Topics created by Gallo Rojo

@Darby:

Ran into the question

Thought about reducing Bombers vs Naval Units
( I thought hitting on a one was good )
but should they still cost 12?

It did not seem right …but selling them for Tac Bomber or fighter cost seemed wierd
So rather then reducing price I thought about augmenting something else.

Came up with:

Cost: 14
Attack: 4 / 1 vs Naval units
Defense: 1
Range: 6
Takes 1 hit to reduce attack by 2 / and cannot proceed with an SBR
Takes 2 hits to destroy

The whole idea of limiting bombers to a one against ships at sea is to be a little more realistic. With bombers leaving an air base they have seven moves. With the limited number of sea zones on AA maps the bombers destroying fleets in the middle of the ocean just does not work. My thinking is the OOB rules for bombers attacking everything on the map at a four are broken. Just tweaking the rules a little makes the game a little better and no change in the cost is needed. The bomber is still a valuable asset at twelve IPCs.

@17Mark71:

Or Dale Earnhardt Inc.

True, you NASCAR junkie.

Thanks Marc!

Good point kcdzim.  You gotta remember Gallo Rojo that Axis and Allies is not a WWII simulator (buy Hearts of Iron 3 if thats what you want, great game).  If the game were totally historically accurate there would be no point in playing, the Allies would win every time.  The designers have to find that balance between historical accuracy and re playability, so that any game can go either way.  Otherwise you’d have to pay people to play as the Axis while you beat up on them.  That being said, check out Oztea’s 1941 set-up.  It’s more historically accurate in my opinion.  Or check out the 1939 map and setup on historicalboardgaming.com.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21959.0

Since the U.S. does not start with one of the objectives: (5 of the 7 islands one) They are likely to collect 77….then factor in that when they do take one of the islands to get the 5, they typically have lost the Philippines objective, so they will be at 75-77 (if they have Brazil). I haven’t seen them reach 82 in 4 games of Alpha 2.

Actually, I would say all tanks are A: 3 D: 2 but you can combine it with an infantry for it to D: 3 if they are American, Russian or German.  Potentially British.

Italy, ANZAC, Japan and France would not be able to combine these.

It’d be more in line with BLITZKRIEG since Germany could combine an infantry iwth a tank, and a tank with a tactical bomber for extra punch on offense and defense, more akin to what they actually did.

@Krieghund:

Yes.

thanks!

Bear in mind that the USSR moves before England does (OOB) and before America and England (Alpha 2) thus it can be used for the “Can Opener” maneuver as well.  (Pop a blocking destroyer so the war fleets can sink the Italian/German navy and invade Hamburg/Frankfurt Germany, Berlin Germany, Rome Italy, whatever.)

If for no other reason, moving the Russian submarine to the combined Anglo-American fleet in the Atlantic might be worth it.

And, to belabor the point, it is another defending ship if your Anglo-American fleet is ever attacked, and one that neither England nor America has to purchase.

Note, these are the same arguments for using the Russian Submarine in previous versions of the game.  It’s always been semi-useless, but it has also always had a use in the rare situation it was needed.  Sometimes it was America who had to make a hole for the Russian due to the turn order, but it was the same basic situation.  Another unit that the Axis have to account for if you use it properly.  Sure, if you sit the submarine off the Cape of Good Hope (S. Africa) the Axis can virtually ignore it.  If it’s near Panama, the Axis can ignore it.  But why not use it as another unit with the Anglo-American flotilla?  It does not cost anything, it cannot be used to defend Russia in any meaningful way and if you do not use it thusly, you are essentially giving the Germans (and maybe the Japanese if you move it to the Pacific/Indian Oceans) a 6 IPC bid. (8 classic, but you dont start with a submarine in classic)

I could be undefeatable by anyone currently living on planet Earth and never skip a sacking of France on Germany 1 or failing Germany 1, at least whacking him good and doing it with Italy. (Although, with at least 4 fighters there, I highly doubt I would let Italy even try.)

Yeah the income is from National Objectives.  It is the same in Pacific, only there it is a flat rate increase, rather than being split into 5.

Good idea Mellemhend.

I have to agree.

It should be Leningrad and Stalingrad.  Not to mention, before it was Leningrad it was Saint Petersburg, not Novgorod.  Novgorod is some pissant little town on M10 between Saint Petersburg and Moscow.

@Ruanek:

@Idi:

Try the Cone of Silence

As said in your other thread, most people seem to prefer actually talking to each other over making the game a little shorter.

Yeah, it’s also a social thing.
And thinking about the situation is part of the fun (well, it is for me)

Some turns take more thinking than others (for example when there are many moves that need to be in sync)
So: get a chess clock, that way at least both parties have about the same time

Sorry about that Imperious Leader, I should have used the search function now that I think of it. I saw there’s already been a few times this question’s come up. Thanks though

My last russian sub attacked a Jap. DD in the pacific with the help of a bomber.

This allowed the USA fleet to be unblocked and destroy the Jap. fleet.    :evil:

Yea so if you catch an AC out at sea with out a DD you may get the ftrs too if they can’t land within 1 space.

besides what the rules say as just mentioend above, it is also specifically adressed in the appendix to the rules which you can find lots of links to here on this forum

With my friends, we play with Dardanelles closed and I gotta say that this limit Italy alot and gives Russia the opportunity to counter attack without fearing the Italian troops. Yes, the Italians can still clear a path, but it’s much harder with their ground troops (Italy have little tanks, and little infantry)

With Dardanelles closed, the Allies certainly see their chance of winning increase.

That said, with or without the Dardanelles closed, I believe this game to be fair for both side. I’ll give a slight advantage to the Axis simply because of their strong start.

Right now, we just discovered 42. We feel it is more balanced than 41 (for some reason, and maybe it is really more balanced).
Personally, I’d say this : If you want to balance (if it isn’t) 41, just remove some Japanese transports (I don’t believe in the “add some Chinese units”). 42 shows how Japan is weaker in the first few turns because it lacks transports. Like force them to take 1-2 more turn in order to take the free 8 ipcs in East Indies/Borne or something, or prevent them from sending that many ground forces in their first turn. From there, you will see how it limits Japan’s capabilities.

Robert

US starts low on troops and action, Japan has almost no effect (once had +70, but could harm moscow only a little bit, by SBR), chinese get wiped out

UK: has some good lookin ships
Germany: nice tanks, can i borrow them?
USSR: more inf!
Italy: small but fun