks again for the post John.  I think it generally confirms what we already suspect.

@JohnBarbarossa:

Our playgroup (JohnBarbarossa, Driel310 and Dizon) played 2 testgames with the known rules and setup over the course of the last two weeks and we like to share our experience here.

First game
Germany took egypt on G1 with good rolls (2 arm left). This is a mandatory battle in our opinion. Germany HAS to take out Egypt (at least kill all units). The Italians move after UK, this gives UK the possibility to retreat their forces there and save the fighter.
Bring 1 inf + 1 arm from France using your transport and your bomber (plus all forces from Libya). With the bomber this is a 80% battle. Your transport can only be attacked by the UK bmb, but it has to land in deadzone Transjordan, which will then be attacked and killed by the Italians. If the UK does this (they didn’t in our game) it is a bonus I think. The german transport has already done its most important duty. The rest of Africa should go to Italy anyway. If you go to Egypt with Germany, Japan should also take out all UK ships at India in J1.
We also decided to take out the DD in SZ 6 and attack the UK BB in SZ 2 with 2 subs and 1 ftr from Norway. The reason for this was that UK would then only have 1 transport left. Unfortunately this attack failed due to bad dice. Germany lost a fighter there and UK was able to land on France and in the process kill the second German fighter. Since Germany is so low on Infantry it is important to take out at least one UK transport, since France cannot be defended on UK1 against 2 transports.
On G3 Germany build an IC for France (you need it otherwise you are outproduced by Russia) together with an AA gun. For the remainder of the game the transport was used to conquer Africa together with the Italians. Germany build lots of Infantry and an occasional fighter and later on more armour.

Hi John,

Thanks for the post.  Now, we still don’t know if this is the true setup or not, but your German play sounds fairly standard.  I see that in both games, there didn’t appear to be much German Naval purchases.  This is not surprising, as I really don’t see either the incentive (no convoy raids) or protection (subs still to vulnerable) to encourage them.  The game represents the Eastern Front very well (and has gotten better with each rendition) but is still severely lacking in it’s representation of the Battle of the Atlantic  :cry:

Italy took out Transjordan on their first turn and received their 10 ipc bonuses every turn after that. They send most troops to Africa and aided Germany at the eastfront as they put pressure on Caucasus with their 2 trannies and 3 offshores. Their builds were mostly inf + arm. Later on when they received more money (the game was almost over) they bought a bmb due to their building limit of 6.

Sounds like they got the feel of Italy just right, spreading it’s resources btw Africa and the Eastern Front  :-)

Japan took all of the Pacific in two turns. Their first build was 2 trn and 1 inf. We decided that pressure on India was the most important thing, and naval and land forces needed to be in position to take out India in turn two. Therefore attacks in China were minimal and we decided to let the Chinese fighter live. This turned out to be a good decision since that fighter could not do much harm. Japan is not a monster when unchecked, it is Godzilla! In later stages of the game, Japan cashed out 70+ a turn!

This is my biggest fear with the game… A UK stand in Asia or Pacific not being viable.

I have the same impression that if Japan wants India, they can get it.  This means there is no point for UK to even build an IC in India as it will fall so easily.  The only alternatives then become a full-tilt US Pacific campaign, or the dreaded KGF.

I am hoping the true setup will have a pre-built India IC from game start, as this is the only way to keep UK there.

Allies did make some tactical mistakes. They decided to ignore the pacific. UK and USA both build a lot (more then needed) of ships in the Atlantic. UK started to land in Netherlands and bomb France with their offshores (which appeared to be not a good tactic). USA build bombers and started to bomb Germany. This hurt Germany a lot, but was certainly not a game breaker. Due to the second IC and Germany cashing out 30-50 Germany could hold out. To counter this strat Germany tried to develop Advanced Industrial Complex but got Warbonds instead (not bad either). Later in the game they tried again and got paratroopers (and took back Norway from the Russians). USA tried to develop heavy bombers during the course of the game but got Radar, Supersubs and Jet Fighters.
During the game the Russians single handed stopped Germany and even drove them back at one point (Germany needed to defend the beaches and hurted from the SBR’s) all the way to Rumania and Poland. Then the Allies realized that Japan was getting to big to stop and changed strategy. The bombing stopped and the allies started landing in Archangel. Russia had to fall back to send troops to the Japanse front. The Allies then sent all of their ships to SZ 4. This took a lot of pressure of Germany who could send a lot of defensive inf from France and Germany to the eastern front, and from that point started to push the Allies back. The Allies did not make any serious attempts to go to Africa. A mistake in our opinion. The allies conceded after 12 rounds with Moscow surrounded. During the course of the game there was a lot of investment in tech. USA got three techs, Germany got two and Japan got one (Longe range aircraft).

I agree, Allies could have made a more cohesive strategy.

I’m very disappointed to hear the Allied reinforce through Nor/Kar is still alive and well.  It’s so ahistoric.  I can’t blame them completely, as there are a couple of NOs (France, no Allied units in Russia) and map changes (Fin/Nor separate, new NW Europe territory) to discourage this, but a D-Day rule to focus the UK/US attack on France would have been nice.

I’m also disappointed to hear about the Random Techs.  It seems you guys had an idea of what Tech would best assist your strategies, but had to pray for the right tech to come by to do it.  That shouldn’t be the case for a strategy game  :cry:

Overall, it sounds like this game boiled down to a KGF vs. JTDTM to Moscow type game with the KGF portion just being very poorly executed.  I was hoping this playout would be a thing of the past in the supposed Deluxe Anniversary Edition.  Unfortunately, it looks like it is still alive and well.  :x This doesn’t bode well for the OOTB rules…  :cry:

@Funcioneta:

I think the best would be reducing max damage to IC to its IPC value, not allowing “negative production”. Thus, Germany could get 10 points of damage, not 20 as now, and minor ICs would not be so utterly damaged.

Completely agree…

At 10IPC max damage to Germany, it’s a STRATEGY
At 20IPC max damage to Germany, it’s an EXPLOIT

@Subotai:

HB is not only about SBR, this tech is gamebreaker even with a house rule with no SBR attacks.
For naval combat,…. HB is twice as effective in naval combat compared to other units…
If US gets HB and going after Jap, Jap will be in deeeeeep trouble. And vice versa…
With HB it will be an arms race in tech and not a competion of who got most skills making strategic decisions.

I’m actually not bothered by HB itself as a Tech.  What I am bothered by though, is as you imply, that there is no adequate counter to HBs.

Right now, radar is the only real counter, and that will only help land attacks and SBRs
For Naval, they should have Radar giving Cruisers and Battleships a single 1@1 AA shot
They should also have Techs increasing SUB survivability, so that going to a strong SUB fleet becomes a nice counter
Another SBR Counter would be Interceptor Tech, eg. a single 1@1 AA shot for every FTR in the territory under SBR.

Even just the existence of potential counters is enough to discourage HB (cost-effectiveness drops dramatically).  The only other thing you would need to include is Directed Tech to get these counters rather than just the Random Tech nonsense that is present now.