Posts made by Der Kuenstler

@gliven:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/aag-huge.jpg or even here you can see pretty easy

This one is pretty good - thanks!

I would like to adapt my large AA 1942 map to use convoys. Can anyone tell me how to find out where the convoy symbols are located on the global map? My search did not turn up any large pdfs of the global map. The hi-res sticky above is too blurry for me to see when close up.

@Bunnies:

I think it’s wonderful to find a man of such simple faith in his beliefs.  :wink:

Well sorry to break your heart but I’m already happily married…lol

@Gargantua:

For Example, I am russia,  I buy 37 entrenchments first turn.  Turn 2 I do the same.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying - you’d have to somehow limit it or it would totally take over the game, however you wanted to use it. I believe getting only one entrenchment chip per country per turn would make things interesting without it dominating the rest of the game.

I think through your bizarre and longwinded illustration you are saying that a wiley player with less income can often gain local superiority over a dumber player who has more overall income and resources. With that I agree wholeheartedly!

A JPEG of my roundel sheet is attached if anyone wants to print it…

I worded my original entrenchment idea badly - what I meant was you could entrench ONLY ONE land zone per turn. In other words, you only get ONE entrenchment chip per turn to put out, during the “place new units” phase - so choose wisely. If entrenching every land zone with an infantry per turn were allowed, it would get out of hand and slow the game to a crawl.

I like the idea that the infantry must have been in the land zone and inactive since the beginning of your turn to entrench there.

I see no need to charge IPCs to entrench - it takes no real resources to dig a ditch - but it might make a good use for that extra IPC you have at the end of a turn.

I think there should be a cap limit of ten in entrenchment. I don’t think it should be limited by economic value as some of the most entreched areas in WWII (like Gibraltar and Iwo Jima) had no economic value.

What would happen if all units moved out of an entrenched area? Then the enemy should be able to move in there and use the entrenchment, like they do an AA gun.

My thought was to start the game with the following areas having a base entrenchment level:

Gibraltar: 5
Western Europe: 3
Stalingrad:3
Leningrad:2
Moscow:3
Japan:3
Iwo Jima:5
Okinawa:4

Then you could add ONE entrenchment chip TOTAL per turn to your territory of choice that contains inactive infantry. As was mentioned, if a game lasts 8-10 rounds, you’re only talking 8-10 more entrenchment chips per country for the whole game. Not enough to seriously disrupt the game, but enough to add a little more strategy. A player might choose to bypass Japanese Islands with high entrenchment levels and go straight for Japan. Gibraltar might be avoided altogether if the price was too high, as it was historically.

Sounds like a fun and creative idea to try! I like the doublecross on “six” - makes it more of a gamble.

What do you think of this, guys? IMO fortress areas like Gibraltar are too easy to take. Piling up huge stacks of infantry is not realistic in smaller areas. What if you could add entrenchment to areas you really want to protect?

I’ve made some sample entrenchment roundels that can be placed on top of chip stacks:

Entrenchment levels could be placed in certain territories during setup. (like Gibraltar and Stalingrad) It’s pretty simple - all entrenchment does is absorb the hits meant for other units. For example, if a territory had three entrenchment chips, you would have to take out the three chips first in order to start damaging the units.

After successfully taking an entrenched territory, half of the original entrenchment could be restored to the attacker (representing still useable trenches that the attacker can now use to defend with)

To add a little strategy, each player could get to add ONE free entrenchment per turn to any land zone that has infantry in it. (any more entrenchment might slow the game too much I think)

Here is an example picture: here the British only have one infantry defending Gibraltar:

But look - it has an entrenchment value of five, so it will not be that easy to take. Two battleships bombarding the coast would only remove two entrenchment chips at most, and the defending infantry would still be unhurt.

Imagine trying to take a Japanese Island or Stalingrad with this in rule in place!

lol…

@kcdzim:

@Der:

A sub and two cruisers attack a battleship. No destroyer is present. The battleship sinks from cruiser hits but fires back a hit in defense. Can the attacking sub be chosen as the casualty instead of a cruiser?

Subs are ALWAYS susceptible to hits from other naval units even if an enemy destroyer is not present.

So then if a sub attacks a lone battleship, and misses, the battleship is then allowed to fire against the sub, but a battleship can’t ATTACK a sub unless the sub chooses to let it do so, right?

A sub and two cruisers attack a battleship. No destroyer is present. The battleship sinks from cruiser hits but fires back a hit in defense. Can the attacking sub be chosen as the casualty instead of a cruiser?

Yeah you’re right BPW - trying to have more income than your opponent is just crazy talk! Sorry about that - I’m new and all…  :roll:

Keep in mind the big picture. The allies combined income at the start of the game is 96 IPCs. The Axis combined income is 70 IPCs. This means if the Allies just sit and keep what they have, they will eventually win. The Axis must quickly spread out - they make 26 less IPCs than the Allies. They must take advantage of their early superiority in weapons. The Axis need to take 13 IPCs worth of territory away from the Allies JUST TO BREAK EVEN.

Wouldn’t this slow down the game significantly? And linking the amount of conscripts to the economic value of the territory does not make sense to me. China should be able to make tons of conscripts with its population but doesn’t have a lot of industrial strength.

I’m using the Spring 1942 map but you get the idea with global - it is adaptable - it gets fun because you see your opponent building up somewhere and then you have to react to that. It makes every game a new game with new starting strategies. We don’t find it necessary to put restrictions on what you buy. Each round of buildup you will be observing what others place out and can buy accordingly.

We play where subs do not attack one another or have any effect on one another on the map or on the battleboard.

You would use percentages - normally USA starts the game with 25% of global income and USSR with 15% of global income. So this would be inversed. With 200 IPCs of global income, the USA would get 30, USSR 50, Germany 34, UK and Japan 43 each. But this only works well when you use four players and one of the Allies is neutral.

With all five nations, you would have add up the total amount of all units in each nation’s setup and then use those percentages to buy what you want during the buildup.

We’ve done this before and it is a lot of fun. Instead of setting the game up over and over the same way, players each take 5-7 rounds doing an “Arms Buildup”. The amount of money you get to spend for units is inverse to the amount of starting income you have. (i.e. USA gets the least, USSR the most) During arms buildup, you do not need to place units where you have an Industrial Complex. Just put units anywhere within your borders and ships adjacent to friendly borders. After arms buildup ends, the war starts!  :-D

ok thanks!